Ex Parte Henzinger et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 8, 2010

10672248 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 8, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MONIKA HENZINGER and MATTHIAS RUHL
____________

Appeal 2009-003375
Application 10/672,248
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: March 8, 2010
____________

Before JAMES D. THOMAS, LEE E. BARRETT, and
ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-8, 10, 12-21, 23-26, and 28-30. Claims 9, 11, 22, 27,
and 31 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2009-003375
Application 10/672,248

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates generally to content retrieval on the
World Wide Web. More particularly, the invention on appeal is directed to
automated web crawling. (Spec., para. [0002]).

ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIMS
1. A method for crawling documents comprising:

receiving a uniform resource locator (URL);

receiving at least two different copies of a document
associated with the URL; and

determining whether a web site corresponding to the
URL uses session identifiers based on a comparison of URLs
that are within the document and that change between the at
least two different copies of the document, where the web site is
determined to use session identifiers when a portion of the
URLs that change between the at least two different copies of
the document is greater than a threshold.

10. A method for identifying web sites that use session
identifiers comprising:

downloading at least two different copies of at least one
document from a web site;

extracting uniform resource locators (URLs) from the
two different copies of the web document;

comparing the extracted URLs of the two different copies
of the document; and

Appeal 2009-003375
Application 10/672,248

3
determining whether the web site uses session identifiers
when the comparison indicates that at least a portion of the
URLs change between the two different copies.

15. A device comprising:

a spider component configured to crawl web documents
associated with at least one web site; and

a session identifier component configured to determine
whether the web site uses session identifiers based on a
comparison of a portion of uniform resource locators (URLs)
that change between different copies of at least one web
document downloaded from the web site.

PRIOR ART
Galai WO 03/017023 A2 Feb. 27, 2003
DaCosta US 6,665,658 B1 Dec. 16, 2003

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-8, 10, 12-21, 23-26, and 28-30 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Galai and
DaCosta.

CONTENTIONS BY APPELLANTS
Appellants contend, inter alia, that “[c]omparing a web page for
similarity in content or visual similarity, as disclosed by Galai, . . . cannot be
said to disclose or suggest determining whether a web site corresponding to
Appeal 2009-003375
Application 10/672,248

4
a URL uses session identifiers ‘based on a comparison of URLs that are
within the document and that change between the at least two different
copies of the document . . . .’” (App. Br. 8, ¶3).

THE EXAMINER’S RESPONSE
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner proffers that “it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
that the same [Galai’s] threshold could be used to determine the difference
between URLs for web pages, since the difference threshold [as claimed]
would have been the inverse or opposite of [Galai’s] similarity threshold
number.” (Ans. 5, ¶2, last four lines, emphasis added).

ISSUE
Based upon our review of the administrative record, we have
determined that the following issue is dispositive in this appeal:
Under § 103, would the combination of Galai and
DaCosta have taught or suggested determining whether a
web site corresponding to a URL uses session identifiers
based on a comparison of URLs that are within the
document and that change between the at least two
different copies of the document?

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“What matters is the objective reach of the claim. If the claim extends
to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). To be nonobvious, an improvement must be
Appeal 2009-003375
Application 10/672,248

5
“more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions.” Id. at 417.

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Galai teaches that “the comparison function of the present invention
preferably checks for similarity in content and more preferably
produces a similarity level, which is the likelihood of the two Web
pages to have the same content. If this value exceeds a certain
threshold, then most preferably the removed parameter is considered
to be redundant.” (P. 27, ll. 18-22).
2. Galai teaches that “[a]ccording to preferred embodiments of the
present invention, the level of similarity is determined according to
visual similarity. Visual similarity is preferably determined according
to two different types of parameters. A first type of parameter is
based upon content of the document, such as text and/or images for
example. A second type of parameter is based upon visual layout
characteristics of the document, such as the presence of one or more
GUI (graphical user interface) gadgets or the location of text and/or
images, for example.” (P. 27, l. 23 through p. 28, l. 6).
3. DaCosta teaches determining if a website listed on a manually created
URL site list is an interactive web site that sets “cookies” by
performing a “GET method” (as defined by the hypertext transfer
protocol, HTTP) to download the content of the website. (Col. 6, ll.
22-30).

