Ex Parte Gorelick et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2017

13088266 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2017)

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.
13/088,266 04/15/2011 Richard B. Gorelick 2043.063US4 8064
49845 7590 04/03/2017
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
EXAMINER
JUNG, SEUNG WOON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2144
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/03/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
USPTO@SLWIP.COM
SLW @blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICHARD B. GORELICK, STEVEN G. MADERE, MICHAEL
D. McCARTNEY, MATTHEW W. MENGERINK and DAVID J. WILSON
Appeal 2017-001235
Application 13/088,2661
Technology Center 2100
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
TERRENCE W. MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1—18. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is eBay Inc. (App. Br. 2).
Appeal 2017-001235
Application 13/088,266
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1—3, 6, 7, 10-12, 15, and 16 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hoelzle et al. (US 7,421,432 Bl,
published Sept. 2, 2008) and Rodkin et al. (US 6,092,074, published July 18,
2000).
Claims 4 and 13 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hoelzle, Rodkin, and Belanger et al. (US
2001/0020244 Al, published Sept. 6, 2001).
Claims 5 and 14 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hoelzle, Rodkin, and Landau et al. (US
2001/0047413 Al, published Nov. 29, 2001).
Claims 8 and 17 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hoelzle, Rodkin, and Kanada (“Axis-specified
Search: A Fine-grained Full-text Search Method for Gathering and
Structuring Excerpts,” ACM Digital Libraries, 1998).
Claims 9 and 18 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hoelzle, Rodkin, Belanger, and Kosmynin (US
2001/0054084 Al, published Dec. 20, 2001).
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
The present invention relates to “a method for automatically inserting
relevant hyperlinks into a webpage that is transmitted and displayed on the
Internet.” Spec. 12. Independent claim 1 is directed to a method; and
independent claim 10 is directed to a system. App. Br. 19—20.
2
Appeal 2017-001235
Application 13/088,266
Claim 1 recites
1. A method for automatically communicating a plurality of
hyperlinks associated with text that is contained in a webpage, the
method comprising:
receiving the text, via a network, from a website;
comparing a first portion of the text to at least one character
string that is stored in a database to identify the first portion of the text
as being included in both the web page and the database, the first
portion of the text further being associated with a first hyperlink;
comparing a second portion of the text to at least one character
string that is stored in the database to identify the second portion of
the text as being included in both the webpage and the database, the
second portion of the text further being associated with a second
hyperlink; and
communicating a list to the website, the list including the
plurality of hyperlinks that is associated with the text that is contained
in the webpage, the plurality of hyperlinks including the first and the
second hyperlinks.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner erred. We are not persuaded that Appellants
identify reversible error. Upon consideration of the arguments presented in
the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, we agree with the Examiner that all the
pending claims are unpatentable over the cited combination of references.
We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejection from
which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer. We provide the
following explanation to highlight and address specific arguments and
findings primarily for emphasis.
3
Appeal 2017-001235
Application 13/088,266
Appellants contend the combined teachings of Rodkin and Hoelzle do
not teach or suggest “comparing a first portion of the text to at least one
character string that is stored in a database to identify the first portion of the
text as being included in both the web page and the database, the first
portion of the text further being associated with a first hyperlink, comparing
a second portion of the text to at least one character string that is stored in
the database to identify the second portion of the text as being included in
both the webpage and the database, the second portion of the text further
being associated with a second hyperlink, and communicating a list to the
website, the list including the plurality of hyperlinks that is associated with
the text that is contained in the webpage, the plurality of hyperlinks
including the first and the second hyperlinks,” as recited in claim 1. See
App. Br. 8—17. Specifically, Appellants argue “Rodkin describes destination
addresses as being updated in temporal isolation to each other and as
unrelated to each other,” and thereby Rodkin does not teach the claimed
“list.” App. Br. 13. Appellants’argument is based in Appellants’
contention that the claimed “list” requires more than merely a plurality of
hyperlinks associated to portions of the text. See App. Br. 11—12.
Appellants further contend that “Hoelzle fails to teach “.. .communicating
the plurality of hyperlinks to the website. as recited in claim 1. App. Br.
16.
Appellants’ argument against Hoelzle separately from Rodkin does
not persuasively rebut the combination made by the Examiner. One cannot
show non-obviousness by attacking references individually, where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc.,
4
Appeal 2017-001235
Application 13/088,266
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(CCPA 1981).
Specifically, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that a list of
hyperlinks includes “a list of the hyperlinks contained within each text
document,” which is substantially similar to the claimed “plurality of
hyperlinks that is associated with the text that is contained in the webpage.”
Ans. 7; citing Spec. 158. We further agree with the Examiner’s finding that
Hoelzle teaches the claimed “the list including the plurality of hyperlinks
that is associated with the text that is contained in the webpage, the plurality
of hyperlinks including at least the first and second hyperlinks,” and that the
“[o]nly missing thing in Hoelzle is browser assistant sending hyperlinks
back to the website,” which is taught by Rodkin. Ans. 6.
For example, Hoelzle discloses:
...The browser assistant 330 may analyze the document to
identify information, such as names of people, companies, or
organizations, products, publications, and/or key phrases... For
the name(s), product(s), publication(s), and/or key phrase(s)
identified, the browser assistant 330 may embed a link into the
document [act 930]. For the name(s) identified, for example, the
browser assistant 330 may embed into the document a link to a
document whose incoming (i.e., linking) anchor text contains the
name (e.g., the homepage corresponding to the name). For the
product(s) identified, the browser assistant 330 may embed into
the document a link to the producers, sellers, and/or reviews of
the product. For the publication(s) identified, the browser
assistant 330 may embed into the document a link to the URL
where the publication can be found. For the key phrase(s)
identified, the browser assistant 330 may embed into the
document a link to a high quality document containing the key
phrase... The server 130 may maintain a database of names,
products, publications, and key phrases. The server 130 may use
the name, product, publication title, or key phrase as a query into
the database to identify a link to a corresponding document...
5
Appeal 2017-001235
Application 13/088,266
The browser assistant 330 may send the query to a search engine,
such as the search engine 125. The search engine 125 may return
a document containing the search results. The search results
may take the form of a list of links...
Hoelzle col. 10,11. 16—50 (emphasis added). Rodkin discloses:
...The content server 410processes an on-line text article 405
using an executable Intelligent Annotator 412 to automatically
associate hypertext anchor codes with various character strings
in the article. A resulting on-line article with hypertext 415 can
be produced and stored locally on the content server 410.
Alternatively, computer information (e.g., digital data) can be
provided to a Web user which displays the annotated article with
hypertext 415, but the annotated article with hypertext 415 need
not be pre-processed and stored as a discrete file. The hypertext
in the article 415 is termed Dynamic Hypertext in accordance
with the present invention.
Rodkin col. 12,11. 34-42 (emphases added). In other words, Hoelzle
describes comparing portions of text to information in a database to identify
links associated with the portions of text, and providing a list of links in
response to a search query; and Rodkin describes similarly associating
hypertext (links) to text, and displaying the article with the hypertext (links)
included.
Appellants do not provide persuasive evidence or argument that the
combined teachings of Hoelzle and Rodkin do not teach or suggest
comparing portions of text to a database to identify associated hyperlinks
and communicating a list of the hyperlinks associated with the text to the
website and including the hyperlinks. Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s
finding that Hoelzle’s comparing of portions of text to a database to identify
associated links, and presenting search results as a list of links in response to
a query triggering the comparing of the text to identify the associated
hyperlinks, teaches or suggests “comparing a first portion of the text to at
6
Appeal 2017-001235
Application 13/088,266
least one character string that is stored in a database to identify the first
portion of the text as being included in both the web page and the database,
the first portion of the text further being associated with a first hyperlink,
comparing a second portion of the text to at least one character string that is
stored in the database to identify the second portion of the text as being
included in both the webpage and the database, the second portion of the text
further being associated with a second hyperlink'' and a “list including the
plurality of hyperlinks that is associated with the text that is contained in the
webpage, the plurality of hyperlinks including the first and the second
hyperlinks,” as recited in claim 1; and Rodkin’s similarly associating
hypertext (links) to text, and displaying the article with the hypertext (links),
teaches or suggests “communicating a list to the website, the list including
the plurality of hyperlinks that is associated with the text that is contained in
the webpage, the plurality of hyperlinks including the first and the second
hyperlinks,” as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the § 103(a) rejection of independent claim 1,
as well as the rejections of commensurate independent claim 10, and
dependent claims 2—9 and 11—18, not separately argued. See App. Br. 9, 18.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1—18 is affirmed.
7
Appeal 2017-001235
Application 13/088,266
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