Ex Parte Ozonat et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 15, 201612409550 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/409,550 0312412009 Mehmet Kivanc Ozonat 56436 7590 06/17/2016 Hewlett Packard Enterprise 3404 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 79 Fort Collins, CO 80528 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 82249286 1602 EXAMINER RACIC, MILENA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3627 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/17/2016 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com mkraft@hpe.com chris.mania@hpe.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MEHMET KIVANC OZONAT, SVEN GRAUPNER, SUJOY BASU, and DONALD E. YOUNG Appeal 2014-003801 1 Application 12/409,5502 Technology Center 3600 Before ANTON W. PETTING, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-11, 13-16, and 18-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed Apr. 22, 2013), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Feb. 10, 2014), the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Dec. 9, 2013), the Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Dec. 6, 2012), and the Specification ("Spec.," filed Mar. 24, 2009). 2 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal2014-003801 Application 12/409,550 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants' invention is directed to "apparatus, systems, and methods that classify service providers and extract service properties from web content." Spec. 3, 11. 3-5. Claims 1, 6, and 14 are the independent claims on appeal. Claims 1 and 14 (Claims App.) are exemplary of the subject matter on appeal and are reproduced below (bracketing added for reference): 1. A method, comprising: [a] extracting web content from web sites of service providers; [b] examining web forms provided at the web sites to determine whether the web sites offer services by the service providers to users, wherein each web form comprises one or more fields to receive data input by the users; [ c] populating, with a computer, service registries with the web content; and [ d] processing, with the computer, a query from a user to search the service registries and retrieve information about services offered by the service providers. 14. A tangible computer readable storage medium having instructions for causing a computer to: [a] receive a list of service providers that offers services at web sites; [b] extract content from web forms at the web sites to identify the services offered by the service providers, wherein each web form comprises one or more fields to receive data input by users of the service providers; [ c] determine if the web sites offer web services by searching the web forms that relate to services being offered by the service providers; and [ d] populate service registries with the content. 2 Appeal2014-003801 Application 12/409,550 REJECTIONS Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-16, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nye (US 2005/0120006 Al, pub. June 2, 2005) and Hyder (US 2006/0206584 Al, pub. Sept. 14, 2006). Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nye, Hyder, and Official Notice. FINDINGS OF FACT We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence. 3 ANALYSIS Claims 1-54 The Appellants argue claims 1-3 and 5 as a group. See Appeal Br. 9. We select claim 1 as representative; dependent claims 2, 3, and 5 stand or fall with claim 1. See 3 7 C.F .R. § 41.3 7 ( c )( 1 )(iv) (2015). The Appellants contend the rejection of claim 1 is in error because Hyder does not teach "examining web forms provided at the web sites to determine whether the web sites offer services by the service providers to users." Appeal Br. 8, 9. The Appellants further argue that Nye does not "provide[] [any] teaching or hint of extracting content from web forms at the web sites." Reply Br. 2; see also id. at 8 ("The foregoing arguments 3 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Patent Office). 4 The claims are addressed in numerical order. 3 Appeal2014-003801 Application 12/409,550 presented with respect to claim 14 are applicable to the arguments raised by the Examiner's Answer with respect to claim 1 "). The Examiner finds that Nye discloses the method of claim 1 comprising extracting web content from web sites as recited in limitation [a], populating service registries as recited in limitation [ c ], and processing a query as recited in limitation [ d]. See Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner finds Nye does not explicitly disclose examining web forms as recited in limitation [b ], but that the combination of Nye and Hyder teaches the limitation. See id. at 3--4; see also Ans. 4--5. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Nye discloses extracting attributes relating to information about a business such as products (see Ans. 4--5 (citing Nye i-fi-129, 34--38)), assigning the extracted content from websites to business categories associated with the business in a classification hierarchy (identifying services offered by the websites) (see id. (citing Nye i-fi-1 86, 87) ), and a search engine that includes a text field 435 (a web form), that receives a search query (data input by users), and matches returned hits to determine if they are relevant (see id. (citing Nye i-fi-190-93)). "The Examiner ... turns to Hyder to teach the web form" having one or more fields to receive input. Id. at 5. The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to modify the method of Nye to include examining web forms as taught by Hyder "in order to pick-up billions of listings from every accessible source on the Internet" and to "enable[] Nye to identify the type of consumer service request desired." Final Act. 4--5 (citing Hyder i15). The Examiner thus establishes a prima facie case of obviousness as the Examiner has provided articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support a legal conclusion of obviousness. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). 4 Appeal2014-003801 Application 12/409,550 The Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive at least because they are arguments against the art individually when the Examiner relies on the combination of Nye and Hyder to teach the limitation. The Appellants do not present persuasive evidence why the Examiner's findings or reasoning are in error. For example, the Appellants do not present adequate evidence that the Examiner's finding that Nye teaches extracting content from web sites that are classified into categories to determine whether the web sites offer services is in error. We note that the Appellants' Specification provides that services are categorized into business categories. Spec. 3, 11. 8-10. The Appellants' argument that Nye does not disclose extracting content from web forms (see Reply Br. 2) is not persuasive because it is not commensurate with the scope of the claim; claim 1 does not require content be extracted from web forms. The Appellants also do not present adequate evidence that the Examiner's finding that Hyder teaches web forms to receive user input is in error. Rather, the Appellants argue that neither Nye nor Hyder teaches "examining web forms provided at the web sites to determine whether the web sites offer services by the service providers to users," as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 3, 4, 8. Further, the Appellants do not present adequate evidence why the Examiner's reasoning for combining Nye and Hyder is in error. Thus, we are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner in rejecting claim 1 as unpatentable over Nye and Hyder, and we sustain the rejection. We also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, and 5 as they fall with claim 1. The Appellants do not present further arguments against the rejection of claim 4, but state that "[i]n view of the allowability of base claim 1 over 5 Appeal2014-003801 Application 12/409,550 Nye and Hyder, ... the obviousness rejection of dependent claim 4 over Nye, Hader, and 'Official Notice' has been overcome." Appeal Br. 10. Because we find no error with the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1, from which claim 4 depends, we also sustain the rejection of claim 4. Claims 6-11, 13, 14, 16, and 18 The Appellants argue claims 14, 16, and 18 as a group. See Appeal Br. 4. Independent claim 6 recites a limitation substantially similar to those of claim 14 regarding determining services by searching web forms (see Claims App.), and the Appellants argue the rejection of independent claim 6 and dependent claims 7-11 and 13 is in error because the prior art does not disclose the determining limitation. See Appeal Br. 9. Thus, we consider claims 6-11, 13, 14, 16, and 18 as a group and select claim 14 as representative of the group; claims 6-11, 13, 16, and 18 stand or fall with claim 14. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). The Appellants contend the rejection of claim 14 is in error because neither Nye nor Hyder teaches "extracting content from web forms at the web sites to identify the services offered by the service providers, and determining if the web sites offer web services by searching the web forms that relate to services being provided by the service providers." Appeal Br. 5-7; Reply Br. 2. The Examiner finds that Nye discloses the medium of claim 14 having instructions for a computer to receive a list of providers as recited in limitation [a] and populate service registries with content, as recited in limitation [d]. See Final Act. 9. The Examiner finds Nye does not explicitly 6 Appeal2014-003801 Application 12/409,550 disclose examining web forms to determine whether the web sites offer services, the web form comprising one or more fields to receive data input, as recited in limitations [b] and [ c ], but that the combination of Nye and Hyder teaches the limitation. See id. at 9--10; see also Ans. 4--5. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Nye discloses extracting content from the web sites to identify services, similar to limitation [b] (id. at 9 (citing Nye i-fi-f 13, 29); see also Ans. 3-5 (citing Nye i-fi-132, 86, 87, 90-93)), and that Hyder teaches "examining web forms provided at the web sites to determine whether the web sites offer services by the service providers to users, wherein each web form comprises one or more field to receive data input by the users" (Final Act. 10). The Examiner further finds that Nye teaches matching search query return hits against a database, the database containing business information supplemented with the extracted content (see id.; see also Ans. 5 and Nye i-fi-1 86, 87). The Examiner also finds that Hyder teaches relaying the examined data to a server then further processes the data "(extracting content/searching web form)," including associating the data in the file of the "lister," i.e., adding the data to a database file. Ans. 5 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to modify the method of Nye to include examining web forms comprising one or more fields to receive data input to determine whether the web site offers services, as taught by Hyder, "in order to pick-up billions of listings from every accessible source on the Internet" and to "enable[] Nye to identify the type of consumer service request desired." Final Act. 11 (citing Hyder i1 5). The Examiner thus establishes a prima facie case of obviousness as the Examiner has provided articulated reasoning with 7 Appeal2014-003801 Application 12/409,550 rational underpinning to support a legal conclusion of obviousness. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. The Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive at least because they argue against the art individually when the Examiner relies on the combination of Nye and Hyder to teach the limitation. The Appellants do not present persuasive evidence that the Examiner's findings and reasoning are in error. For example, the Appellants do not present adequate evidence that Nye teaches extracting content from web sites, storing that information in a database, and matching the search query to that stored information to identify services are in error. See Ans. 3-5. The Appellants also do not present adequate evidence that the Examiner's finding that Hyder teaches web forms with one or more fields for receiving user input and storing that input into a database that can be searched are in error. See id. Rather, the Appellants argue that neither Nye nor Hyder teaches the extracting and determining steps recited in limitations [b] and [ c]. Appeal Br. 5-7, Reply Br. 2--4. Further, the Appellants do not present adequate evidence why the Examiner's reasoning for combining Nye and Hyder is in error. Thus, we are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner in the rejection of independent claim 14, 16, and 18 as unpatentable over Nye and Hyder, and we sustain the rejection. Claim 15 The Appellants argue the rejection of claim 15 is in error for the same reasons as for claim 14. Appeal Br. 7. This argument is unpersuasive for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 14. The Appellants further argue that the rejection is in error because "Nye does not provide any teaching or hint of processing a query from a 8 Appeal2014-003801 Application 12/409,550 user to search the service registries (that have been populated with extracted content from web forms) and retrieving information about services offered by the service providers." Appeal Br. 7-8. We disagree. Nye, at paragraphs 86 and 87 (cited with respect to claim 14 from which claim 15 depends), discloses a user initiating a search query, and a search engine performing a text index search of available web pages by matching hits against a database that includes extracted content and returning a set of relevant hits in business categories. Therefore, the Examiner's finding that Nye discloses "process[ing] a query from a user to search the service registries and retrieve information about services offered by the service providers," as recited in claim 15 (see Final Act. 9, 11 ), is adequately supported. Thus, we are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner in the rejection of claim 15, and we sustain the rejection. Claims 19 and 20 The Appellants argue the rejection of claims 19 and 20 is in error for the same reasons as for claim 1. Appeal Br. 9. This argument is unpersuasive for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. The Appellants further argue the rejection is in error because Ryder's "processing do[ es] not provide any teaching or hint of extracting service property data from the web forms to determine a set of offered services for each service provider, and populating service registries with such sets of offered services," as recited in claim 19. Appeal Br. 9-10. 9 Appeal2014-003801 Application 12/409,550 The Examiner finds that Nye discloses the method of claim 19 comprising extracting service property data to determine a set of offered services, wherein the service registries are populated with the sets of offered services. See Final Act. 12. The Examiner further finds Nye does not disclose examining, with the computer, the web sites of the service providers to identify the web forms, but rather that the website addresses for listed business and content of the website are extracted and associated with a predetermined category. Id. The Examiner also finds that Hyder teaches examining, with the computer, web sites of providers to identify the web forms. Id. at 12-13 (citing Hyder Fig. 3A, i-fi-138--44). The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to modify the method of Nye to include examining the web sites to identify web forms as taught by Hyder "in order to pick-up billions of listings from every accessible source on the Internet" and to "enable[] Nye to identify the type of consumer service request desired." Id. at 13 (citing Hyder i15). The Examiner thus establishes a prima facie case of obviousness as the Examiner has provided articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support a legal conclusion of obviousness. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. The Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive at least because they are arguments against the art individually when the Examiner relies on the combination of Nye and Hyder to teach the limitation. The Appellants do not present persuasive evidence why the Examiner's findings or reasoning are in error. For example, the Appellants do not present adequate evidence that the Examiner's findings that Nye teaches extracting data to determine a set and populating registries with the data are in error. The Appellants also do not present adequate evidence that the Examiner's finding that Hyder 10 Appeal2014-003801 Application 12/409,550 teaches examining web sites to identify web forms is in error. Rather, the Appellants argue that neither Nye nor Hyder teaches "extracting service property data from the web forms to determine a set of offered services for each service provider, and populating service registries with such sets of offered services," as recited in claim 19. Appeal Br. 9-10. Further, the Appellants do not present adequate evidence why the Examiner's reasoning for combining Nye and Hyder is in error. Thus, we are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner in rejecting claim 19 and its dependent claim 20 as unpatentable over Nye and Hyder, and we sustain the rejection. DECISION The rejections of claims 1-11, 13-16, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are AFFIRMED. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 11 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation