Ex Parte 7457802 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2012

95001233 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2012)

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.
95/001,233 09/17/2009 7457802 CNXPC.00013 3409
7590 10/31/2012
STEVEN THRASHER
391 SANDHILL DRIVE
RICHARDSON, TX 75080
EXAMINER
CABRERA, ZOILA E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

NEXPLORE CORPORATION
Requester, Appellant

v.

Patent of JASON COLEMAN and STEVEN THRASHER
Patent Owners
____________________

Appeal 2012-007849
Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/001,233
Patent US 7,457,802 B21
Technology Center 3900
____________________

Before DANIEL S. SONG, JOSIAH C. COCKS, and MICHAEL W. KIM,
Administrative Patent Judges.

SONG, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Patent US 7,457,802 B2 (hereinafter "'802 patent") issued November 25,
2008.
Appeal 2010-007849
Reexamination Control 95/001,233
Patent US 7,457,802 B2
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The '802 patent issued with a single claim. The Requester appeals
under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 315 from the Examiner's refusal to enter the
numerous proposed rejections of claim 1. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 315 (2002). The Requester merely relies on its Appeal
Brief (hereinafter "App. Br.") and has not filed a Reply Brief in response to
the Examiner's Answer (hereinafter "Ans.").
We AFFIRM the Examiner's refusal to adopt the proposed rejections.

THE INVENTION
The claim of the '802 patent is directed to a method of enhancing
internet searching and reads as follows (Claims App'x.):
1. A method of enhancing internet searching by using at
least five sources of information to determine a topical
relevance, the method comprising:
automatically using content of a first internet page to
compute a content topical relevance score;
automatically using links to the first internet page content
to compute a link topical relevance score;
automatically using an editorial description to compute
an editorial description topical relevance score;
automatically using a content provider description to
compute a content provider description topical relevance score;
automatically using active HTML to compute an active
HTML topical relevance score; and
automatically using the relevance scores to compute a
total relevance score.

Appeal 2010-007849
Reexamination Control 95/001,233
Patent US 7,457,802 B2
3
PROPOSED REJECTIONS NOT ADOPTED
The Examiner refused to adopt the following anticipation rejection of
claim 1 which was proposed by the Requester:
1. Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Wilson.2
The Examiner also refused to adopt the following rejections of claim
1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 which were proposed by the Requester:
2. Admitted prior art (hereinafter "APA") in view of Wu.3
3. Diligenti4 in view of Wu.
4. APA in view of Wu and Cohen.5
5. Diligenti in view of Wu and Kraft.6
6. Diligenti in view of Mauldin7 and Kraft.
7. Kim8 in view of Wu.
8. Kim in view of Wu and Cohen.
9. Kim in view of Wu and Kraft.
10. Kim in view of Walther9 and Kraft.
11. Diligenti in view of Wesinger10 and Kraft.
12. Diligenti in view of Ntoulas11, Wesinger and Kraft.

2 Jeffery Wilson, U.S. 2008/0140626 A1 (pub. Jun. 12, 2008).
3 Harris Wu et al., Harvesting Social Knowledge From Folksonomies,
August 22, 2006.
4 Michelangelo Diligenti et al., Web Page Scoring Systems for Horizontal
and Vertical Search, May 7, 2002.
5 Gerald D. Cohen et al., U.S. 2008/0104542 A1 (pub. May 1, 2008).
6 Reiner Kraft et al., U.S. 6,633,867 B1 (Oct. 14, 2003).
7 Michael L. Mauldin. U.S. 5,748,954 (May 5, 1998).
8 Brian S. Kim et al., U.S. 7,356,530 B2 (Apr. 8, 2008).
9 Eckart Walther, WO2005/091175 A1 (pub. Sep. 29, 2005).
10 Ralph Wesinger, Jr. et al., U.S. 5,778,367 (Jul. 7, 1998).
Appeal 2010-007849
Reexamination Control 95/001,233
Patent US 7,457,802 B2
4
13. Glover12 in view of Seals.13
FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence.
1. The Specification of the '802 patent states:
Traditional methods for search facilitation utilize
algorithmic analysis of content, meta-content, context
and links to derive associations with keywords or
keyphrases (and thus topical) relevance of any content.
These methods are all double-tier in that they rely on
only two sources of information to determine topical
relevance: [t]he content itself and links to that content.
(Col. 6, ll. 40-46).

2. The Specification of the '802 patent also states:
Additionally, traditional sources if (sic) information on
content are highly susceptible to manipulation by the
content provider and third parties who may have benign
or malignant effects on the value of the resulting search
data.
(Col. 6, ll. 47-50).

3. The Specification of the '802 patent further states:
5TR [Quintuple-Tier Relevancy] increases the reliability
and value of search result data by using more data
sources to determine relevancy and using sources that
have lower susceptibility to manipulation.
(Col. 6, ll. 51-53).

