Ex Parte Gabara

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 1, 2016

13365329 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 1, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/365,329 02/03/2012
84070 7590 09/01/2016
Thaddeus Gabara
62 Burlington Rd
Murray Hill, NJ 07974
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Thaddeus John Gabara
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
MemoryLinkOl 4668
EXAMINER
BLACK, LINH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2016 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
Ex parte THADDEUS JOHN GABARA
Appeal2015-002272
Application 13/365,329
Technology Center 2100
Before THU A. DANG, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Non-Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
Appeal2015-002272
Application 13/365,329
A. INVENTION
According to Appellant, the invention relates to an: "Apparatus and
Method for Comparing and Statistically Extracting Commonalities and
Differences Between Different Websites" (Abstract, Title).
B. REPRESENTATIVE CLAIMS
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. An apparatus comprising:
a computer with a display screen, an Internet and at least
one server;
a first webpage with a selected data content selected by a
self-statistical analysis;
a second webpage with a scanned data content;
a first analyzer analyses the selected data content with the
scanned data content;
a first unit generates first statistical results between the
selected data content and the scanned data content;
a third webpage with a second scanned data content;
a second analyzer analyses the selected data content with
the second scanned data content: and
a second unit generates second statistical results between
the selected data content and the second scanned data content.
C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Wilson
Costello
Forman et al.
Rinearson et al.
US 2006/0200455 Al
US 2009/0240672 Al
US 2011/0119267 Al
US 2012/0005209 Al
2
Sept. 7, 2006
Sept. 24, 2009
May 19, 2011
Jan. 5, 2012
Appeal2015-002272
Application 13/365,329
Claims 1, 2, and 15-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Forman.
Claims 3-9 and 11-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Forman and Rinearson.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Forman, Rinearson, and Costello.
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Forman and Costello.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Forman and Wilson.
II. ISSUES
The principal issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding
that Forman discloses a first "webpage" with "selected data content selected
by a self-statistical analysis" (claim 1 ).
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
1. Appellant defines "selected data content" as "the selection of search
terms, phrases or masks within a webpage" (Spec. i-f 81 ).
Forman
2. Forman discloses generating statistical data from Web activity data,
wherein a target Website is selected and a set of search terms ("target search
terms") that have occurred at the target Website are obtained. The target
Website provides a basis by which to search and generate the statistical data,
3
Appeal2015-002272
Application 13/365,329
and the statistical data is relevant to the Website, for example, to inform the
customer of the target search terms used (i-f 31 ).
3. A frequency counter is used to tally the number of times that the
corresponding target search term was used at the target Website, and thus, to
characterize the relative strength of a particular search term's connection to
the target Website compared to the other target search terms (i-f 32).
4. Generating statistical data from Web activity includes grouping
Websites (i-f 38) or Webpages (i-f 40) into clusters, depending on the searches
that are detected at each Website or Webpage (id.).
IV. ANALYSIS
35 U.S. C. § 102(e)
As to claim 1, Appellant contends "Forman's 'web activity' is
obtained from 'search terms from a plurality of users at a plurality of
Webpages"' (App. Br. 6). However, Appellant merely points to the
Specification and contends "Appellant teaches in paragraph [0082] that
'Self-statistical analysis views a single webpage for counts of all words or
for a specific term,"' and "in paragraph [0076] that 'the data content can also
be statistically evaluated to analyze the webpage and use these results to
form better search terms"' (id.). According to Appellant, "Forman fails to
teach all the elements in claims 1 and 15 since Forman teaches that the
search terms are extracted from the web activity of a plurality of users on a
plurality of Webpages" and "does not teach what is recited in the second
element of claims 1 and 15: where a self-statistical analysis is defined in the
[S]pecification as viewing a single webpage" (id. at 7).
4
Appeal2015-002272
Application 13/365,329
We have considered all of Appellant's arguments and evidence
presented. However, we disagree with Appellant's contentions regarding the
Examiner's rejections of the claims. Based on the record before us, we are
unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that claim 1 is anticipated by
Forman.
As a preliminary matter of claim construction, we give the claims
their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification.
