Ex Parte Subasic et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 27, 2016

13241834 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 27, 2016)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/241,834 09/23/2011 Pero SUBASIC 08011.0213-00000 4122
100692 7590
AOL Inc./Finnegan
901 New York Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20001
10/31/2016 EXAMINER
HUANG, MIRANDA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2157
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2016 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):
regional-desk @ finnegan. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PERO SUBASIC, KENIN COLOMA, GUOYING ZHANG,
JILIANG CHANG, and MANU SHUKLA
Appeal 2015-007346
Application 13/241,834
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
DENISE M. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1—26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2015-007346
Application 13/241,834
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention categorizes webpages or other information
objects by contextual segmentation. Spec. 1 6. Contextual segmentation
methods assign tags or labels to information objects. Id. 12. Existing
methods do not update topics or categories quickly enough to respond to
current events, or are simply inefficient. Id. ^ 5. Appellants’ invention,
however, analyzes information objects to determine whether they relate to a
particular topic—i.e., a “contextual segment”—such as a natural disaster,
election, or sporting event. Id. 142. These contextual segments may be
predefined or dynamically created in response to developing events. See
id. H 42,47. The invention can then automatically assign information
objects to the contextual segments. Id. Claim 1, reproduced below with our
emphasis, is illustrative:
1. A computer-implemented method of contextual analysis and
segmentation of information objects, the method comprising the
following operations performed by one or more processors:
processing a plurality of information objects;
creating an index of the plurality of information objects;
accessing a contextual segment representing a category of
information objects, the contextual segment comprising a
category name and at least one term associated with the
contextual segment;
analyzing the at least one term associated with the
contextual segment, the analyzing the at least one term
comprising submitting the at least one term against the index;
identifying, from analyzing the at least one term, at least
one matching information object from the plurality of
information objects; and
assigning the at least one matching information object to
the contextual segment, wherein assigning the at least one
2
Appeal 2015-007346
Application 13/241,834
matching information object to the contextual segment comprises
adding the at least one matching information object to a list of
information objects relating to one or more terms associated
with the contextual segment.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1—7, 9-16, and 18—25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Nakano (US 2010/0082673 Al; Apr. 1, 2010).
Final Act. 3—9.1
The Examiner rejected claims 8, 17, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Nakano and Brooks (US 2003/0074400 Al; Apr. 17,
2013). Final Act. 9—10.
THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION
Contentions
The Examiner finds that Nakano discloses every recited step of claim
1, including assigning a matching information object to a contextual
segment. Final Act. 3—5. According to the Examiner, Nakano’s keywords
and derived ontology correspond to the recited contextual segments. Ans. 4
In the Examiner’s view, Nakano assigns webpages to these contextual
segments. Id. In particular, the Examiner finds that the webpages listed in
the first column of Figure 12’s table correspond to the recited matching
information objects. See Final Act. 4—5 (citing Nakano 155; Figs. 10, 12);
Ans. 4—5 (discussing a list of pages containing Nakano’s target keywords).
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed
November 10, 2014 (“Final Act.”); (2) the Appeal Brief filed March 10,
2015 (“App. Br.”); (3) the Examiner’s Answer mailed June 2, 2015
(“Ans.”); and (4) the Reply Brief filed July 31, 2015(“Reply Br.”).
3
Appeal 2015-007346
Application 13/241,834
According to the Examiner, these webpages are assigned to topics/terms and
relationships associated with the top page. Ans. 4.
Appellants argue, among other things, that Nakano does not assign
information objects by adding them to a list. App. Br. 12. In Appellants’
view, Nakano determines a browsing purpose from a browsing pattern
instead of assigning websites to a purpose, category, or the top page’s topic.
Id.', Reply Br. 3. According to Appellants, Nakano’s webpage list is created
by a user’s navigation from a top page. Reply Br. 3^4 (citing Nakano 1 55).
Issue
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Nakano assigns matching information objects by adding them to a list?
Analysis
In the cited embodiment (Final Act. 5), Nakano determines a user’s
browsing purpose from (1) a browsing path pattern, and (2) extracted
keywords. Nakano 155. In Nakano’s example, a user views a top page
before navigating to webpage articles A, B, and C. Id. From these
webpages, Nakano extracts keywords. Id. Nakano then identifies an
extracted keyword that is common to all three webpages—i.e., the target
keyword. Id. Nakano also determines that the user’s browsing-path pattern
corresponds to a straight-line path from the top page. Id. Using the target
keyword and pattern, Nakano determines that the user’s browsing purpose is
to compare something. Id.', see also id. Fig. 12 (showing the pattern,
extracted keywords, target keywords, and purpose).
4
Appeal 2015-007346
Application 13/241,834
In view of these teachings, we find that the Examiner’s position that
Nakano anticipates the recited assignment step (Final Act. 5) is problematic.
In particular, we are persuaded by Appellants that Nakano does not assign
matching webpages to contextual segments by adding them to a list. See
App. Br. 12.
Notably, claim 1 requires assigning by adding matching information
objects to a list. As indicated previously, the Examiner maps the recited
matching information objects to the webpages listed in Figure 12’s first
column. See Final Act. 4—5 (citing Nakano 1 55; Figs. 10, 12). These
webpages, however, represent Nakano’s browsing-path pattern.
Nakano 155. So even assuming that the browsing-path pattern in Nakano’s
Figure 12 corresponds to the recited list, it is the user’s navigation—not the
recited identification and assignment—that determines whether the
webpages are added to a list. Id. ]f 55. Nor has the Examiner shown that the
webpages are added to Nakano’s browsing-path pattern because those
webpages were matched, identified, or otherwise assigned to terms. See
Final Act. 5; Ans. 4—5.
The Examiner’s position (Final Act. 5) is further undercut by
Nakano’s keyword extraction functionality. See Nakano 1 55. Nakano
explains that keywords are extracted from the webpages in the browsing-
path pattern. Id. That is, Nakano’s browsing-path pattern is the input to—
not the result of—keyword extraction and assignment. See Nakano 1 55. So
even assuming Nakano’s Figure 12 shows assigning webpages to keywords
(see Final Act. 5), that assignment is performed after adding—not by
adding—webpages to Figure 12’s list. See Nakano 155.
5
Appeal 2015-007346
Application 13/241,834
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of (1) independent claim 1;
(2) independent claims 10 and 19, which also require assigning matching
information objects by adding them to a list; and (3) dependent claims 2—7,
9, 11—16, 18, and 20-25 for similar reasons.
Because this issue is dispositive regarding the Examiner’s error in
rejecting these claims, we need not address Appellants’ other arguments.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 8, 17, and 26 additionally citing Brooks
for the limited purpose of showing that the recited thresholding algorithm
was known. Final Act. 9—10.
Because the Examiner has not shown that Brooks cures Nakano’s
above-noted deficiencies, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 8, 17, and 26 (id.) for similar reasons.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting (1) claims 1—7, 9—16, and 18—25
under § 102, and (2) claims 8, 17, and 26 under § 103.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—26 is reversed.
REVERSED
6