Ex Parte Woods-Holder

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2018

13465287 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/465,287 05/07/2012
23117 7590 03/02/2018
NIXON & V ANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Keith WOODS-HOLDER
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.
JRL-4010-229 9360
EXAMINER
BEJCEK II, ROBERT H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2129
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2018 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KEITH WOODS-HOLDER
Appeal2016-008194
Application 13/465,287
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-6, 8-14, and 16-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2016-008194
Application 13/465,287
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to a system "that provides sentiment
analysis technology that takes into account the perspective or context of the
individual or entity for which the sentiment analysis is being performed."
The system uses "multiple points of reference within a hierarchical head
noun structure" which "allows the system to return different outcomes
depending on a user query specifying one or more head nouns to be taken as
reference points for sentiment calculations." This results in determining an
"appropriate context for sentiment analysis" which "takes into account the
perspective/context associated with the individual or entity for which the
analysis is performed". (Abstract).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A method, comprising:
at an information processing apparatus that includes a memory, a
network interface device, and at least one processor:
receiving, via at least the network interface device, one or more
expressions for sentiment analysis;
assigning, by the at least one processor, an initial sentiment value to
the one or more expressions based on a predetermined set of language
processing rules and creating an initial sentiment set having the one or more
expressions and their associated initial sentiment value;
creating, by the at least one processor, a context set of a plurality of
head nouns formed as a hierarchical structure;
comparing, by the at least one processor, the context set of the
plurality of head nouns to the initial sentiment set using multiple points of
reference within the hierarchical structure to determine matches between the
plurality of head nouns and the one or more expressions in the initial
sentiment set;
scoring, by the at least one processor, matches in the initial sentiment
set based on an application of the context set of the plurality of head nouns
to the one or more expressions in the initial sentiment set;
2
Appeal2016-008194
Application 13/465,287
creating, by the at least one processor, a resultant sentiment set
containing matched expressions and the score associated with the
expressions based on the application of the context set of the plurality of
head nouns to the initial sentiment set; and
generating, by the at least one processor, a resultant sentiment value
for providing a description of an overall sentiment.
App. Br. 25-26 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS 1
The Examiner rejected claims 1--4, 6, 8-12, 14, and 16-19 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Di Sciullo (US 2012/0246104
Al, published Sept. 27, 2012) and Wright, Our Sentiments Exactly,
COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM, pp. 14-15, vol. 52, no. 4 (April 2009).
The Examiner rejected claims 5, 13, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Di Sciullo, Wright, and Morimatsu (US
2013/0117303 Al, published May 9, 2013).
The Examiner rejected claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon
the teachings of Di Sciullo, Wright, and Friedkin, Attitude Change, Affect
Control, and Expectation States in the Formation of Influence Networks, 20
POWER AND STATUS ADVANCES IN GROUP PROCESSES, pp. 1-29 (2003).
The Examiner rejected claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon
the teachings of Di Sciullo, Wright, and Minh (US 2013/0103667 Al,
published Apr. 25, 2013).
1 The Examiner rejected claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (a) as failing the
written description requirement (Final Act. 2). However, this rejection was
withdrawn in the Answer (Ans. 2).
3
Appeal2016-008194
Application 13/465,287
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Di Sciullo teaches
or suggests all the claim limitations of independent claims 1, 8, 9, and 16,
except for the limitation "a context set of a plurality of head nouns formed as
the hierarchical structure," and finding Wright teaches or suggests this
limitation (Final Act. 3--4). That is, Appellant contends, Di Sciullo does not
compare a context set of a plurality of head nouns using multiple points of
reference within the head noun hierarchical structure and scoring matches
(App. Br. 17-18). Appellant then contends Wright only connects multiple
opinions and does not "perform any comparison using a plurality of head
nouns or, let alone multiple points of reference in a head noun hierarchical
structure" (emphases omitted) (App. Br. 18). Further, Appellant contends
Di Sciullo "does not analyze multiple points of reference in a hierarchical
head noun structure, let alone score matches based on this analysis" (App.