See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). While we interpret
claims broadly but reasonably in light of the Specification, we nonetheless
must not import limitations from the Specification into the claims. See
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane).
We agree with the Examiner that "the features upon which applicant
relies (i.e., viewing a single webpage or cited teachings in the
[S]pecification, paragraphs 76, 82, and 84) are not recited in the rejected
claim(s)" (Ans. 3). Further, we find no error with the Examiner's broad but
reasonable interpretation that "self-statistical analysis" encompasses
Forman's generating of statistical data from Web activity "at the one or
more Webpages" because Forman's "generating statistical data" is "for at
least a single Webpage in each Website" (Ans. 4). That is, nothing in the
Specification and claims requires that only a single webpage be viewed, or
precludes the viewing of multiple webpages which comprises a plurality of
single webpages. Thus, we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's
finding that Forman's statistical analysis at one or more Webpages
comprises statistical analysis at one Webpage (id.).
Forman discloses generating statistical data from Web activity data by
selecting a target Website and obtaining a set of search terms that have
5
Appeal2015-002272
Application 13/365,329
occurred at the target Website (FF 2). That is, Forman discloses a Website
(which comprises one or more Webpages) with a set of search terms
occurred thereat (Ans. 4). As the Examiner points out, Appellant's
Specification defines "selected data content" as "the selection of search
terms, phrases or masks within a web page" (Non-Final Act. 3; FF 1). Thus,
we find no error with the Examiner's finding that Forman discloses Website
comprising a "webpage" with "selected data content" as recited in claim 1.
Furthermore, in Forman, a frequency counter is used to tally the
number of times that the corresponding target search term was used at the
target Website (FF 3), wherein generating statistical data from Web activity
includes grouping Websites or W ebpages into clusters, depending on the
searches that are detected at each Website or Webpage (FF 4). Therefore,
we agree with the Examiner's finding "Forman does teach the system that
generates statistical data (equivalent to self-statistical analysis) from Web
activity" wherein "[s]earch term(s), for example used at a Webpage are
obtained which is equivalent to a selected data content" and "[t]he term(s)
is/are used to search for competitive Webpage(s) or Website(s)" (Ans. 4).
Thus, contrary to Appellant's contentions, we are not persuaded of
error in the Examiner's reliance on Forman for disclosing "selected data
content selected by a self-statistical analysis" (claim 1 ).
On this record, Appellant does not persuade us of reversible error in
the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claim 1, and claims 2 and
15-18 falling therewith (App. Br. 6) over Forman.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
As for claims 3-7, Appellant merely contend "the dependent claims
will stand with independent claim 1 ... "(App. Br. 7). Accordingly, we also
6
Appeal2015-002272
Application 13/365,329
affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 3-7 over Forman in further view
of Rinearson.
As for claims 8, 9, and 11-14, Appellant merely repeats "Forman
teaches that the 'web activity' is selected by a plurality of users on f!:
plurality of Webpages" while "Appellant teaches that the 'selected data
content' is selected by a self-statistical analysis of a single webpage" (App.
Br. 9). However, as discussed above with respect to claim 1, we find no
error with the Examiner's reliance on Forman for disclosing the contested
limitation. Accordingly, on this record, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error in finding that the combination of Forman and Rinearson teaches or
would at least have suggested the contested limitation.
Appellant provides no substantive arguments with respect to claims
10, 19, and 20 separate from those of claims 8 and 15, from which they
respectively depend (App. Br. 11-12). Accordingly, we also affirm the
rejections of claim 10 stands over Forman and Rinearson, in further view of
Costello; of claim 19 over Forman, in further view of Costello; and of claim
20 over Forman, in further view of Wilson.
We note that Appellant introduces new arguments in the Reply Brief
regarding an "analyzer" (Reply Br. 3-5). However, it is inappropriate for
Appellant to discuss for the first time in a Reply Brief matters that could
have been raised in the Appeal Brief. Because Appellant advances new
arguments in the Reply Brief without showing good cause, Appellant has
waived such arguments. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
7
Appeal2015-002272
Application 13/365,329
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, and 15-18 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e); and of claims 3-14, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8