11186403 (B.P.A.I. May. 31, 2012)

Ex Parte Ford et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMay 31, 2012

11186403 (B.P.A.I. May. 31, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES _____________ Ex parte JAMES L. FORD, CHRISTOPHER L. SCOFIELD, DWAYNE E. BOWMAN, and RUBEN E. ORTEGA _____________ Appeal 2009-013262 Application 11/186,403 Technology Center 2100 ______________ Before, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, DAVID M. KOHUT, and TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges. PER CURIAM. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1-32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. INVENTION The invention is directed to a method, web page, server, computer- readable medium, and system for presenting category-ranked search results Appeal 2009-013262 Application 11/186,403 2 to a user. Spec. 2-4. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. A computer-implemented method for processing a search query specified by a user so as to personalize a presentation of search results, the method comprising: identifying , within each of the plurality of categories, one or more items that are responsive to the search query (“responsive items”); calculating a respective category score for each of the plurality of categories, said category score reflecting a predicted level of affinity the user has for the respective category as determined from a preexisting profile of the user, said category score further reflecting a degree to which the respective category is relevant to the search query; and arranging the plurality of categories for presentation to the user, together with associated responsive items, in an order which depends upon the category scores; whereby the order in which the categories are arranged for presentation is personalized for the user. REFERENCES Wical US 6,460,034 B1 Oct. 1, 2002 Ponte US 6,826, 559 B1 Nov. 30, 2004 Palmer US 6,990,628 B1 Jan. 24, 2006 (filed June 14, 1999) Perkins US 7,072,888 B1 July 4, 2006 (filed June 16, 1999) REJECTIONS AT ISSUE Claims 1, 10, 14, 21, 22, and 25-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Wical and Perkins. Ans. 3-14. Appeal 2009-013262 Application 11/186,403 3 Claims 2-9, 11-13, 16-20, 23, 24, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Wical, Perkins, and Ponte. Ans. 14-27. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Wical, Perkins, and Palmer. Ans. 27-28. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (see particularly Ans. 28-63). We concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner. Appeal 2009-013262 Application 11/186,403 4 CONCLUSION 1 The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). SUMMARY The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-32 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)(iv). AFFIRMED ELD 1 In the event of further prosecution of claims 1-18 and 20-26, the Examiner’s attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. § 101 and U.S. Patent &Trademark Office, Interim Guidance for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility for Process Claims in View of Bilski v. Kappos, 75 Fed. Reg. 43,922 (July 27, 2010); David J. Kappos, Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010); and U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009, available at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/2009-08- 25_interim_101_instructions.pdf and the Examiner and the the recent decision from the U.S. Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S.Ct. 1289 (2012). Additionally, in the event of further prosecution, the Examiner should evaluate claims 7 and 19 in light of In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2007), and Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010).