Ex Parte Lee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 30, 2018

13198015 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/198,015 08/04/2011
30593 7590 05/02/2018
HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
P.O. BOX 8910
RESTON, VA 20195
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ram LEE
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.
16634-00007 6/US 6943
EXAMINER
DAV ANLOU, SOHEILA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2153
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2018 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):
dcmailroom@hdp.com
pshaddin@hdp.com
jcastellano@hdp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAM LEE and MAN HO WON
Appeal2017-009026
Application 13/198,015
Technology Center 2100
Before, CARLA M. KRIVAK, ERIC B. CHEN, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2017-009026
Application 13/198,015
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to "a search system to provide search
services associated with a mobile system, and a method and apparatus for
providing a_[ sic] search result associated with a mobile search" (Spec. i-f3).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A system to communicate with a search server, the system
compnsmg:
a terminal including,
a memory having stored thereon computer
readable instructions, and
at least one processor configured to execute the
computer readable instructions to,
provide a search interface for selecting a
search mode and a search service interface
corresponding to the selected search mode,
receive a search request based on the
selected search mode via the search service
interface,
transfer the search request to the search
server, wherein various contents are stored in a
non-transitory storage medium of the search
server,
receive a search result corresponding to the
search request from the search server,
provide the search result,
wherein the search mode includes an
attribute search mode to provide a search result
that satisfies a criterion according to an attribute of
a subject selected by a user,
wherein, in response to selection of the
attribute search mode,
the at least one processor is further
configured to,
extract text from the search results
that correspond to the criterion according to
2
Appeal2017-009026
Application 13/198,015
the attribute of the subject selected by the
user,
perform a second search using the extracted
text as a search keyword, and
provide the second search result, and
provide a different customized user interface
for each attribute search mode based on (i) the
provided search result, (ii) the subject, and (iii) the
at least one attribute
the customized user interface including at
least one input based on (i) the provided search
result, (ii) the subject and (iii) the at least one
attribute, and
wherein the search interface comprises a display having a
display portion corresponding to the attribute search mode.
REFERENCES and REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) based
upon the teachings of Ramer (US 2010/0287048 Al; publ. Nov. 11, 2010),
Boswell (US 7,890,499 Bl; Feb. 15, 2011), and Radovanovic (US
2009/0172514 Al; publ. July 2, 2009).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Ramer teaches all the claimed limitations except
for: ( 1) wherein, in response to selection of the attribute search mode, the at
least one processor is further configured to, extract text from the search
results that correspond to the criterion according to the attribute of the
subject selected by the user; (2) perform a second search using the extracted
text as a search keyword, and provide the second search result; (3) provide a
different customized user interface for each attribute search mode based on
(i) the provided search result, (ii) the subject, and (iii) the at least one
3
Appeal2017-009026
Application 13/198,015
attribute; and ( 4) the customized user interface including at least one input
based on (i) the provided search result, (ii) the subject, and (iii) the at least
one attribute (Final Act. 3-7). The Examiner also finds Radovanovic's
paragraph 144 and Figure 11 teach "wherein, in response to selection of
the attribute search mode, the at least one processor is further
configured to, extract text from the search results that to the criterion
according to the attribute of the subject selected by the user" and
paragraph 26 teaches "perform a second search using the extracted text
as a search keyword, and provide the second search result" (Final Act.
7). The Examiner further finds Boswell's column 5, lines 50-59 and FIG. 2
teach "provid[ing] a different customized user interface for each
attribute search mode based (i) the provided search result, (ii) the
subject, and (iii) the at least one attribute" (Final Act. 8) and column 5,
lines 60-67 teaches "the customized user interface including at least one
input based on (i) the provided search result, (ii) the subject, and (iii)
the at least one attribute" (Final Act. 9). In the Answer, the Examiner
finds it is the combination of Ramer and Radovanovic that teach
"performing a second search using the extracted text as a search keyword"
(Ans. 3---6).