11 Alexandros Ntoulas et al., The Infocious Web Search Engine: Improving
Web Searching Through Linguistic Analysis (IW3C2 Proceedings) (2005).
12 Eric J. Glover et al., Using Web Structure for Classifying and Describing
Web Pages, May 7, 2002.
13 Michael P. Seals, U.S. 2003/0110158 A1 (Jun. 12, 2003).
Appeal 2010-007849
Reexamination Control 95/001,233
Patent US 7,457,802 B2
5

4. The Specification of the '802 patent also states:
5TR utilizes five sources of information to determine
topical relevance:
1. Content
2. Links to Content
3. Editorial Description
4. Content Provider Description
5. Active HTML
(Col. 6, ll. 54-61).

5. The Specification of the '802 patent provides definitions for the
five sources of information as follows:
Content: This includes the actual text and media files
contained in the content itself plus any generic meta tags
that are present in the content. A number of assumptions
can be made about the content based on content data,
including, region, adult rating, taxonomy, segment, etc.--
but most importantly, keyword relevance. Content data
is highly susceptible to manipulation and or errors that
may make the content very difficult or impossible to
locate with a traditional search engine.

Links to Content: This includes all known links to the
content from other sources, usually confined to those on
other domains. A number of assumptions can be made
about the content based on link data, including, region,
adult rating, taxonomy class, segment, etc.--but most
importantly, keyword relevance. Links to content are
entirely out of the control of the search engine provider
and the content provider and are thus susceptible to third-
party manipulation.

Editorial Description: This is a unique source of
information to 5TR. This comprises an editorial data file
that is kept on record for a given piece of content or
Appeal 2010-007849
Reexamination Control 95/001,233
Patent US 7,457,802 B2
6
domain. The editorial file contains a hard record of a
number of factors about the content, including, region,
adult rating, taxonomy class, segment, etc. The editorial
file is created and maintained solely by the search engine
provider and thus is immune to tampering by the content
provider or any third party.

Content Provider Description: This is a unique source of
information to 5TR. This comprises a data file that may
be submitted by the content provider for a domain or
narrower portion of content. It allows the content
provider to associate the content with a specific region,
taxonomy class, segment, etc. This data file is created
and maintained by the content provider only and is thus
the best record of the intent of the provider. Content
ownership is confirmed through a body such as ICANN.
The susceptibility of this data to manipulation is very,
very low.

Active HTML: This is a unique source of information to
5TR. This comprises a proprietary meta tag language
with proprietary usage rules. This allows content
providers to hard-code associations with regions,
taxonomy classes, segments, etc. This enables the
content provider to give granular information about
content to the search engine provider through the
automated crawling of the site. The susceptibility of this
data to manipulation is low, but is always isolated to the
single document in question.

(Col. 6, l. 62-col. 8, l. 6).

