15239816 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2019)

Harshini Musuluri et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 29, 2019

15239816 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2019)

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. 15/239,816 08/17/2016 Harshini Musuluri MU-SE-LG 4334 15889 7590 08/29/2019 Aravind Musuluri 237 Paradise Lake Dr Birmingham, AL 35244 EXAMINER BROWN, SHEREE N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3649 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/29/2019 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): amusuluri@teemingmind.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HARSHINI MUSULURI and ARAVIND MUSULURI Appeal 2019-000353 Application 15/239,816 Technology Center 3600 Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants,1 Harshini Musuluri et al., appeal from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 5, and 6. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellants” to refer to “Applicants” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellants do not identify the real party in interest. Appeal 2019-000353 Application 15/239,816 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a system and method for constructing search results. Claim 1, reproduced below, is the sole independent claim and is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method executable on a computing device comprising a processor, memory and a storage unit to display results of a search operation on at least one data source(s) comprising documents, said method comprising: (a) Accepting a search query comprising keyword(s) from a user; (b) Generating search results by identifying documents comprising the keyword(s) in response to the search query; (c) Constructing a search extract for each search result comprising a relevant portion(s) of the corresponding document; (d) Identifying a legend for the search extract from the document; and (e) Returning the search results comprising the search result snippet and the legend. REFERENCE The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Stamm US 2013/0346396 A1 Dec. 26, 2013 REJECTION Claim 6 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. Final Act. 3. The Examiner indicated the proposed amendment to claim 6 of December 8, 2017 would be entered and this rejection withdrawn. Ans. 3. We therefore do not consider this rejection before us for review. Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stamm. Final Act. 7. Appeal 2019-000353 Application 15/239,816 3 OPINION The Examiner relies on the inline search results 322, 324 of Stamm as the recited “legend” of claim 1. Final Act. 8–9 (citing Stamm Figs. 3B and 3C). Search results 322, 324 do not, on their face, appear to equate to a “legend,” within the ordinary meaning of that term. The apparent reason the Examiner equates those results to a legend is that they present key and value combinations, similar to the legend described by Appellants. Ans. 6 (apparently referring, but without express citation, to Spec. para. 47). However, as Appellants correctly point out, merely using key and value pairs to present data does not necessarily make something a “legend.” App. Br. 8. We agree with, and adopt as our own, the following analysis presented by Appellants: Legend is well known in the art. A legend is words written on or next to a picture, map, coin etc., that explain what it is about or what the symbols on it mean. See Legend noun (Explanation), Cambridge Dictiona[r]y https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/legend#data set-cacd. Paragraph [0039] of Stamm defines an inline search result as information returned by a search engine in response to a query without requiring the user to click, select, or otherwise traverse to a different web page, other than traditional search results that include a link to a web page and a short quote from the web page. Nowhere does Stamm disclose inline search result is information about symbols or what the symbols mean. Hence, interpreting inline search results as legend is broader than broadest reasonable interpretation. Further, [t]he Examiner improperly ignores explicitly stated limitations of claim 1(d). Specifically, claim l(d) recites “Identifying a legend for the search extract from the document”. Proper antecedent basis requires that “the document” is the document from which the search extract of the search result is constructed. Thus, the search extract and the legend are from the Appeal 2019-000353 Application 15/239,816 4 same document. For example, in FIG. 5 of the specification, the search result 501 comprises of an extract and a legend from the same document 300 (FIGS. 3A and 3B). Inline search result is not same as legend. Even if accepted for the sake of argument only that inline search result is legend, merely disclosing inline search results is not sufficient; the inline search result and search result must be from the same document, as recited in claim l(d). Paragraph [0040] of Stamm that the Examiner relies upon on page 4 of the Examiner’s Answer does not do so. Reply Br. 3. For the foregoing reasons we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection is REVERSED. REVERSED