Ex Parte Danninger

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 14, 2014

11280077 (P.T.A.B. May. 14, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL DANNINGER
____________

Appeal 2011-013367
Application 11/280,077
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before: HUBERT C. LORIN, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-013367
Application 11/280,077

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-3, 6-8, and 12-
141. We have jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6.
The invention relates generally to a tool for allowing a user to retrieve
from any searchable resource only new search results for a specific search
term. Spec. ¶ 1.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed
subject matter.
1. A computer-implemented method of filtering a
current set of search results comprising URLs from a search
engine obtained by performing an interactive search based on at
least one search term, comprising:
for each URL in the current set of search results,
if the URL is in a search record indexed by the at
least one search term and a user who initiated the search,
then fetching the webpage and objects associated with
the webpage corresponding to the URL,
comparing the fetched webpage and objects
with a stored webpage and objects indexed by the
URL and the user, and
if they are different, then including the URL
in a final set of search results,
otherwise not including the URL in the final
set of search results;
otherwise if the URL is not in the search record,
including the URL in the final set of search results;
presenting the final set of search results to the user; and
when a user selects a URL from the final set of search
results, fetching the webpage and objects associated with the

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed February 3, 2011) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed June 15,
2011), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed April 27, 2011).
Appeal 2011-013367
Application 11/280,077

3
URL and storing the fetched webpage and objects indexed by
the user and the URL for a subsequent iteration of the method.

Claim 1-3, 6-8, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Drucker et al. (US 6,292,796 B1; Date of Patent:
Sep. 18, 2001), hereinafter “Drucker”, in view of Emens et al. (US
6,487,553 B1; Date of Patent: Nov. 26, 2002), hereinafter “Emens”; in view
of Freivald et al. (US 2002/0013825 A1; pub. date: Jan 31, 2002),
hereinafter “Freivald”.
We REVERSE.
ANALYSIS
We are persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that a combination
of Drucker, Emens, and Freivald suggests “when a user selects a URL from
the final set of search results, fetching the webpage and objects associated
with the URL and storing the fetched webpage and objects indexed by the
user and the URL for a subsequent iteration of the method,” as recited in
independent claim 1. App. Br. 4-6; Reply Br. 2-3. Independent claims 6
and 12 recite similar limitations. The Examiner cites Figure 3 and
associated text of Emens as corresponding to the aforementioned claim
limitation as follows:
Emens further discloses in col. 4, lines 50-54: As shown
in FIG. 3, the present invention provides an action or check box
50 adjacent to, or associated with, each search result in the
search result set 30. Action box 50 can be used to select, or
identify those results the users wish to exclude or include in
a subsequent result sets.
Emens discloses in col. 4, line 66 to col. 5, line 5: In
another aspect of the present invention, by selecting box 50, the
user is able to select results from a search which the user desires
Appeal 2011-013367
Application 11/280,077

4
to carry over into a subsequent set of search results. Any result
not selected, which then re-appears in a subsequent set of
search results, is automatically excluded from the subsequent
set of search results and is not displayed. Thus, if the user
desired to carryover results 22, 24, 26 and 28 into a subsequent
search result set, the user would place a mark 60 in boxes 52,
54, 56 and 58. Then, in a subsequent search, only those results
appearing for the first time, along with results 22, 24, 26 and 28
would be displayed.
Ans. 13. We disagree. While perhaps functionally, the cited portions of
Emens implement the purpose of the claimed invention, which is to exclude
previously traversed webpages from future search results, independent claim
1 explicitly recites “when a user selects a URL from the final set of search
results, fetching the webpage and objects associated with the URL”
(emphasis added). Checking box 50 does not correspond to such “fetching.”
The Examiner also tangentially cites portions of Drucker as
corresponding to the aforementioned claim limitation (Ans. 15-16, citing
Drucker col. 5, lines 32-37; col. 6, lines 18-22; col. 13, lines 13-17, 48-51).
However, the cited portions of Drucker only disclose using a user’s search
history to exclude certain search results, and does not disclose the
aforementioned “fetching.”
Freivald is not cited for disclosing the aforementioned claim
limitation.
We do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 6, and 12, or
their respective dependent claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 13, and 14.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-3, 6-8, and 12-14 is
REVERSED.
REVERSED
Appeal 2011-013367
Application 11/280,077

5

tkl