6. Wilson discloses a method for improving a search engine index
of a web page by converting dynamic web pages to static web pages
wherein the web page may be an HTML document (Abstract; ¶¶
[0006], [0017]).
Appeal 2010-007849
Reexamination Control 95/001,233
Patent US 7,457,802 B2
7
7. Wu discloses a "collaborative tagging system or folksonomy"
which "generally refers to the tagging of a collection of documents
commonly accessible to a large group." (Pg. 111).
8. Wu states that a benefit of collaborative tagging is that:
[u]sers simply create and apply tags on the fly.
Folksonomies are inherently open-ended and therefore
respond quickly to changes and innovations in the way
users categorize content. Collaborative tagging is
regarded as democratic metadata generation where
metadata is generated by both the creators and consumers
of the content.
(Pg. 111).
9. Kraft discloses a searching method which uses a search service
provider that retrieves documents via a crawler, indexes the
documents, and generates abstracts therefrom which are used to
generate a search result in response to a user's query (col. 4, ll. 61-62;
col. 7, ll. 25-32, 54-58; Fig. 3).
10. Kraft states that "[d]uring a document authoring stage, HTML
'tags' are embedded within the informational content of the
document," HTML being a "standard language for attaching
presentation and linking attributes to informational content within
documents." (Col. 4, ll. 61-64).
11. Mauldin discloses a method for searching and states "the
downloaded file is processed to provide such information as a
significant word list, an excerpt of the downloaded file, the address,
size of the file, and number of words therein, and to save the file's title
and any headings and subheadings." (Col. 2, ll. 52-56).
Appeal 2010-007849
Reexamination Control 95/001,233
Patent US 7,457,802 B2
8
12. Mauldin further discloses that term frequency measure is used
to determine significance and the most significant words are stored in
a significant word list that "may be used in subsequent searches of the
catalog created by the method of the present invention." (Col. 2, ll.
57-59; col. 7, ll. 1-13).
13. Mauldin also teaches that "[a]t step 58, link text, which is text
associated with an address, is stored in a separate description file,"
and generation of an abstract (having title, headings, subheadings,
except, size, number of words) that is made available to the end user
(col. 6, ll. 44-45; col. 7, ll. 14-22).
14. Walther discloses methods that "allow users to annotate content
items found in a corpus," and metadata from annotations can be
"aggregated across users and aggregated metadata applied in
generating search results." (Abstract; see also ¶ [0011]).
15. Walther states that "[a]s used herein, the term 'annotation' refers
generally to any descriptive and/or evaluative metadata related to a
document (e.g., a Web page or site) that is collected from a user and
thereafter stored in association with that user." (¶ [0011]).
16. Wesinger teaches that it is known to provide information to a
search engine's database concerning web pages desired to be listed as
a search result (col. 2, ll. 11-15).
17. Wesinger also states that "[s]ubmissions, including textual
description and suggested categories, are often subjected to editorial
control" and subject to heavy editing and that web pages may be
Appeal 2010-007849
Reexamination Control 95/001,233
Patent US 7,457,802 B2
9
placed under different categories from the category intended by the
person making the submission (Col. 2, ll. 22-30).
18. Wesinger discloses an information system "in which the
information content is entirely user-controlled," the system receiving
from the users the information to be electronically published, and
classifying and storing the information for searching (Abstract; see
also col. 2, l. 58-col. 3, l. 24).
19. Glover discloses classifying and describing web pages by
analyzing the document's "anchortext" and "extended anchortext" to
create "virtual documents" that provide an indication of the
document's content (pgs. 1-4).
20. Glover states that anchortext are "words occurring inside of a
link." (Pg. 4).
21. Glover states that extended anchortext are "set of rendered
words occurring up to 25 words before and after an associated link (as
well as the anchortext itself." (Pg. 4).
22. Glover defines a virtual document as "a collection of
anchortexts or extended anchortexts from links pointing to the target
document." (Pg. 4).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The patent applicant is entitled to be his or her own lexicographer of
patent claim terms and can do so by placing such definitions in the
Specification with sufficient clarity to provide a person of ordinary skill in
the art with clear and precise notice of the meaning that is to be construed.
Appeal 2010-007849
Reexamination Control 95/001,233
Patent US 7,457,802 B2
10
See In re Corr, 347 F.2d 578, 580 (CCPA 1965); see also In re Paulsen, 30
F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
"The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact,
arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55
F.3d 610, 613 (Fed. Cir. 1995). "Inherency, however, may not be
established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain
thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient." In re
Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Moreover,
a patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious
merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was,
independently, known in the prior art. Although common sense
directs one to look with care at a patent application that claims
as innovation the combination of two known devices according
to their established functions, it can be important to identify a
reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in
the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the
claimed new invention does.
KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).

ANALYSIS
Initially, we note that only those arguments actually made by the
Requester have been considered in this decision. Arguments which the
Requester could have made but chose not to make have not been considered
and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.67(c)(1)(vii).

Rejection 1: Anticipated by Wilson
The Examiner refuses to adopt the proposed rejection finding that
although Wilson discloses the use of HTML tags and metadata of web
Appeal 2010-007849
Reexamination Control 95/001,233
Patent US 7,457,802 B2
11
pages, it fails to disclose content provider description, an editorial
description, an active HTML, or the use thereof to compute respective
relevance scores which are in turn, used to compute a total relevance score
as required by claim 1 (Ans. 36, 40). The Requester argues that these
limitations are inherently disclosed in Wilson based on the fact that an
"Internet page would contain HTML tags" which are utilized by the creator
of the page and are "accessed by web crawlers disclosed in Wilson for
computing document relevance." (App. Br. 6-7; see also Request 35-37).
The Examiner points out that "the '802 patent also states that using
two sources of information [i.e., Content and Links to Content] are highly
susceptible to manipulation by the content provider and third parties who
may have benign or malignant effects on the value of the resulting search
data." (Ans. 44). In essence, the Examiner's position is that the HTML tags
of Wilson at most corresponds to "content" and "links" described in the '802
patent which are admitted to be known and differ from the content provider
description, an editorial description and an active HTML as specifically
defined in the Specification of '802 patent.
We agree with the Examiner that the Requester has not shown that the
limitations at issue are necessarily present in Wilson (Ans. 37, 42). The
Requester does not account for the definitions of these limitations as set
forth in the Specification of the '802 patent in its Appeal Brief or the Ex
Parte Reexamination Request (hereinafter "Request"; Request 35-37). The
HTML tags of Wilson relied upon by the Requester appears to correspond to
"content" as defined in the Specification of '802 patent which encompasses
"generic meta tags" (FF 1, 5, 6). The Requester does not establish through
Appeal 2010-007849
Reexamination Control 95/001,233
Patent US 7,457,802 B2
12
persuasive argument or evidence that the tags of Wilson relied upon differ
from conventional "generic meta tags." As the Examiner explained, the
claim "is not merely adding a third, fourth or fifth relevance scores, but it
requires that the chosen sources of information have low susceptibility to
manipulation for the purpose of having search result data that is reliable and
of value as stated in the '802 patent." (Ans. 44). The Requester does not
establish through persuasive argument or evidence that the tags of Wilson
relied upon are less susceptible to manipulation or tampering than
conventional tags.
While the Requester also asserts that the Examiner did not take the
entirety of Wilson into consideration and merely focused on limited portions
of the reference cited by the Requester (App. Br. 8), this assertion is refuted
by the Examiner (Ans. 42) and the Requester does not direct our attention to
specific evidence or disclosure in Wilson to demonstrate that the Examiner's
findings are erroneous. Furthermore, whereas it is reasonable to expect the
Requester to explain how Wilson inherently discloses the limitations at issue
as defined in the Specification of the '802 patent to thereby refute the
Examiner's findings, it is unreasonable to require the Examiner to somehow
demonstrate necessary absence of the claim limitations in Wilson merely
based on the Requester's assertion that the limitations are present.
The Requester further argues it is most likely that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would understand how relevance computations are made
because the '802 patent fails to specifically describe a particular calculation
algorithm (App. Br. 9). However, this reasoning is not persuasive in that the
claim still requires relevance computations using specific sources of
Appeal 2010-007849
Reexamination Control 95/001,233
Patent US 7,457,802 B2
13
information, including inter alia, "content provider description" as
specifically defined. Moreover, the claimed method still requires
computation of not only a total relevance score, but also computation of an
editorial description of topical relevance score, a content provider
description of topical relevance score, and an active HTML topical relevance
score which have not been demonstrated as being disclosed in Wilson.
Finally, whereas the Requester questions why it would not "be
obvious to add a fifth relevance score (i.e., content provider description) to
obtain a total relevance score" (App. Br. 8), the proposed rejection is that of
anticipation. Therefore, in view of the above, we sustain the Examiner's
refusal to adopt the Requester's proposed rejection based on Wilson.