Br. 18). Appellant argues, although Di Sciullo "describes using a
'knowledge base' to infer sentiment values," "Di Sciullo does not at all
describe any comparison using a plurality of head nouns, nor does the
'knowledge base' reasonably correspond to having multiple points of
reference in a hierarchical head noun structure" (App, Br. 19). Appellant
then contends Wright "describes sentiment analysis algorithms" that
"determine the context of any particular statement by isolating three 'key'
data points: the topic, the opinion holder, and the opinion itself' (App. Br.
18). However, Wright does not perform a comparison of the plurality of
head nouns or multiple points of reference in a head noun hierarchical
structure (id.). Therefore, Appellant asserts, combining Di Sciullo and
Wright does not teach "comparing ... the context set of the plurality of head
4
Appeal2016-008194
Application 13/465,287
nouns to the initial sentiment set using multiple points of reference within
the hierarchical structure to determine matches between the plurality of head
nouns and the one or more expressions in the initial sentiment set" or
"scoring ... matches in the initial sentiment set based on an application of
the context set of the plurality of head nouns to the one or more expressions
in the initial sentiment set" (App. Br. 19; Reply Br. 5). We do not agree.
Initially, we note Appellant's arguments do not take into account what
the collective teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art and are therefore ineffective to rebut the Examiner's
prima facie case of obviousness. As the Court stated in In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981):
The test for obviousness 1s not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in
the art.
(Emphasis added) (citations omitted).
Appellant recites what the references teach and then recites the claim
language, stating the combination of the teachings would not result in
Appellant's invention, without providing persuasive reasoning as to why.
The Examiner relied on Di Sciullo for the comparing step, not Wright, and
Wright, not Di Sciullo, for the context set of a plurality of head nouns (Final
Act.3--4).
We agree with the Examiner that Di Sciullo does compare (matches)
(see ,-i,-i184-194; see ,-i 184 "a relational table relating entities in knowledge
domains, and a set of inference rules applying to the entities in the relational
5
Appeal2016-008194
Application 13/465,287
table and drawing consequences ..... The rules of the inference engine 24
apply to the elements of the relational table and infer sentiment values") the
context set of a plurality of head nouns (see Wright page 15) using multiple
points of reference as claimed (Ans. 7-8). Further, although the "knowledge
base" in Di Sciullo can "use knowledge of the world" as Appellant contends
(App. Br. 19), it need not (see ,-i 184 "The inference engine 24 includes a
data structure, a knowledge base that uses some knowledge representation
structure to capture the knowledge of a specific domain, for example a
relational table relating entities in knowledge domains, ... " (emphasis
added)). We also agree with the Examiner's findings that "Di Sciullo
discloses a hierarchical structure in the form of relational database" and
Wright, in combination with Di Sciullo "discloses a context set of a plurality
of head nouns formed as the hierarchical structure" (id.).
Therefore, for the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection
of independent claims 1, 8, 9, and 16, as obvious over the combination of Di
Sciullo and Wright.
With respect to dependent claims 2, 10, and 17, we agree with and
adopt the Examiner's findings as our own (Ans. 9-10; Final Act. 5).
Particularly, we agree Di Sciullo and Wright teach and suggest a numerical
value assigned to each head noun and Di Sciullo teaches and suggests a
mathematical combination, as claimed (see Di Sciullo ,-i,-i 185-191; see also
,-i,-i 196, 74).
With respect to claims 3, 11, and 18, we agree with and adopt the
Examiner's findings as our own (Ans. 10; Final Act. 5-6; see Di Sciullo
,-i 84).
6
Appeal2016-008194
Application 13/465,287
With respect to claim 21, we agree with the Examiner that Di Sciullo
and Wright teach "a polarity is assigned to the resultant sentiment value"
(Ans. 8). We also find Di Sciullo, without Friedkin, discloses "the polarity
being assigned based on a viewpoint of an entity for which the sentiment
analysis is being performed," as claimed (see Di Sciullo ~ 72 "the polarity
in opinions expressed regarding the asset" and f 73 "polarity positive+,
negative-, neutral n"). This recitation in Di Sciullo being equivalent to the
recitation in Appellant's Specification, ,-i 29 ("a particular viewpoint, can be
expressed as positive, negative, neutral, factual, or NULL").
Dependent claims 4, 6, 12, 13, 14, 19, and 22 were not separately
argued.
For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner's ejection of
dependent claims 2--4, 6, 12-14, and 17-22.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-6, 8-14, and 16-22 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7