Ex Parte Daniels et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 25, 2012

10711954 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte FONDA J. DANIELS, TIMOTHY E. FIGGINS, and
DAVID B. KUMHYR
_____________

Appeal 2010-005234
Application 10/711,954
Technology Center 2100
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHNNY A. KUMAR and BRYAN F.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1-15 and 34. Br. 2. Claim 16-33 have been cancelled.
Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

Appeal 2010-005234
Application 10/711,954

2
INVENTION
The invention is directed to performing searches on a network,
such as the Internet, private networks or the like and more particularly
to a method and system to identify a previously visited or accessed
universal resource locator (URL), network address or the like in
results from a search. See Spec. [Para 1].
Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is reproduced
below:
1. A method to identify a previously visited URL in results from a
search, comprising:
loading a URL personal databook collection object in response
to receiving the results of a network search by a search engine,
wherein the URL personal databook collection object comprises URL
references that have been previously visited by a user and selectively
saved in the URL personal databook collection object by the user; and
a comment, associated with each URL reference, entered and saved by
the user to indicate a reason why each URL reference was stored in
the URL personal databook collection object;
presenting all search results that satisfy the at least one search
term including any URL references that have been previously visited
by the user and selectively saved in the URL personal databook
collection object by the user and including any URL references that
satisfy the at least one search term but have not been previously
visited by the user and therefore have not been saved in the URL
personal databook collection object; and
identifying any matches between results from the search and
any URL object references of previously visited URLs in the URL
personal databook collection object.

REFERENCES
Bates US 5,877,766 Mar. 2, 1999
Amro US 6,950,861 B1 Sep. 27, 2005
Appeal 2010-005234
Application 10/711,954

3
REJECTION AT ISSUE
Claims 1-15, and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Amro and Bates. Ans. 3-12.

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Amro and
Bates teach the following limitations:
a. “loading a URL personal databook collection object in response
to receiving the results of a network search by a search engine
[;]” and
b. “wherein the URL personal databook collection object
comprises URL references that have been previously visited by
a user and selectively saved in the URL personal databook
collection object by the user; and a comment, associated with
each URL reference, entered and saved by the user to indicate a
reason why each URL reference was stored in the URL
personal databook collection object . . . ” (Independent claim
1)?
ANALYSIS
Appellants present arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11. Claim
1 recites “loading a URL personal databook collection object in response to
receiving the results of a network search by a search engine.” Claims 2-10
are not argued separately and therefore fall with claim 1. See Br. 7-8.
Claims 12-15 and 34 are not argued separately and therefore fall with claim
11. See Br. 8.
Appeal 2010-005234
Application 10/711,954

4
Appellants argue that Amro does not disclose the above limitation in
claim 1. App. Br. 5-7. Specifically, Appellants argue that “Amro clearly
teaches that the search engine 112 accesses the bookmarks 102 before
searching the database and websites associated with the bookmarks 102 and
then provides the results of the search.” Id at 6. We are not persuaded by
this argument.
The Examiner construes the term loading to mean accessing. Ans. 13.
Appellants provide no construction for the term loading but Appellants use
the term accessing interchangeably with the term loading in the Appeal
Brief. Br. 6. Our reviewing court has provided instruction that:
[T]he PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the
broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary
usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of
definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written
description contained in the applicant's specification.
In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Appellants’
Specification discusses “loading” as directed to loading a URL personal
databook collection object. Spec. [para 14]. However, the Specification
does not discuss what loading means. Specification discloses from where
the URL personal databook is loaded by stating that “the URL personal
databook collection object may be a predetermined memory location or
portion of a memory or stored on a data storage device or system memory of
a computer system or the like.” Spec. [para 13]. Thus, we find the URL
personal databook collection may be loaded from memory. Appellants do
not identify any description in the original disclosure that provides
additional guidance in construing this term, or that precludes the Examiner’s
construction. Accordingly, and in view of the record presented, Appellants
Appeal 2010-005234
Application 10/711,954

5
have not persuasively argued that the Examiner’s construction is
unreasonable in view of, or inconsistent with, Appellants’ Specification.
Given the above construction of the term loading, we conclude that
there is ample support for the Examiner’s finding that Amro teaches that the
search engine 112 accesses the bookmarks 102 after searching the database
and websites associated with the bookmarks 102 and then provides the
results of the search. Ans. 5-6. According to Fig. 4, Amro teaches receiving
an identifier associated with a bookmark, where the identifier may be a URL
address. Amro, Fig. 4. Amro teaches subsequently searching a database
using a search term and, upon receiving the results of the search, searching
websites associated with bookmarks using the search term. Amro, col. 4, ll.
5-11, Fig. 4; see also Ans 13. We find that, in order to search the websites
associated with the bookmarks, Amro must access the bookmark based on
the received identifier. See Ans. 13. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner
that Amro teaches “loading a URL personal databook collection object in
response to receiving the results of a network search” as provided by the
embodiment of the present invention.” Id.
Claim 1 also recites “wherein the URL personal databook collection
object comprises URL references that have been previously visited by a user
and selectively saved in the URL personal databook collection object by the
user; and a comment, associated with each URL reference, entered and
saved by the user to indicate a reason why each URL reference was stored in
the URL personal databook collection object.” Appellants further argue
“that the URL personal databook collection object of the embodiments of the
present invention are distinguishable from the bookmarks as commonly
known in the computing arts and as used by Amro.” See Br. 7. Specifically,
Appeal 2010-005234
Application 10/711,954

6
Appellants argue that “[b]ookmarks are short cuts or direct links to Websites
whereas the personal databook collection of the embodiments of the present
invention is used as an aid to help a user identify URLs in search results that
have been previously visited and to recall why a particular URL was
previously visited.” We are not persuaded by this argument.
The Examiner relies on Amro and Bates to collectively show the URL
personal databook collection object. Claim 1 recites the standard
understanding of a bookmark, which is to help a user identify websites the
user has previously visited, and adds a comment which allows a user to
recall why a particular URL was previously visited. See Spec. [para 2]
(describing a standard bookmark). Amro teaches using a bookmark. See,
e.g., Amro, col. 4, ll. 5-11. The Examiner relies on Bates to supply the
concept of a comment associated with a bookmark. Ans. 13. Bates teaches
that a “pop-up window display may display the address or location (e.g., the
URL) of the document associated with the node display element, a title or
description thereof (optionally entered by an end user similar to a bookmark
or favorite), and/or other information such as document size, the last date
the document was accessed or updated, the creation date of the document,
etc.” Bates, col. 25, ll. 36-42; see also, Ans. 4. Thus, Bates discloses user
entered comments associated with a bookmark. We conclude that there is
ample support for the Examiner’s finding that the bookmark of Amro
combined with the bookmark comment of Bates is encompassed by the
broadest reasonable interpretation of a “URL personal databook collection
object” in the context of the invention and as recited in claim 1. See Ans.
13.
Appeal 2010-005234
Application 10/711,954

7
For the reasons stated above, we find no error in the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1-15, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Amro and Bates.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-15 and 34 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)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011).
AFFIRMED

tj