Rejection 2: Obvious Over APA and Wu
The Examiner refuses to adopt the Requester's proposed rejection
based on APA and Wu stating, inter alia, that "there is no disclosure in Wu
as to computing topical relevance scores for particular sources of
information such as 'editorial description', 'content provider description' and
'active HTML' as recited in claim 1." (Ans. 50).
The Requester points out that use of "content" and "links" have been
admitted by the '802 patent to be known in the art (see FF 1), and further
relies on Wu for disclosing the remaining limitations (Request 39-40), and
for "teaching that it was known in the art for a content provider (or anyone,
for that matter) to generate metadata concerning an Internet document via a
collaborative tagging system (a.k.a., folksonomy)," the tags describing a
document's content which may be used to compute a relevancy score (App.
Appeal 2010-007849
Reexamination Control 95/001,233
Patent US 7,457,802 B2
14
Br. 10). The Requester concludes that "it would be obvious for one of
ordinary skill to take what was already known (i.e., Internet content topical
relevance score, link topical relevance score) and combine relevance scores
computed from other sources of Internet content data (i.e., metadata tags and
files provided by others - including editors, content providers, etc.) to
achieve the claimed invention." (App. Br. 11).
As observed by the Examiner (Ans. 50), Wu specifically states that
the metadata tags are generated by both the creators of the content and
consumers of the content (FF 7, 8). Hence, the metadata tags of Wu appear
to correspond to "content" described in the Specification of the '802 patent
which is susceptible to manipulation by the content provider and third
parties, and does not correspond to the recited "content provider description"
as defined therein. The Requester further asserts the Examiner erred in
assuming that "Wu does not preclude the possibility that a content provider
maintains a separate data file including document tags." (App. Br. 11-12).
However, the Requester does not direct our attention to where Wu discloses
or suggests such separate data files for document tags of the content provider
versus consumers, or provide persuasive rationale as to why such separate
data files, and securing of the document tags provided by the content
provider, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.
In addition, as the Examiner also observes, the Requester is using
descriptive metadata tags of Wu for both the recited "editorial description"
and "content provider description," but the claims and Specification of the
'802 patent are clear in that these terms refer to different sources of
information chosen for lower susceptibility to manipulation (Ans. 50-51).
Appeal 2010-007849
Reexamination Control 95/001,233
Patent US 7,457,802 B2
15
The Requester has not meaningfully addressed this issue raised by the
Examiner.
The Requester also asserts that the Examiner failed to consider Wu in
its entirety and merely looked for the exact recited teaching of the claims
therein (App. Br. 10). However, this is disputed by the Examiner who states
that full consideration of the admitted prior art and Wu was made (Ans. 50).
The Requester fails to direct our attention to where or how Wu discloses the
limitations at issue or otherwise renders the claim obvious to thereby
demonstrate the Examiner's error. Correspondingly, we discern no error in
the Examiner's finding that APA and Wu do not disclose the required
limitations of claim 1 and sustain the Examiner's refusal to adopt the
proposed rejection based on APA and Wu.

