In re Google LLC

56 F.4th 1363

IN RE: GOOGLE LLC, Appellant

2022-1012

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Decided: January 9, 2023

Debmallo Shayon Ghosh, Williams & Connolly LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant Google LLC. Also represented by Andrew V. Trask.

Robert McBride, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee Katherine K. Vidal. Also represented by Daniel Kazhdan, Thomas W. Krause, Amy J. Nelson, Farheena Yasmeen Rasheed.

Before Moore, Chief Judge, Lourie and Prost, Circuit Judges.

Moore, Chief Judge.

Google appeals a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirming an examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 3–10, 12–19, and 21–27 of U.S. Patent Application No. 14/628,093 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103. For the reasons given below, we vacate the Board's decision and remand for further proceedings.

BACKGROUND

A. THE ’093 APPLICATION

The ’093 application discloses methods for filtering the results of an internet search query such that only results appropriate for the user (e.g., age appropriate) are displayed. See, e.g. , J.A. 27 ¶ 2; J.A. 31–32 ¶ 29. According to the disclosed method, each result of a search query is assigned a "content rating class" indicating the suitability of the associated content (e.g., "suitable for all ages"). J.A. 38 ¶ 53; J.A. 46–48 ¶¶ 75–79. The search query's "content rating score," also referred to as a safety score, is then determined based on the collection of content rating classes assigned to its individual results. J.A. 38 ¶ 53; J.A. 46–48 ¶¶ 75–79. The content rating score is then compared to a predetermined threshold value to determine whether and which results will be presented. For example, if the proportion of search results assigned a "suitable for all ages" content rating class is below a predetermined threshold of, say, 50%, the search query may be completely or partially blocked and no or only some results will be displayed. See J.A. 38 ¶ 54; J.A. 43–45 ¶¶ 67–68, 71; J.A. 78 at Fig. 3.

The predetermined threshold value thus plays a critical role in determining which results of a search query will be presented to the user. The ’093 application discloses multiple ways in which this threshold can be predetermined. As relevant on appeal, "the predetermined threshold can be determined based on parameters associated with the search query itself, such as the length of the search query (e.g., a number of words and/or characters of the search query) and/or the length and/or complexity of individual words in the search query." J.A. 39 ¶ 55. In this embodiment, longer or more complex queries are associated with older users and the corresponding threshold is set accordingly. Id. Thus, if a search query exceeds a certain number of words, suggesting it was entered by an older child or an adult, "the proportion of search results [i.e., the threshold] associated with classes of content ratings indicating the content is suitable for children can be relatively lower than for a shorter search query." Id.

Independent claim 1, as amended in December 2018, is representative:

1. A method for presenting search results, comprising:

receiving text corresponding to a search query entered on a user device;

determining whether a content rating score associated with the search query is below a predetermined threshold value, wherein the predetermined threshold value is determined based on a number of words included in the search query and wherein the score is calculated by:

identifying a first plurality of search results retrieved using the search query, wherein each search result in the first plurality of search results is associated with one of a plurality of content ratings classes;

determining, for each search result in the first plurality of search results, a weight, wherein the weight is determined based on a popularity of the search result; and

calculating the content rating score that is a proportion of search results associated with at least one of the content ratings classes among the first plurality of search results, wherein the proportion of search results associated with at least one of the content ratings classes is calculated using the weight associated with each search result;

in response to determining that the content rating score is below the predetermined threshold value, identifying a second plurality of search results to be presented based on the search query; and

causing the second plurality of search results to be presented on the user device.

J.A. 17 at claim 1 (emphasis added).

B. THE PRIOR ART

Two prior art references are at issue on appeal: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0150850 A1 (Parthasarathy) and U.S. Patent No. 5,870,740 (Rose). Parthasarathy discloses methods of filtering search results by comparing a "search-query-intent score" to a predetermined safety threshold. J.A. 540–41 ¶¶ 17–21. To determine the search-query-intent score, each search result is first assigned a relevance rank or score, indicating the result's relevance to the query, and an "adult-content score," indicating the amount of adult content within the result as assessed via keywords, metadata, advertising, etc. Id. ¶¶ 17–19, 22. In one embodiment, the search-query-intent score is then determined by taking the weighted sum of adult-content scores corresponding to the most relevant search results, wherein the weights correspond to each result's relevance rank or score. See J.A. 544 ¶¶ 42–44; J.A. 534 at Figs. 4A–4B.

The search-query-intent score, in combination with a user-selected safety setting, is then used to "influence the search results presented to a user in response to a search query." J.A. 541 ¶ 21. The safety setting is first associated with a numerical threshold against which the adult-content score is compared. See J.A. 544 ¶¶ 42–44; J.A. 434 at Figs. 4A–4B. Depending on whether the search-query-intent score exceeds the user's chosen safety threshold, all, some, or none of the results will be displayed. J.A. 544 ¶¶ 42–44. Although Parthasarathy discloses a predetermined threshold, it is undisputed that it does not disclose a predetermined threshold "based on a number of words" in a search query, as required by claim 1.

Rose addresses the so-called "short query problem" present in prior art relevance-ranking algorithms of the time. In the case of queries containing only a few terms, prior art algorithms would often incorrectly assign higher relevance scores to documents including only a subset of search terms than to those including the entire query. J.A. 502 at 3:4–21; J.A. 504 at 7:11–19. Rose discloses a modified relevance-ranking algorithm intended to address this problem by adjusting prior art relevance scores based on the degree of overlap between the query terms and documents terms (i.e., the number of query terms that also appear in the document), as well as the number of words in the query itself. J.A. 502 at 4:29–36; J.A. 503 at 6:4–38. In this way, the relevance score of a document with high overlap is increased more for short queries than long queries, mitigating the error exhibited by prior art algorithms. J.A. 503 at 6:36–56. Further, because the algorithm factors in not only the number of words in the query (which remains the same for each document), but also the degree of overlap between the document and query, the relevance adjustment will be document-dependent. J.A. 502 at 4:31–36.

C. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Following a non-final obviousness rejection based on Parthasarathy, Google amended claim 1 to add the limitation presently at issue, namely that the predetermined threshold value is "determined based on a number of words included in the search query." J.A. 355 (Dec. 6, 2018 Reply to Non-Final Office Action). In response, the examiner issued a final rejection, relying on Rose in combination with Parthasarathy. See J.A. 379–85 (Mar. 14, 2019 Final Office Action). The examiner acknowledged Parthasarathy does not disclose a threshold based on a number of words but found Rose does, citing Rose's modified relevance-ranking algorithm. J.A. 384. He further reasoned it would have been obvious to combine Rose and Parthasarathy to achieve the claimed threshold because "analyzing a query for determining the query length and using the query length as a threshold is very well known in the art and doing so would further provide for assigning weight to a long or a short query for retrieving documents." Id.

In reply, Google argued Rose only discloses a query-length-dependent relevance score and that "a score is clearly different than a threshold value." J.A. 405–06 (May 13, 2019 Reply to Final Office Action) (emphasis omitted). Accordingly, Google asserted, the combination of Parthasarathy and Rose at most described increasing a score based on the number of words in a query, not determining whether a score was below a threshold that itself depended on query length. Id. The examiner disagreed, see J.A. 426–28, and Google appealed to the Board. J.A. 432–42.

The Board issued a final decision affirming the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3–10, 12–19, and 21–27. Ex Parte Eileen Margaret Peters Long et al. , No. 2020-001978, 2021 WL 3466217, at *1 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 2021) ( Decision ). The Board adopted the examiner's findings, Decision at *2, and purported to "agree with the Examiner" that modifying Parthasarathy's threshold "to take into account query length as taught by Rose" would have been obvious at the time of filing. Id. at *4. Google appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Obviousness is a question of law based on underlying factual findings. In re Giannelli , 739 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 17–18, 86 S.Ct. 684, 15 L.Ed.2d 545 (1966) ). We review the Board's legal conclusions de novo and any underlying findings of fact for substantial evidence. In re Van Os , 844 F.3d 1359, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017). "Substantial...