Ex Parte Gourlay

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 26, 2010

10424172 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 26, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ALASTAIR GOURLAY
____________

Appeal 2009-005071
Application 10/424,172
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: April 26, 2010
____________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
CAROLYN D. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-18, and 20-24, which are all of the
remaining claims in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2009-005071
Application 10/424,172

2

Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to a method of creating and distributing
a customized query. A first user first submits a first query including a
plurality of query terms and display options to a search engine through a
user interface. Based on the query results returned from the search engine,
the user can further modify his input. The search engine constructs a first
URL in response to the first query. A second user who receives the first
URL can search within the query results by refining the first query. The
second user can also create a second query through modifying the first query
according to his preferences, and then pass a second URL constructed by the
search engine to another user. Abstract.

Representative Claim
1. A method of creating and distributing a
customized search query, comprising:
in response to a first user’s commands, defining a first
search query, wherein the first search query comprises a first set
of terms inputted in a first edit field that are required to be
included in the query results, a second set of terms that are
inputted in a second edit field that are optional and preferred to
be included in the query results, and a third set of terms that are
inputted in a third edit field that are not allowed to be included
in the query results;
Appeal 2009-005071
Application 10/424,172

3
displaying a plurality of display options relating to look
and feel to the first user to define a display form associated with
the first search query;
constructing a URL that is defined by the first user that
has associated therewith the first search query and the display
form defined by the first user to display search results generated
using the first search query, wherein the constructed URL is
based on combining the first search query and the display form;
sending the URL from the first user to a second user;
upon activation of the URL by the second user,
submitting the first search query to a search
engine;
displaying query results received from the search
engine within the display form incorporated in the URL;
displaying a window to receive a query
refinement; and upon entry of a query refinement by the
second user,
submitting a second query to the search engine, the
second query comprising the first search query combined
with the query refinement.

Prior Art
Edlund 6,484,162 B1 Nov. 19, 2002
Davison 2003/0037069 A1 Feb. 20, 2003
Breen 6,615,188 B1 Sep. 2, 2003
Burke 6,665,687 B1 Dec. 16, 2003
Fisk 7,003,506 B1 Feb. 21, 2006

Appeal 2009-005071
Application 10/424,172

4

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8-10, 12, 13, 16-18, 20, 21, and 24 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fisk, Burke, Edlund,
and Breen.
Claims 6, 7, 14, 15, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fisk, Burke, Edlund, and Davison.

Claim Groupings
In view of Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claims 1 and 16. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ISSUE
Has Appellant shown that the combination of Fisk, Burke, Edlund,
and Breen fails to teach displaying a plurality of display options relating to
look and feel to the first user to define a display form associated with the
first search query, as recited in claim 1?

FINDINGS OF FACT
Fisk
1. Fisk teaches a method and system for creating and using an
embedded search link document. Embedded search link documents are
search-enabled through the use of a wizard, which prompts a user to open an
HTML-formatted genesis document in an editing pane. The user may add
and manipulate search links to the genesis document by customizing the
relevant search parameters. The user can tailor a search by selecting various
Appeal 2009-005071
Application 10/424,172

5
search parameters describing the search objective. The search engine finds
documents meeting the search criteria from a catalog built by crawling
World Wide Web sites. The documents are filtered for relevance and
compiled into a results list that is returned to the user, who may designate
certain links as preferred links that are compressed and stored (as document
URLs). The preferred links show up at the top of the search results list. The
genesis document is saved as an embedded search link document. Later
users may initiate searches by accessing an embedded search link. Abstract;
col. 3, l. 45 to col. 5, l. 7.
Breen
2. Breen teaches a trading server that collects orders from a
plurality of order terminals. Orders are aggregated by transaction type, such
as buy or sell types, and issued by the issuer. The combined orders are
executed as a single transaction on an exchange. Abstract.
3. The trading server includes a transaction server, a user interface
server, a publication server, and an administrative interface. Col. 10, ll. 38-
42.
4. The user interface server generates the presentation layer of the
site that interacts with investors making orders. The user interface server
uses templates of pattern files to define the “look and feel” of the
presentation layer. The pattern files can be easily manipulated to configure
the look and feel of the site as desired. The user interface server combines
information from the transaction server and the appropriate template to
deliver information to the order terminals (usually a Web browser) in an
appropriate form. Col. 11, ll. 22-35.
Appeal 2009-005071
Application 10/424,172

6
5. The publication server uses a template-based publishing process
to publish information in web pages that contain new content and the “look
and feel” embodied in the template. Col. 11, ll. 47-53.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Obviousness
The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and
(3) the level of skill in the art. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17
(1966). “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).

ANALYSIS
Appellant contends that Breen does not disclose the display of a
plurality of display options that relate to look and feel that are selected by a
user. Br. 9. Breen teaches defining the look and feel of a presentation layer
that interacts with investors making orders by using templates of pattern
files. A user can easily manipulate the pattern files to configure the look and
feel of the ordering site. FF 2-5. The phrase “displaying a plurality of
display options relating to look and feel to the first user to define a display
form” encompasses manipulating pattern files to configure the look and feel
of order forms as suggested by Breen.
Appellant contends that Breen does not teach that the display form is
associated with a search query. Br. 9. However, the Examiner finds that
Appeal 2009-005071
Application 10/424,172

7
Fisk teaches a display form that is associated with a search query. Ans. 4.
Appellant’s contention does not address the Examiner’s findings.
Displaying a plurality of display options relating to look and feel to the first
user to define a display form as taught by Breen, where the display form is
associated with the first search query as taught by Fisk, is the combination of
familiar elements according to known methods that does no more than yield
predictable results.
Appellant also contends that neither Breen nor Fisk teaches
“constructing a URL that is defined by the first user that has associated
therewith the first search query and the display form defined by the first
user.” Br. 10-11. However, the Examiner finds that Fisk teaches
constructing a URL that is defined by the first user that has associated
therewith the first search query (Ans. 4, 14; FF 1), and Breen teaches the
display form defined by the first user (Ans. 6; FF 2-5). The Examiner
further finds that associating “the first search query” taught by Fisk with
“the display form defined by the first user” taught by Breen when
constructing the URL would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of invention for the benefit of providing customization.
Ans. 6. Appellant’s contentions do not address the Examiner’s findings.
Appellant has not provided separate arguments for the patentability of
claims 2, 4-10, 12-18, and 20-24, but submit that claims 2, 4-10, 12-18, and
20-24 are allowable for the reasons given with respect to claim 1. Br. 11.
Because we find the arguments for claim 1 unpersuasive, we sustain the
§ 103(a) rejections of claims 2, 4-10, 12-18, and 20-24.

Appeal 2009-005071
Application 10/424,172

8
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellant has not shown that the combination of Fisk, Burke, Edlund,
and Breen fails to teach displaying a plurality of display options relating to
look and feel to the first user to define a display form associated with the
first search query, as recited in claim 1.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8-10, 12, 13, 16-18, 20, 21, and 24
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fisk, Burke, Edlund,
and Breen is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 6, 7, 14, 15, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fisk, Burke, Edlund, and Davison 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.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

msc

YAHOO! INC.
C/O Ostrow Kaufman & Frankl LLP
The Chrysler Building
405 Lexington Avenue, 62nd Floor
NEW YORK NY 10174