Rejection 3: Obvious Over Diligenti and Wu
The Requester relies on arguments submitted in Rejection 2 with
respect to the disclosure of Wu, and further relies on Diligenti for disclosing
the admittedly known "content" and "links", and for disclosing "several of
the algorithms utilized in the industry to compute the often sought page
ranking for use in determining relevancy during an Internet search." (App.
Br. 12; see also Request 43-44). The Examiner refused to adopt the
proposed rejection finding that whereas Diligenti was relied upon for
disclosing content and links recited in the claim, Diligenti fails to cure the
deficiencies of Wu which does not disclose the required "editorial
description", "content provider description", "active HTML", or computation
of topical relevance scores based thereon (Ans. 52-53).
Appeal 2010-007849
Reexamination Control 95/001,233
Patent US 7,457,802 B2
16
We are not persuaded of Examiner error for the reasons already
discussed supra relative to Rejection 2. Whereas the Requester asserts that
the Examiner treated the obviousness analysis as an anticipation analysis
(App. Br. 13), this argument is refuted by the Examiner who states that a
"full consideration of Diligenti and Wu was made." (Ans. 53). In this
regard, the Requester does not direct our attention to where or how Diligenti
or Wu discloses the limitations at issue or otherwise renders the claim
obvious to thereby demonstrate that the Examiner erred. Hence, we sustain
the Examiner's refusal to adopt the proposed rejection based on Diligenti and
Wu.

Rejection 4: Obvious Over APA, Wu and Cohen
The arguments proffered by the Requester with respect to this
proposed rejection (App. Br. 13-15) are similar to that of Rejection 2
discussed above in that the Requester relies on Wu for disclosing the
required "editorial description" and "content provider description", but the
Requester further relies on Cohen for the required "active HTML" (Request
47-48). Hence, the analysis of Rejection 2 as discussed supra applies in that
Wu fails to disclose the required "editorial description" and "content
provider description" limitations. Correspondingly, we sustain the
Examiner's refusal to adopt the proposed rejection based on Wu and Cohen.

Rejection 5: Obvious Over Diligenti, Wu and Kraft
The arguments proffered by the Requester with respect to this
proposed rejection (App. Br. 15-16) are also similar to that of Rejection 2 in
Appeal 2010-007849
Reexamination Control 95/001,233
Patent US 7,457,802 B2
17
that the Requester relies on Wu for the required "editorial description" and
"content provider description" limitations (Request 51-52). Hence, the same
analysis of Rejection 2 set forth supra applies with respect to Wu. The
Requester also relies on Kraft for these same limitations as well as for the
limitation reciting "active HTML" (Request 51-52). The Requester asserts
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be "highly cognizant of the
practice of considering the strength and quality of a given authority's
metadata description of an Internet document when determining relevance,"
so that it would have been obvious "to consider multiple sources of
descriptive metadata concerning an Internet document, in conjunction with
document content and inbound document links, when determining the
document's relevance to a given search query." (Request 50-51).
The Examiner finds that Kraft does not disclose computing "an
editorial description topical relevance score", "a content provider description
topical relevance score", or computing a total relevance score by combining
the required at least five relevance scores, thereby concluding that the claim
is not obvious (Ans. 58-60). We find no error in the Examiner's refusal to
adopt the proposed rejection.
We initially observe that the Specification of the '802 patent teaches
that "editorial description", "content provider description" and "active
HTML" information sources differ from each other and are selected to
minimize susceptibility to tampering and manipulation thereby teaching
criticality of these sources of information (FF 5; see also FF 1-3). In
contrast, the Requester's proposed rejection relies on the same HTML tags of
Appeal 2010-007849
Reexamination Control 95/001,233
Patent US 7,457,802 B2
18
Kraft as corresponding to both the recited "content provider description" and
the recited "active HTML."
In addition, the Requester's arguments are not persuasive because the
Requester does not account for the definition of "content provider
description" as set forth in the Specification of the '802 patent. At least with
respect to the asserted disclosure of "content provider description," Kraft
notes that HTML is a "standard language for attaching presentation and
linking attributes to informational content within documents" (FF 9, 10).
Thus, the HTML tags relied upon by the Requester appears to correspond to
generic metatags of "content" admitted to be known in the art which is
susceptible to manipulation instead of the recited "content provider
description" as defined in the Specification of the '802 patent. The
Requester does not establish through persuasive argument or evidence that
the HTML tags of Kraft differ from conventional tags so as to be less
susceptible to manipulation or tampering in the manner "content provider
description" is defined.
We also observe that the claimed method further requires computation
of not only a total relevance score, but also of an editorial description topical
relevance score, a content provider description topical relevance score, and
an active HTML topical relevance score which are each used to compute the
total relevance score. The Requester has not provided a persuasive rationale,
nor is it apparent, why a person of ordinary skill would select these sources
of information, compute separate topical relevance scores based thereon, and
use them to compute a total relevance score. Thus, in view of the above, we
Appeal 2010-007849
Reexamination Control 95/001,233
Patent US 7,457,802 B2
19
sustain the Examiner's refusal to adopt the rejection based on the
combination of Diligenti, Wu and Kraft as proposed.

Rejection 6: Obvious Over Diligenti, Mauldin and Kraft
In this proposed rejection, the Requester relies on Diligenti as in
Rejection 3, relies on Kraft as disclosing the limitations "content provider
description" and "active HTML" as in Rejection 5, and further relies on
Mauldin as disclosing the limitations pertaining to "editorial description" as
well as "content provider description." (Request 54-56).
The Examiner finds that while Mauldin discloses creation of
description files for each queries, it fails to disclose the steps of
automatically using editorial description or content provider description to
compute corresponding topical relevance scores (Ans. 61; FF 13). We find
no error in the Examiner's refusal to adopt the proposed rejection.
We initially observe that as discussed above, Kraft does not disclose
"content provider description." Further, whereas the Requester asserts that
this limitation is also disclosed in Mauldin, this reference appears to merely
disclose using the content of the document itself (FF 11, 12). Such content
or processed information does not correspond to the recited "content
provider description," which, as is defined in the Specification of the '802
patent (FF 5), constitutes data "submitted by the content provider for a
domain or narrower portion of content" so as "to associate the content with a
specific region, taxonomy class, segment, etc." The Requester does not set
forth evidence or persuasive argument to account for the pertinent limitation.
Appeal 2010-007849
Reexamination Control 95/001,233
Patent US 7,457,802 B2
20
Furthermore, as noted with respect to Rejection 5, the claimed method
further requires computation of an editorial description topical relevance
score, a content provider description topical relevance score, and active
HTML topical relevance score, as well as the total relevance score based on
the topical relevance scores. The Requester has not provided a persuasive
rationale, nor is it apparent, why a person of ordinary skill would select these
sources of information, compute separate topical relevance scores based
thereon, and use the computed topical relevance scores to compute a total
relevance score in the manner claimed.
The remaining arguments of the Requester are substantively similar to
those of the previously discussed rejections. Thus, in view of the above, we
sustain the Examiner's refusal to adopt the proposed rejection based on the
combination of Diligenti, Mauldin and Kraft.

Rejection 7: Obvious Over Kim and Wu
In this proposed rejection, the Requester relies on Kim stating that it
"clearly teaches the first two elements and the last element of Claim 1 of the
'802 patent." (Request 56, 58-59). As to the remaining limitations of claim 1
directed toward "editorial description", "content provider description",
"active HTML" as well as computing corresponding topical relevance
scores, the proposed rejection relies on Wu's disclosure (Request 57, 60-61;
App. Br. 19). However, we find the Requester's assertions unpersuasive for
the reasons set forth relative to Rejection 2 discussed supra.
The Requester also asserts that the Examiner erred because the
Examiner "provided no discussion of the Kim reference" (App. Br. 19).
Appeal 2010-007849
Reexamination Control 95/001,233
Patent US 7,457,802 B2
21
However, as noted by the Examiner, Kim was relied upon by the Requester
for "content" and "links" already admitted to be known in the '802 patent
(Ans. 63) rendering Kim superfluous and discussion thereof unnecessary.
Correspondingly, we do not find error in the Examiner's refusal to adopt the
Requester's proposed rejection based on the combination of Kim and Wu.

Rejection 8: Obvious Over Kim, Wu and Cohen
This proposed rejection is similar to Rejection 7 discussed supra, but
the Requester relies on Cohen for the recited "active HTML" (Request 63,
66-67; see also App. Br. 20). Hence, the analyses of Rejections 2 and 7 as
discussed supra apply in that Wu fails to disclose the required "editorial
description" and "content provider description" limitations. The remaining
arguments are also substantively similar to those of the previously discussed
rejections. Correspondingly, we sustain the Examiner's refusal to adopt the
proposed rejection based on Kim, Wu and Cohen.

Rejection 9: Obvious Over Kim, Wu and Kraft
This proposed rejection is also similar to Rejection 7 discussed supra,
but the Requester relies on Kraft for the recited "active HTML" (Request 69,
72, 73; see also App. Br. 22). Hence, the analyses of Rejections 2 and 7
apply in that Wu fails to disclose the required "editorial description" and
"content provider description" limitations or the computation of topical
relevance scores based thereon. The remaining arguments are also
substantively similar to those already discussed rejections. Correspondingly,
Appeal 2010-007849
Reexamination Control 95/001,233
Patent US 7,457,802 B2
22
we sustain the Examiner's refusal to adopt the proposed rejection based on
Kim, Wu and Kraft.

