Nikhil Bojja et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 23, 2020

14990540 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2020)

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.
14/990,540 01/07/2016 Nikhil Bojja MZI-028 6882
142528 7590 01/23/2020
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
PATENT ADMINISTRATOR
100 Northern Avenue
BOSTON, MA 02210
EXAMINER
SERROU, ABDELALI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2659
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/23/2020 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):
GLENN.WILLIAMS@GOODWINPROCTER.COM
PSOUSA-ATWOOD@GOODWINPROCTER.COM
US-PatentBos@goodwinlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NIKHIL BOJJA, SHIVASANKARI KANNAN
and PIDONG WANG

Appeal 2018-006244
Application 14/990,540
Technology Center 2600

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ERIC B. CHEN, and
JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–30.2 Appeal Br. 5. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We refer to the Specification, filed January 7, 2016 (“Spec.”); the Final
Office Action, mailed August 17, 2017 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief,
filed December 18, 2017 (“Appeal Br.”); and the Examiner’s Answer,
mailed March 27, 2018 (“Ans.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Machine Zone, Inc. as the real
party-in-interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-006244
Application 14/990,540

2
II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to a
method and server system (122) for automatically translating between
different languages online chat messages transmitted by a plurality of users
(102) during a gaming session over a computer network (113). Spec. 1:1–4,
4:1–15, Fig. 1. In particular, upon receiving a chat message in a first
language from user (102) via chat host (134), server system (122) utilizes
trained statistical classifier (136) to identify a named entity in each received
word string by substituting a respective token for each letter thereof. Id. at
1:22–2: 3, 8:1–14. Subsequently, server system (122) utilizes translation
manager (135) to translate the received word strings from a first language to
a second language while preserving the identified name of entities in the first
language. Id. at 5:10–17.
Of the rejected claims, claims 1, 12, and 23 are independent. Claim 1,
reproduced below with disputed limitation emphasized in italics, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
performing by one or more computers:
training a statistical classifier to identify named entities using
training data comprising a plurality of features, wherein one of the
features is a word shape feature that comprises substituting a
respective token for each letter of a respective word, the respective
token indicating that each letter of the respective word is one of an
upper case letter, a lower case letter, and a digit;
receiving a plurality of word strings in a first language, each
received word string comprising a plurality of words;
identifying at least one named entity in each received word
string using the trained statistical classifier; and

Appeal 2018-006244
Application 14/990,540

3
translating the received word strings from the first language to a
second language, wherein translating comprises preserving the
identified at least one named entity in the first language.
Appeal Br. 11 (Claims Appendix).
Figure 1, discussed above and reproduced below, is useful for
understanding the claimed invention:

Figure 1 illustrates an example system for online games. Id. at 3:17.

Appeal 2018-006244
Application 14/990,540

4
III. REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references.3
Name Number Filed Publ’d/Issued
Ait-Mokhtar US 2012/0290288 A1 May 9, 2011 Nov. 15, 2012
Nikoulina US 2014/0163951 A1 Dec. 7, 2012 June 12, 2014
Wang US 8,886,518 B1 Aug. 7, 2006 Nov. 11, 2014

IV. REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
1. Claims 1–10, 12–21, and 23–30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Nikoulina and Ait-Mokhtar.
Final Act. 4–8.
2. Claims 11 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over
the combined teachings of Nikoulina, Ait-Mokhtar and Wang. Id. at 8.
V. ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that the combined
teachings of Nikoulina and Ait-Mokhtar teach or suggest “substituting a
respective token for each letter of a respective word, the respective token
indicating that each letter of the respective word is one of an upper case
letter, a lower case letter, and a digit,” as recited in independent claim 1.
Appeal Br. 5. In particular, Appellant argues that Ait-Mokhtar’s disclosure
of a parser segmenting an input document into a list of items including
margin, upper/lower case letter, punctuation, a token (e.g., a letter, number,
hyphen) does not cure the admitted deficiencies of the Nikoulina. Id. at 6–7

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2018-006244
Application 14/990,540

5
(citing Ait-Mokhtar ¶¶ 17, 22, 25, 45). According to Appellant, “Ait-
Mokhtar describes tokens for ‘list item labels’ and ‘sub-list item labels’
rather than tokens as surrogates or replacements for a word shape features of
named entities.” Id. at 8 (citing Ait-Mokhtar ¶ 77). In other words,
Appellant argues that Ait-Mokhtar discloses using a token for grouping item
labels in a list as opposed to substituting a token for each letter of a
respective word associated with a corresponding entity. Id.
Appellant’s argument is persuasive of reversible Examiner error. As a
preliminary matter, we note it is undisputed that Nikoulina teaches
translating an input text message from one language to another while
preserving an identified name entity in the first language. Ans. 2; Appeal
Br. 5 (citing Nikoulina ¶ 15). We further note, the Examiner admits that
Nikoulina does not teach substituting a token for each letter of a word to
identify a received word as a named entity, and, therefore, relies upon Ait-
Mokhtar for the disputed limitation as follows:
The examiner notes that the prior art Ait-Mokhtar teaches an
information extraction system that identifies named entities within a
received text and recognizes their relations with other parts of the text
([0003], [0032]). The information extraction system assigns to every
tokens ([0022], defines a token as a letter) of the text typographical
case labels (upper case or lower case) and digit label ([0025], [0045]),
and uses the text typographical case labels (upper case or lower case)
and digit label to identify named entities ([0087]). Therefore, it would
have been obvious at the time the application was filed to use Ait-
Mokhtar's feature of assigning typographical case labels (upper case
or lower case) and digit label to every tokens, and use it with the
training system of Nikoulina to train the claimed statistical classifier
to recognize named entities using the claimed word feature that
comprises a respective token for each letter of a respective word, the
respective token indicating that each letter of the respective word is
one of an upper case letter, a lower case letter, and a digit.
Appeal 2018-006244
Application 14/990,540

6
Ans. 3–4.
Although Ait-Mokhtar discloses a token including an upper/lower
case letter, a number, or a hyphen, we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner has not established a sufficient reasoning with some rational
underpinning to justify the proposed combination of the teachings of the
applied references. Appeal Br. 4–5. As correctly argued by Appellant, the
cited potions of Ait-Mokhtar are concerned with using tokens as potential
starters or labels for list items. Id. at 8. That is, Ait Mokhtar’s tokens
identify whether the first character in a list of items is an upper/lower case
letter, a verb, a punctuation, a hyphen, etc. Ait-Mokhtar ¶¶ 22–25. The
record before us, however, is devoid of any suggestion to substitute Ait-
Mokhtar’s token for each letter in a received word to identify the word as a
named entity. Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that the proposed
combination falls short of teaching or suggesting the disputed limitation.
Because Appellant has shown at least one reversible error in the
rejection of claim 1, we need not reach Appellant’s remaining arguments.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claims 1, 12, and 23. Likewise, we do not sustain the rejections
of claims 2–11, 13–22, and 24–30, which recite the disputed limitation.

Appeal 2018-006244
Application 14/990,540

7
VI. CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1–30
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1–10, 12–21, 23–30 103 Nikoulina, Ait-Mokhtar
1–10, 12–21,
23–30
11, 22 103 Nikoulina, Ait-Mokhtar, Wang 11, 22
Overall Outcome 1–30

REVERSED