Ex Parte Gino Monier et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 28, 2013

10831422 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte LOUIS MARCEL GINO MONIER and
ERIC NOEL BILLINGSLEY
____________

Appeal 2011-007038
Application 10/831,422
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before: JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and MICHAEL
W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-007038
Application 10/831,422

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10-14,
16-21, 23, 25, 26, 29-33, 35-38, and 40-491. We have jurisdiction to review
the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6.
The invention relates generally to search automation and specifically
to a method and system for building and using a search database (Spec. 2,
para. [0002]).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed
subject matter.
1. A method including:
analyzing a data item to be stored in a search database
using a characteristic rule, the data item being associated with a
listing where the listing represents an underlying good or
service; and
characterizing the data item, using one or more
processors, based on the analyzing thereof, the characterizing
including tagging the data item as inappropriate for presentation
to a user of a particular geographical demographic based on a
legal prohibition for the particular geographical demographic,
the characterizing being utilized to filter a subsequent search
result generated responsive to a search request received against
the search database.

REFERENCES
Adjaoute US 2003/0009495 A1 Jan. 9, 2003
Brown US 6,665,379 B1 Dec. 16, 2003
Rennels US 2004/0205334 A1 Oct. 14, 2004
Matz US 2005/0033849 A1 Feb. 10, 2005

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed November 19, 2010), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed
December 23, 2010).
Appeal 2011-007038
Application 10/831,422

3
REJECTIONS2
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 11-14, 17-21, 23, 25, 26, 30-33, 36-38, and 40-45
are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Matz and
Adjaoute.
Claims 10, 29, and 46-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Matz, Adjaoute, and Brown.
Claims 16 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Matz, Adjaoute, and Rennels.

We AFFIRM.
ANALYSIS
Obviousness Rejection of Independent Claim 1
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that a
combination of Matz and Adjaoute suggests “characterizing including
tagging the data item as inappropriate for presentation to a user of a
particular geographical demographic based on a legal prohibition for the
particular geographical demographic,” as recited in independent claim 13
(App. Br. 19-22). Appellants assert that Matz only discloses that content to
a user is blocked if it is predetermined to be objectionable to the user. We
disagree. Paragraph [0030] of Matz discloses the following:
Each of the tags 112, 130, and 132 may be unique from the

2 In the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims
20, 21, 24-26, 29-33, 35-38 and 41-44 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Ans. 3).
3 Appellants argue together independent claims 1, 4, 20, 23, 40, 41, and 42
(App. Br. 19, 22). We choose independent claim 1 as representative. 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
Appeal 2011-007038
Application 10/831,422

4
others and may further be associated with user classifications
such as user demographics or usage patterns based on
generalized demographic information. The tagged data streams
110, 134, and 136 may be transmitted to the client devices 104
and 105. The tags are used by client devices 104 and 105 to
block content; i.e., prevent the content from being presented.
(Emphasis added). In other words, user demographics tags can also be used
to block content. And paragraph [0063] of Matz discloses that tags may
include a location field. Accordingly, Matz discloses that location (i.e.,
geographic demographic) may be used to block content, which is more than
just blocking content predetermined to be objectionable to the user, as
asserted by Appellants.
Appellants then assert the following: “filtering electronic content
relating to illegal drugs, has nothing to do with a particular geographical
demographic as recited by each of Appellants’ independent claims” (App.
Br. 21). Appellants’ assertions are misplaced. As set forth above, Matz is
cited for disclosing blocking content based on a geographic demographic.
Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that blocking content based on
illegality requires at least some geographic connection, as laws vary based
on jurisdiction (Ans. 11).
For at least the above reasons, we sustain the rejection of independent
claims 1, 4, 20, 23, 40, 41, and 42.
Obviousness Rejection of Dependent Claims 2, 6, 7, 10-14, 16-19, 21,
25, 26, 29-33, 35-38, and 43-49
As Appellants only assert that dependent claims 2, 6, 7, 10-14, 16-19,
21, 25, 26, 29-33, 35-38, and 43-49 are patentable for the same reason as
their respective independent claim (App. Br. 22-23), we also sustain their
Appeal 2011-007038
Application 10/831,422

5
rejections as obvious over various combinations of Matz, Adjaoute, Brown,
and Rennels.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10-14, 16-
21, 23, 25, 26, 29-33, 35-38, and 40-49 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

mls