Ex Parte Ashton et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 13, 201311618289 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/618,289 12/29/2006 Wesley Scott Ashton ROBASH0002 5576 7590 11/14/2013 Roy Roberts 1337 A St. NE Washington, DC 20002 EXAMINER LE, MICHAEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2163 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/14/2013 PAPERPAPER 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 ____________ Ex parte WESLEY SCOTT ASHTON, RAMA ROBERTS, and ROY ROBERTS ____________ Appeal 2011-004714 Application 11/618,289 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 4-9, and 15-18. Claims 2 and 3 are cancelled, and claims 10-14, 19, and 20 are withdrawn. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2011-004714 Application 11/618,289 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The present invention relates to operating an internet search engine and seeking authorization to copy and subsequently reproduce content from a web site. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method of obtaining authority for copying content from a website accessible on an internet, comprising the steps of: (a) searching the internet with a web crawler of a search engine to identify publicly-accessible content on a website and one or more flags associated with the content, wherein each flag provides an authority level for copying and subsequent reproduction of a portion or all of the associated content, and wherein the one or more flags reside in one or more files that are separate from the content; and (b) copying content from the website to a database associated with the search engine, in accordance with the authority level of the one or more flags. THE REJECTIONS Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 9, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Tadayon (US 6,973,445). See Ans. 3-6. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tadayon. See Ans. 6. Appeal 2011-004714 Application 11/618,289 3 ISSUE The dispositive issue raised by Appellants’ arguments is:1 Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, has the Examiner erred by concluding that Tadayon discloses a web crawler as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS On this record, we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1. The Examiner finds that Tadayon discloses a search engine that searches a database which contains the content available in the system, which is distributed across the Internet. Tadayon at col. 8, lines 1-3. Ans. 8; see also Ans. 3, 7-8. Tadayon’s column 8, lines 1 through 7 state: The obtained summary can be used for review purposes, for a database searched by a search engine, to direct the other users to the original book for further information. Demarcated words or other portions of the content data can be used for indexing a search engine using keywords/phrases selected by author 110 or publisher 120 as opposed to keywords determined by the search engine. Tadayon, col. 8, ll. 1-7 (emphasis added). We agree with Appellants that the cited Tadayon passage does not disclose a web crawler. See Reply Br. 2. Tadayon does not state and therefore, it is unclear whether the disclosed search engine necessarily includes a web crawler. While the disclosed search engine may include a web crawler as contended by the Examiner, it may be a local search engine 1 Appellants raise additional arguments. Because the identified issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional arguments. Appeal 2011-004714 Application 11/618,289 4 instead and excludes a web crawler. As a result, the Examiner has not presented sufficient basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and claims 4-9, and 15-18, which were rejected on the same ground. We note that although the Examiner rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the obviousness rejection is not directed toward the disputed web crawler claim limitation. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4-9, and 15-18 is reversed. REVERSED rwk Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation