Ex Parte Gordon

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2014

11379094 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/379,094 04/18/2006 Raz Gordon 9239
7590 04/28/2014
Collage Analytics LLC
1652 48th Street
Brooklyn, NY 11204
EXAMINER
CHOJNACKI, MELLISSA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2164
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/28/2014 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 RAZ GORDON
__________

Appeal 2011-011579
Application 11/379,094
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. FETTING, and
JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judges.

LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Raz Gordon (Appellant) seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134
(2002) of the final rejection of claims 1-13. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
Appeal 2011-011579
Application 11/379,094

2

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.1

THE INVENTION
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A method implemented in a computer system, the method
comprising:
maintaining in the computer system information
associated with a plurality of documents, each document being
associated in the computer system with a unique web address
for accessing the document, wherein the plurality of documents
include a subset of documents, wherein the associated
respective unique web address for each of the subset of
documents is no longer usable for accessing the [sic] each of
the subset of documents;
identifying in the computer system one or more
documents that contain content that is similar to content
contained in a first document based on a similarity threshold;
and
attributing in the computer system a date to the first
document consistent with an earlier date associated with at least
one of the identified documents,
wherein the at least one of the identified documents is not
associated with the unique web address associated with the first
document.

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Br.,”
filed Jan. 10, 2011) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Mar. 30,
2011).
Appeal 2011-011579
Application 11/379,094

3
THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Nye
Charikar

US 2005/0149507 A1
US 7,158,961 B1
Jul. 7, 2005
Jan. 2, 2007
The following rejection is before us for review:
1. Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nye and Charikar.

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that the claimed subject matter would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention?

FINDINGS OF FACT
We rely on the Examiner’s factual findings stated in the Answer.
Additional findings of fact may appear in the Analysis below.

ANALYSIS
Claim 1
The Examiner takes the position that Nye discloses all the claim
limitations but for the limitation “wherein the at least one of the identified
documents is not associated with the unique web address associated with the
first document” for which Charikar is relied upon. Ans. 5. According to the
Examiner,
Appeal 2011-011579
Application 11/379,094

4
it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the invention was made to have modified
Nye, to include wherein the at least one of the identifying
documents is not associated with the unique we address
associated with the first document.
Id. The Examiner provides an apparent reasoning by which the prior art
combination would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to the claimed
invention. See id.
The Appellant disputes that Nye discloses any claim limitation;
Charikar discloses the limitation “wherein the at least one of the identified
documents is not associated with the unique web address associated with the
first document;” and that any motivation exists for modifying Nye in light of
Charikar to reach the claimed subject matter. Br. 7-12.
The first step in the claimed process is:
maintaining in the computer system information
associated with a plurality of documents, each document being
associated in the computer system with a unique web address
for accessing the document, wherein the plurality of documents
include a subset of documents, wherein the associated
respective unique web address for each of the subset of
documents is no longer usable for accessing the [sic] each of
the subset of documents.
Claim 1.
The Appellant challenges the Examiner’s finding that this
“maintaining” step is disclosed in the Abstract; paragraphs [0011]-[0013];
[0099]; [0114]; and [0117]-[0118] of Nye. Br. 7. See Ans. 4. According to
the Appellant, Nye discloses
using a search engine to search through documents located on the
Internet. Nye teaches that the search results returned by a search
engine are analyzed in order to determine the most likely URL
Appeal 2011-011579
Application 11/379,094

5
address of an entity ("entity" in Nye may refer to a business or
service; see Nye in the abstract).
Br. 7-8. The Appellant argues that “although Nye analyzes the content
contained in the documents returned in a search results list, Nye does not
specifically teach that the documents (or information related to the
documents) are “‘maintained’” by the computer system.” Id. at 8. The
Appellant argues that Nye in fact teaches away from the “maintaining” the
search result contents and in support thereof quotes paragraph [0118] of Nye
as follows:
By analyzing the brief text description in the indexed content,
the system obviates the need to download the content of the
subject web page for further analysis. In this way, web page
content can be analyzed, without having to expend system
resources, such as bandwidth, because the actual web page does
not need to be accessed each time it needs to process the web
page content.
Id. The Appellant argues that “the objective in Nye is not to maintain
documents, but rather to analyze and parse documents in search of a correct
URL for an entity. The documents of the search results list, according to
Nye, are preferably not even downloaded.” Id.
We find the Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive.
The claimed maintaining step calls for “maintaining in the computer
system information associated with a plurality of documents . . .” (claim 1;
emphasis added). The Specification provides no express definition for
“maintaining.” Accordingly we give it its ordinary and customary usage
which is to support or keep up information associated with a plurality of
documents. The Specification uses the term “documents” and “web pages”
which would result from performing a search interchangeably. See Spec.,
Appeal 2011-011579
Application 11/379,094

6
paras. [0002]-[0003]. Accordingly, the claim phrase: “maintaining in the
computer system information associated with a plurality of documents” is
reasonably broadly construed to cover keeping up information associated
with a plurality of web pages such as those resulting from performing a
search.
Turning to Nye, it discloses
[t]he process of verifying candidate URL addresses and
identifying the correct match enhances the validity of the
records in the database. For example, the website content that
has been collected for candidate URL addresses may be stored
in a table associated with the respective URL address. This
provides the database with updated indexed content. When the
correct match for a business's URL address is identified, the
system updates the record in the database associated with the
business . . . . The system may update the record to further
include content that can be associated with the entity.
See para. [0013]. Emphasis added. Nye further discloses that
[i]f the search results yield a number of hits greater than
or equal to the minimum threshold, n, then the indexed content,
such as the brief text description, is analyzed . . . . By analyzing
the brief text description in the indexed content, the system
obviates the need to download the content of the subject web
page for further analysis. However… [i]f the brief text
description does not provide conclusive matches, however, then
the process may proceed to download the content from the web
page.
See para. [0118]. Emphasis added.
One of ordinary skill in the art reading these Nye passages on
performing updates and allowing the process to proceed to download content
from a web page would infer that Nye also “maintains” the content of the
webpages as that claim term is reasonably broadly construed. In evaluating a
Appeal 2011-011579
Application 11/379,094

7
reference, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings in
the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would
reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826
(CCPA 1968).
While Nye discloses that search results returned by a search engine
are analyzed in order to determine the most likely URL address as the
Appellant argues, Nye also performs the additional step of updating the
content of the business’s web page. Contrary to Appellant’s view, the
objective of Nye is to maintain the content of the webpage and not merely
“to analyze and parse documents in search of a correct URL for an entity”
(Br. 8). Also, Nye does not teach away from the claimed “maintaining.” The
Appellant (id.) quoted from paragraph [0118] of Nye (see supra) in support
thereof but failed to include the last sentence: “[i]f the brief text description
does not provide conclusive matches, however, then the process may
proceed to download the content from the web page.” That sentence in fact
does the opposite.
The Appellant further argues that Nye fails to “teach or suggest that a
subset of the maintained documents are each associated with a unique web
address [that] is no longer usable for accessing the [sic] each of the subset
of documents” as the “maintaining” step in claim 1 requires. Br. 8 (emphasis
original).
In relying on Nye as evidence, the Examiner specifically cites
paragraphs [0142], [0147], and [0148], arguing that Nye discloses “the
system may revise any content associated with the website address, which
has been stored in the database.” Ans. 11. Internal quotation marks omitted.
Appeal 2011-011579
Application 11/379,094

8
This is accurate. One of ordinary skill reading this Nye disclosure would be
made aware of the conventional process used to search databases which may
contain static information. However, Nye further provides searching up-to-
date information in order to provide more accurate query responses.
Therefore, Nye does search respective web addresses for each document
which may no longer be usable for accessing.
Also paragraph [0142], which the Examiner also cites (see Ans. 11),
discloses “[t]he last updated date can be determined by examining when web
page was last cached or by comparing the content of the website with
content archived at an internet archival site.” One of ordinary skill in the art
reading this passage would understand it to describe a subset of the
maintained documents are each associated with a unique web address that is
no longer usable for accessing each of the subset of documents. We agree
with the Examiner’s characterization that this passage “discloses a subset of
search results that can be potentially no longer usable for accessing because
the rating system is part of Nye’s system and it uses an archive of websites
to identify relevant or irrelevant websites.” Id. at 11. Nye discloses that
content of the website page is archived at an internal archive site, which is
associated with a unique URL address that is actively updated. However, the
content archived at an internal archive site is no longer usable should a user
wish to access the current content that is actively maintained because the
archived content and actively updated content are stored on distinctive
websites with distinctive URL addresses.
Appeal 2011-011579
Application 11/379,094

9
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
mischaracterized the scope and content of Nye as disclosing the first step of
the claimed method.
The second and third steps in the claimed process are:
identifying in the computer system one or more
documents that contain content that is similar to content
contained in a first document based on a similarity threshold;
and
attributing in the computer system a date to the first
document consistent with an earlier date associated with at least
one of the identified documents.
Claim 1.
The Appellant challenges the Examiner’s finding that these
“identifying” and “attributing” steps are disclosed in paragraphs [0099],
[0114], [0117], [0118], [0141], and [0142] of Nye. Br. 7. See Ans. 12-15.
We are not persuaded by the arguments in support of the challenge.
The Appellant argues that “the Examiner's reading of the search
results lists in Nye as analogous to the identifying step of Claim 1 is plainly
incongruous with the way the Examiner is reading the other steps of Claim
1.” Br. 9. In that regard, the Appellant takes principal aim at paragraph
[0142] of Nye as disclosing the attributing step. Id. at 10.
The Appellant argues that paragraph [0142] “relates to a process for
determining the ‘last update date’ of a website, and is unrelated to the
disclosure elsewhere in Nye about search results lists generated by search
engines.” Br. 10. The Appellant further argues that the language of claim 1
requires that the identifying step and attributing step must refer to the same
identified documents and first document. See id. According to the Appellant,
Appeal 2011-011579
Application 11/379,094

10
the Examiner is incorrectly reading “the identifying step in Nye on a process
being performed on one set of elements (i.e., URLs in a search results list)
and then read the attributing step on a process being performed on a
different set of elements (i.e., a current version and archive version of a
website) . . . .” Id. at 10-11.
The Examiner’s position is that the Appellant’s construction of the
claim languages does not require “that the first and second (the identified
document) is or has to be a completely different document (i.e.[,] not a
version of a document).” Ans. 12-13. The Examiner makes the point that the
claim covers “[t]he first document can be a ‘modified’ and/or ‘updated’
version of a archived document (identified document)” Id. at 13. We agree
with the Examiner.
The broadest reasonable construction of claim 1 supports the
Examiner’s interpretation. Claim 1 requires
identifying in the computer system one or more
documents that contain content that is similar to content
contained in a first document based on a similarity threshold;
and
attributing in the computer system a date to the first
document consistent with an earlier date associated with at least
one of the identified documents.
Emphasis added. As the Examiner suggest, albeit “[t]he first document can
be a ‘modified’ and/or ‘updated’ version of a[n] archived document
(identified document)” (as Nye discloses) the content is similar. Ans. 13.
The rating system described in Nye does “consider the date that website
content has been last updated when determining whether the site contains
relevant content.” Para. [0142]. In that regard, Nye discloses that a first
Appeal 2011-011579
Application 11/379,094

11
document (i.e., archived website content) may be attributed a date when it
was archived (“by comparing the content of the website with content
archived at an internet archival site”), while a second document (i.e.,
updated website content) may be attributed the last date it was updated
(“[t]he rating system may consider the date that website content has been
last updated when determining whether the site contains relevant content.”)
Accordingly, paragraph [0142] of Nye describes determining when website
content was last updated. Relying upon a relevancy rating system, Nye
provides a first document (i.e., archived website content) which may be
similar to a second document (i.e., updated website content).
The Appellant also challenges the Examiner’s finding that Charikar
discloses the claim limitation “wherein the at least one of the identified
documents is not associated with the unique web address associated with the
first document.” Br. 12. See Ans. 15.
In relying on Charikar as evidence that the claimed limitation
“wherein the at least one of the identified documents is not associated with
the unique web address associated with the first document” is known in the
prior art, the Examiner specifically cites column 1, lines 28-34; column 2,
lines 10-22; column 3, lines 44-63; and, column 6, lines 25-41. Ans. 5.
The claim limitation here at issue calls for “not associated” (claim 1).
The Specification provides no express definition for “associated.”
Accordingly, we give it the ordinary and customary usage, which is to join
together or be connected. Thus “not associated” (claim 1) in the context of
the claimed subject matter is reasonably broadly construed to cover an
identified document not connected to a first document’s unique web address.
Appeal 2011-011579
Application 11/379,094

12
In that regard, Charikar discloses that
[i]f two documents, based on their sketches, are more similar
than a predefined similarity threshold, similarity generator 124
may, for example, remove one of the two documents from
document corpus 135. In this manner, search engine program
120 is less likely to return redundant or overly similar results in
response to user queries.
Col. 3, ll. 51-57. Here, the removed document is not connected to the first
document’s unique web address and thus meets the claim limitation “at least
one of the identified documents is not associated with the unique web
address associated with the first document” (claim 1) as reasonably broadly
construed.
Finally, the Appellant argues that that the motivation for modifying
Nye in light of Charikar to reach the claimed subject matter that the
Examiner articulates is improper. Br. 13. The Appellant argues that to make
the modification as the Examiner suggests would render the Nye process
inoperable. Id. In that regard, the Appellant argues that “an archived version
of a website is inherently associated with the same web address as the
current website. A statement to the contrary, seems illogical, because an
archived version of a website is necessarily associated with the current
website — otherwise it is not considered an archived version.” Id. We
disagree. The Appellant’s construction of the claim term “associated” is
unreasonably narrow. As discussed earlier, “associated” is reasonably
broadly construed to cover an identified document not connected to a first
document’s unique web address. An archived version of a website is not
necessarily connected to the same web address as a current website. Note,
furthermore that paragraph [0142] of Nye would appear to refute the
Appeal 2011-011579
Application 11/379,094

13
Appellant’s assertion that “an archived version of a website is necessarily
associated with the current website.” Nye describes that using a relevancy
rating system, a first document (i.e., archived website content) may be
similar to a second document (i.e., currently updated website content). The
archived website content may be accessed by examining the content of the
website with content archived at an internet archival site (i.e., a different
URL address) from the content of a website (i.e., currently updated). Thus,
while the first document (i.e., archived website content) may be similar to
the content of the second document (i.e., currently updated website content),
it is not inherently associated with the same URL address because Nye
discloses that the archived web content and the currently updated web
content are stored on distinct websites with distinct URL addresses.
For the foregoing reasons we are unpersuaded that the Examiner has
failed to provide an an apparent reasoning with logical underpinning for
combining the references in making the obviousness determination.
We have reviewed all the arguments. We are unpersuaded as to error
in the rejection.

Claims 2, 5-8, and 11-13
The Appellant argued claims 2, 5-8, and 11-13 as a group (Br. 14-20).
We select claim 8 as the representative claim for this group, and the
remaining claims 5-8 and 11-13 stand or fall with claim 8. 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
Independent claim 8 includes much of the subject matter of claim 1.
The Examiner’s position as to the obviousness of claim 8 parallels that of the
Appeal 2011-011579
Application 11/379,094

14
rejection of claim 1 (Ans. 8) and the Appellant’s arguments challenging the
rejection of claim 8 is much the same as those argued in challenge of claim
1. Given this, we find the arguments challenging the rejection of claim 8
unpersuasive for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the
unpersuasive arguments challenging the rejection of claim 1.

Claims 3 and 9
These claims further limit the step of “associating in the computer
system the second piece of content with an attribute associated with the first
piece of content” (claim 2) and “associating the second piece of content with
an attribute associated with the first piece of content” such that the
associated attribute is a date. The Examiner cited various passages in Nye in
support of finding that said limitation, whereby the associated attribute is a
date, is disclosed in Nye. Ans. 7. The Appellants do not address these
passages but rather relies on arguments made in challenging the rejection of
claims 1 and 2. See Br. 20. Since we found the arguments challenging the
rejection of claims 1 and 2 unpersuasive, given no other arguments we find
them equally unpersuasive as to error in the rejection of claims 3 and 9.

Claims 4 and 10
The Appellants do not address the passages in Nye the Examiner cited
in support of finding that the limitations of claims 4 and 10 are disclosed in
Nye. See Ans. 7. Rather, the Appellant relies on arguments made in
challenging the rejection of claim 3 – which in turn rely on arguments
challenging the rejection of claims 1 and 2. See Br. 21. Since we found the
Appeal 2011-011579
Application 11/379,094

15
arguments challenging the rejection of claims 1 and 2 unpersuasive, given
no other arguments we find them equally unpersuasive as to error in the
rejection of claims 4 and 10.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-13 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

hh