Appeal 2009-003375
Application 10/672,248

6
ANALYSIS
Independent claims 1, 10, 15, 21, and 26
We decide the question of whether the combination of Galai and
DaCosta would have taught or suggested determining whether a web site
corresponding to a URL uses session identifiers based on a comparison of
URLs that are within the document and that change between the at least two
different copies of the document. (See commensurate limitations recited in
each of independent claims 1, 10, 15, 21, and 26).
After considering the evidence before us, and the respective
arguments on both sides, we conclude that the Examiner’s proffered
combination of Galai and DaCosta would not have fairly rendered obvious
Appellants’ claimed invention. In particular, we agree with Appellants’
principal argument that Galai’s comparison function that checks for
similarity in content (as described by Galai at page 21, lines 4-7), does not
teach nor fairly suggest determining whether a web site corresponding to a
URL uses session identifiers based on a comparison of URLs that are within
the document and that change between the at least two different copies of the
document, within the meaning of Appellants’ independent claims on appeal.
(App. Br. 8-9).
Specifically, we note that Galai teaches “the comparison function of
the present invention preferably checks for similarity in content and more
preferably produces a similarity level, which is the likelihood of the two Web
pages to have the same content.” (FF 1, emphasis in original). In contrast,
Appeal 2009-003375
Application 10/672,248

7
Appellants’ claimed invention looks for changes or differences in URLs
between two different copies of a web page document and thus compares
URLs embedded within two documents.
We find unpersuasive the Examiner’s gap-filling reasoning that “it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention that the same [Galai’s] threshold could be used to determine the
difference between URLs for web pages, since the difference threshold [as
claimed by Appellants] would have been the inverse or opposite of [Galai’s]
similarity threshold number.” (Ans. 5, ¶2, last four lines, emphasis added).
We observe that Galai’s similarity level is clearly described as “the
likelihood of the two Web pages to have the same content.” (FF 1, underline
added). As discussed supra, Appellants’ claimed invention looks for
changes or differences in URLs between two different copies of a web page
document. If anything, the Examiner has laid the foundation for a “teaching
away” argument.
Moreover, we find Galai teaches that the comparison to determine the
level of similarity between two web pages is performed according to the
level of visual similarity of the web pages, based on two specific types of
parameters. (FF 2). Galai describes the first type of parameter as being
based upon the content of the document, such as text and/or images. (Id.).
Galai describes second type of parameter is based upon the visual layout
characteristics of the document, such as the presence of one or more GUI
(graphical user interface) gadgets, or the location of text and/or images.
(Id.). Thus, we find Galai compares visual elements (instead of the URLs
Appeal 2009-003375
Application 10/672,248

8
compared by Appellants’ claimed invention), and also looks for similarities
between the visual elements instead of looking for changes in URLs (i.e.,
differences), as claimed by Appellants.
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we find Galai’s comparison
that looks for similarities between visual or layout elements of two web
pages does not teach nor fairly suggest determining whether a web site
corresponding to a URL uses session identifiers based on a comparison of
URLs that are within the document and that change between the at least two
different copies of the document. (See commensurate limitations recited in
each of independent claims 1, 10, 15, 21, and 26).
While the Examiner looks to the secondary DaCosta reference as
purportedly teaching that URLs are compared for the specific purpose of
determining whether the web site uses session identifiers (Ans. 5-6), we find
the portion of DaCosta relied on by the Examiner performs no comparison
of URLs between different copies of at least one web page document, within
the meaning of Appellants’ independent claims. Instead, DaCosta
determines if a website listed on a manually created URL site list is an
interactive web site that sets “cookies” by performing a “GET method” (as
defined by the hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP)) to download the content
of the website. Therefore, we find DaCosta fails to overcome the
deficiencies of Galai.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claims 1, 10, 15, 21, and 26. Because we have reversed the
Examiner’s rejection of each independent claim on appeal, we also reverse
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of each dependent claim on appeal.
Appeal 2009-003375
Application 10/672,248

9
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s proffered combination of Galai and DaCosta does not
teach nor fairly suggest determining whether a web site corresponding to a
URL uses session identifiers based on a comparison of URLs that are within
the document and that change between the at least two different copies of the
document. (See commensurate limitations recited in each of independent
claims 1, 10, 15, 21, and 26).

ORDER
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-8, 10, 12-21,
23-26, and 28-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

REVERSED

pgc

HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP
11350 Random Hills Road
SUITE 600
FAIRFAX, VA 22030