Rejection 10: Obvious Over Kim, Walther and Kraft
This proposed rejection is similar to Rejection 9 except that the
Requester relies on Walther for the required "editorial description", "content
provider description" and computation of topical relevance scores based
thereon (Request 74, 75, 77-79; see also App. Br. 24). In particular, the
Requester asserts that the disclosed metadata annotations of Walther
corresponds to the editorial description and content provider description, and
that they can be considered when ranking the relevance of a page to the
query terms (Request 74, 77, 78).
The Examiner refused to adopt the proposed rejection finding that
Walther does not disclose "editorial description" of search engine provider
as the Requester asserts, but rather, defines the disclosed annotation as
referring to metadata that is collected from a user, and thereafter stored in
association with the user (Ans. 66 citing Walther [0011]). Hence, the
Examiner finds that the disclosed annotation is not secured and does not
meet the definition of "editorial description" as defined in the Specification
of the '802 patent (Ans. 66, 67). In addition, the Examiner notes that the
Requester relies on "annotation" of Walther for both "editorial description"
and "content provider description," but the claims and Specification of the
'802 patent is clear that these terms refer to different information sources
(Ans. 67). The Examiner further notes that the claim further requires
Appeal 2010-007849
Reexamination Control 95/001,233
Patent US 7,457,802 B2
23
computation of topical relevance scores based thereon which is also not
taught or suggested by Walther (Ans. 67).
We agree with the Examiner. Walther discloses that the annotations
relied upon by the Requester are provided by the user (FF 14, 15), and thus,
are readily subject to tampering or manipulation contrary to the definitions
of "editorial description" and "content provider description" (FF 5).
Moreover, the Requester has not provided a persuasive rationale, nor is it
apparent, why a person of ordinary skill would select the recited sources of
information, compute separate topical relevance scores based thereon, and
use the computed topical relevance scores to compute a total relevance
score. Correspondingly, we sustain the Examiner's refusal to adopt the
proposed rejection based on Kim, Walther and Kraft.

Rejection 11: Obvious Over Diligenti, Wesinger and Kraft
This proposed rejection is similar to Rejection 6, but the Requester
relies on Wesinger for the claimed limitations "editorial description" and
"content provider description" based on its disclosure of a search engine that
receives submissions of textual description and suggested categories and
editors that edit such submissions (Request 81-83; FF 16-18; see also App.
Br. 25). The Requester relies on Kraft, asserting that it also discloses
"content provider description" as well as "active HTML" because it discloses
HTML metadata (Request 81-83; FF 10).
The Examiner refused to adopt the proposed rejection stating that
"textual description" of Wesinger is not "editorial description" or "content
provider description" recited in the claim and defined in the Specification of
Appeal 2010-007849
Reexamination Control 95/001,233
Patent US 7,457,802 B2
24
the '802 patent (Ans. 70, 71). The Examiner further contends that even if
"textual description" of Wesinger is considered to be the recited "editorial
description" or "content provider description", Wesinger is silent as to
computing a topical relevancy score based on the textual description (Ans.
70, 71). Furthermore, the Examiner finds that whereas Kraft discloses
descriptive HTML tags, such tags are not "content provider description" as
defined in the '802 patent which is secure, but rather, are "content" which is
a separate component and highly susceptible to manipulation. (Ans. 73).
Correspondingly, the Examiner also argues that Kraft also does not describe
computing of a content provider description topical relevance score as well,
and using the same to compute a total relevance score (Ans. 73).
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. Initially, at least with
respect to the asserted disclosure of "content provider description" and
"active HTML" by Kraft, the analysis set forth with respect to Rejection 5 is
applicable. In particular, the Specification of the '802 patent makes clear
that these are two distinct sources of information, whereas the proposed
rejection relies on the same HTML tags of Kraft as corresponding to both
the recited "content provider description" and the recited "active HTML."
Moreover, Kraft discloses the use of a "standard language for attaching
presentation and linking attributes to informational content within
documents" (FF 9, 10) and thus, the HTML tags relied upon by the
Requester appears to correspond to "content" admitted to be known in the art
instead of the "content provider description" claimed.
As to Wesinger, it appears to disclose "editorial description" in its
discussion of the prior art search engine's edit and control of the submitted
Appeal 2010-007849
Reexamination Control 95/001,233
Patent US 7,457,802 B2
25
textual description and suggested categories (FF 17). Wesinger further
discloses an information system that is "entirely user-controlled" which
appears to correspond to "content provider description" (FF 18). However,
Wesinger suggests the use of the disclosed information system as a solution
to the above prior art search engine's editing and control, thereby leading
one of ordinary skill in the art in a direction divergent from the claimed
invention. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994)("A reference
may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the
reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the
reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was
taken by the applicant.").
Furthermore, as discussed supra, the claimed method requires
computation of an editorial description topical relevance score, a content
provider description topical relevance score, and active HTML topical
relevance score, as well as computing a total relevance score using the
topical relevance scores. The Requester has not provided a persuasive
rationale, nor is it apparent, why a person of ordinary skill would select the
recited sources of information, compute separate topical relevance scores
based thereon, and use the computed topical relevance scores to compute a
total relevance score. Correspondingly, in view of the above, we sustain the
Examiner's refusal to adopt the proposed rejection based on Diligenti,
Wesinger and Kraft.