Appellants contend Radovanovic teaches providing any webpage that
contains a search term from a user's search query would be included as a
search result of the user's search query, including display of sentences
surrounding the search term (App. Br. 28). Thus, the content/text
surrounding a search term is extracted to provide context to the user,
providing an expanded search result listing (App. Br. 28-29 citing
Radovanovic's Fig. 24B). Therefore, Appellants assert, Radovanovic,
4
Appeal2017-009026
Application 13/198,015
although disclosing several iterations of a search, "does not disclose or
suggest the text extracted from each of the search results are used" in
subsequent searches (App. Br. 30).
Appellants then contend Ramer's paragraph 108 does not teach or
suggest "the search mode includes an attribute search mode to provide a
search result that satisfies a criterion according to an attribute of a subject
selected by a user" as claimed (App. Br. 30). Rather, Ramer "merely
discloses that a 'collaborative filtering protocol' may be used to filter an
active user's [user's] search input or search results" (Reply Br. 3). Thus,
Ramer applies filters to a user's search, taking into account the user's
explicit preferences so as to filter the search results and provide relevant
search results to a user's searches (Reply Br. 4). However, Appellants
contend, Ramer does not teach or suggest the "user actively selects a subject
for their search"; rather Ramer discloses that "a user performs a
conventional search without regard to a selection of a subject" (id.). We do
not agree.
Appellants read Ramer too narrowly. Appellants incorrectly argue
Ramer's user does not select a subject to search. However, as ordinarily
skilled artisans have long understood, basic searching starts with a user
selecting a subject to search, as does Ramer, regardless that it may not
explicitly be stated.
As to the combination of Ramer and Radovanovic teaching
"performing a second search using the extracted text as a search keyword,"
Appellants contend Ramer does not teach or suggest the limitations argued
above (Reply Br. 2--4). Appellants then assert Radovanovic also does not
disclose these teachings (Reply Br. 5-6). Particularly, Appellants state
5
Appeal2017-009026
Application 13/198,015
"while Radovanovic may disclose that a second search is performed using
extracted text from search results," it does not teach or suggest the
"extracted text 'correspond to the criterion according to the attribute of the
subject selected by the user"' (Reply Br. 6). That is, the unique words that
are extracted from search results in Radovanovic may not correspond to
criteria according to the attribute of the subject selected by the user, but
"may be any unique words that show up in the search results" (emphasis
added) (id.). Therefore, Appellants contend, the combination of Ramer and
Radovanovic do not teach or suggest this claim limitation (id.). We
disagree. Rather, we agree with the Examiner's findings (Ans. 3-6; Final
Act. 5, 7-8).
Appellants also assert Boswell does not "disclose or suggest the
aforementioned features, and the Examiner does not rely on Boswell to
disclose any of the aforementioned features" (App. Br. 33) without
addressing the Examiner's findings with respect to Boswell (Final Act. 8-9;
Ans. 7-8). In the Reply Brief, Appellants address the Examiner's findings
with respect to Boswell, stating Boswell does not teach a "related attribute
search mode is provided" (Reply Br. 8). Specifically, Appellants contend
Boswell "may disclose a 'mode-specific' search engine user interface" but
"fails to disclose or suggest providing any type of criterion and/or attribute
search mode" associated with the subject of the search (id.). Thus,
Appellants assert, Boswell does not teach or suggest a separate attribute
mode, only "that attribute information is stored within the record associated
with a specific search subject" (id.). Initially we note that, absent a showing
of good cause, which Appellants do not here make, arguments not made in
the Appeal Brief that could have been made, are waived. Regardless, we
6
Appeal2017-009026
Application 13/198,015
agree with the Examiner. Boswell's column 5, lines 62-67 states "[a]ll the
records in a particular collection of records mode have a common attribute
structure that includes one or more data elements or attributes. Generally,
each attribute contains information that pertains to the particular search
mode (e.g., subject matter). For example, one attribute of a job record can
be the job's salary." Appellants claim limitation states the attribute search
mode is based on the provided search result, subject, and at least one
attribute. Thus, we agree with the Examiner Boswell teaches this contested
limitation.
For the above reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. We
find the weight of the evidence supports the Examiner's ultimate legal
conclusion of obviousness, and therefore sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1, and claims 9, 10, and 12-17, argued for the same
reasons, and dependent claims 2-8, and 11 not separately argued (App. Br.
33).
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-17 is 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
7