Appeal 2010-007849
Reexamination Control 95/001,233
Patent US 7,457,802 B2
26
Rejection 12: Obvious Over Diligenti, Ntoulas, Wesinger and Kraft
This proposed rejection is similar to Rejection 11 discussed supra, but
the Requester relies on Ntoulas as well as Wesinger for the recited "editorial
description" asserting that Ntoulas also teaches preparation of an editorial
description which is used to determine document relevance (Request 83-86;
see also App. Br. 26-27). The Requester's arguments are also substantially
the same as those presented in Rejection 11 (App. Br. 26-27).
Correspondingly, the analysis supra with respect to Wesinger and Kraft as to
the limitation "content provider description" and computation of separate
topical relevance scores are applicable. Hence, we sustain the Examiner's
refusal to adopt the proposed rejection based on Diligenti, Ntoulas,
Wesinger and Kraft.

Rejection 13: Obvious Over Glover and Seals
In arguing that the Examiner erred in refusing to reject claim 1 based
on the combination of Glover and Seals, the Requester asserts that Glover
teaches each of the limitations of the claim except for the "active HTML"
limitation (Ans. 27; Request 87-89). In particular, the Requester relies on
the "virtual document" disclosed in Glover as corresponding to the recited
"editorial description" of claim 1 (Request 89). The Requester asserts that
"active HTML" limitation is disclosed in Seals, and that Seals also discloses
"content provider description" as well (Ans. 27; Request 87-89).
The Examiner disagrees and finds that Glover fails to disclose
"editorial description", computation of an editorial description topical
relevance score, and computation of a content provider description topical
Appeal 2010-007849
Reexamination Control 95/001,233
Patent US 7,457,802 B2
27
relevance score as required by the claim (Ans. 75). In this regard, the
Examiner argues that Glover merely discloses known prior art "content" and
"links" being used to determine relevance (Ans. 76), such sources of
information being susceptible to manipulation, and different from the
claimed "editorial description" and "content provider description" as defined
in the '802 patent (Ans. 75).
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in refusing to adopt the
rejection proposed by the Requester. Glover discloses the use of a
document's "anchortext" and "extended anchortext" to create "virtual
documents" (FF 19, 22), the created virtual documents being relied upon by
the Requester as corresponding to the recited "editorial description" of claim
1 (Request 89). The virtual documents are specifically disclosed by Glover
as being words inside of, and proximate to, the link. (FF 20-22). In this
regard, the virtual documents of Glover are generated from "content" which
is defined by the Specification of the '802 patent as "actual text and media
files contained in the content itself plus any generic meta tags that are
present in the content." (FF 5).
The Requester does not explain, nor is it apparent to us, how such
anchortexts and extended anchortexts can be considered to be "a hard record
of a number of factors about the content, including, region, adult rating,
taxonomy class, segment, etc." as described in the definition of "editorial
description." Instead, the anchortext and extended anchortext of Glover are
content itself (FF 20, 21), and not description about the content. Hence,
again, the Requester does not account for the definitions of these limitations
Appeal 2010-007849
Reexamination Control 95/001,233
Patent US 7,457,802 B2
28
as set forth in the Specification of the '802 patent in its Appeal Brief or the
Ex Parte Reexamination Request.
Moreover, whereas the Requester asserts that it is within the
capability of a person of ordinary skill in the art to "construct a system
whereby page content, inbound links, editorial description, and content
provider description are considered in determining the overall relevance of
the Interne[t] page to give such a query" (Request 87), we again observe that
the claim requires "editorial description" as specifically defined in the
Specification of the '802 patent, as well as computation of not only of a total
relevance score, but also an editorial description topical relevance score and
a content provider description topical relevance score. The Requester has
not provided a persuasive rationale, nor is it apparent, why a person of
ordinary skill would select these sources of information, compute separate
topical relevance scores based thereon, and use them to compute a total
relevance score.
Finally, whereas the Requester also asserts that the Examiner did not
fully consider the Glover reference (App. Br. 28), this argument is refuted by
the Examiner who states that the entirety of the references were considered
(Ans. 75), and the Requester does not direct our attention to where or how
Glover discloses the limitations at issue or otherwise renders the claim
obvious to thereby demonstrate the Examiner's error. Correspondingly, we
sustain the Examiner's refusal to adopt the rejection based on Glover and
Seals as proposed by the Requester.

Appeal 2010-007849
Reexamination Control 95/001,233
Patent US 7,457,802 B2
29
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in not adopting any of the Requester's
proposed rejection of claim 1.
Requests for extensions of time in this inter partes reexamination
proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.956 and 41.77(g).

AFFIRMED
ack

cc:

Patent Owner:
STEVEN THRASHER
391 SANDHILL DRIVE
RICHARDSON, TX 75080

Third Party Requester:
CARSTENS & CAHOON, LLP
P.O. BOX 802334
DALLAS, TX 75380