Ex Parte Long

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2018

14031988 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/031,988 09/19/2013 Dustin Long
26192 7590 02/02/2018
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
PO BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
16113-1887002 4256
EXAMINER
WOO, ANDREW M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2441
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2018 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):
P ATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DUSTIN LONG
Appeal2016-007325
Application 14/031,988 1
Technology Center 2400
Before JUSTIN BUSCH, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 2-19. Appellant has canceled claim 1. App. Br. 7. Oral arguments
were heard on January 18, 2018. A transcript of the hearing will be placed
in the record in due course. We have jurisdiction over the remaining
pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellant identifies Google Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2016-007325
Application 14/031,988
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's disclosed and claimed invention is directed to generating
a search results page in response to a search query wherein each of the
search results includes a style (as provided in a style specification sheet) and
"the style includ[ es] a behavior trigger indicating user selection of the link in
the webpage." Spec. 1 :22-26. As described in Appellant's Specification, as
part of generating results to a search query, for each result document, a code
segment is included (i.e., encoded) that specifies the result document
belongs to a particular class. Spec. 11: 15-20. The class specification
associates the link with a corresponding click-tracking style, defined by a
style sheet specification. Spec. 11 :20-23. Figure 2 from Appellant's
Specification is illustrative and is reproduced below.
i~ ..::;·i~~~:::~.~
:~ ..::t)o:._bo-;;y-.:-- ('"' 'lffl~
I! ;;~i~~i?~@Ek:;~~E'.;;;;:1::,;;:,-,i
l: ~ .. :~':!):~ ~- l:cJ·Sa ~
I ~~~~~~~~~~~~,;~CCfl~;:~,:
!. -=·:1'=.:- ::_:n:-~~~~:~.1
Sf:i:~::-~~b frt:-~~: f~~:s.s;~~ ~~~-~b-p.~:.~3~: -~
M:tp-:_:'}'\.~·°'N'-''.{e~~~k .. ·~ .h:trr::~
; . ..-ok ;;.:: ;~•;;:;x:C~ ~''i::::t·m~sx:: 4
~:i::::f;;;X.-:~$ {~;.~~~ B~':-$:U:~ ~ ..... ~::-:bp:;l:f~~:- ~=
~~~;t.p. :\·"<.·~ .......... <..•.(t;-"!$'.>~~. -~~ ~:~}iit
ri11>;,
........
FIG .. 2
Appeal2016-007325
Application 14/031,988
Figure 2 illustrates example source code (200a) for displaying search results
(200b) to a query. Spec. 3:26-27, 11:8-14. Referring to the source code
portion (200a), two result documents (202a, 202b) comprise the search
results. Spec. 11: 8-14. Links to each result are specified by their respective
URLs (Uniform Resource Locators) (e.g., 204a). Spec. 11:17-18. As
illustrated, encoded within the leading anchor tag is a code segment that
specifies the link to the result document (204a) belongs to a specific class
(206a) (i.e., ). Spec. 11: 18-21. "This class specification
associates the link with a corresponding click-tracking style defined by the
CSS [(Cascading Style Sheets)] style specification 214a." Spec. 11:21-23.
According to the Specification, indication of user actions associated
with search results may be collected from multiple users and aggregated
over time to adjust the ranking of the documents presented in response to a
search query. Spec. 1:16-19. "[T]he general level of back-links to a
document that contains matches for a search term may be used to infer a
document's relevance." Spec. 5:27-28.
Claim 2 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized in italics:
2. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a search query from a computing device;
generating a search results page that encodes a resource
identifier associated with a click tracking server in a style
specification for an attribute of a reference to a resource that is
identified in response to the search query; and
providing the search results page to the computing device
in response to the search query.
3
Appeal2016-007325
Application 14/031,988
The Examiner's Rejection
Claims 2-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Reisman (US 2003/0229900 Al; Dec. 11, 2003) and
Weisberg (US 2007/0245249 Al; Oct. 18, 2007). Final Act. 3-14.
ANALYSIS2
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds, inter alia, Reisman teaches
generating a search results page that encodes a resource identifier. Final
Act. 3--4 (citing Reisman ,-i,-i 593, 685). The Examiner relies on Weisberg to
teach a click tracking server in a style specification for an attribute of a
reference to a resource that is identified in response to the search query.
Final Act. 4 (citing Weisman ,-i,-i 29, 39, 49). The Examiner concludes it
would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to combine
Weisberg' s teachings of a tracking server in a style specification associated
with Reisman' s search results "in order to increase the convenience of
having the user interface to appear as the requested style web page." Final
Act. 4-5.
Reisman is generally directed to navigating hypermedia using
multiple input/output devices (e.g., interactive television (ITV) and a
personal computer (PC)). Reisman ,-i,-i 2-3, 10, 24. Reisman describes the
use of a multimachine user interface (MMUI) for browsing across different
devices. Reisman ,-i,-i 27-28. Additionally, Reisman describes the
2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
November 18, 2015 ("App. Br."); the Reply Brief, filed July 18, 2016
("Reply Br."); the Examiner's Answer, mailed May 18, 2016 ("Ans."); and
the Final Office Action, mailed May 7, 2015 ("Final Act."), from which this
Appeal is taken.
4
Appeal2016-007325
Application 14/031,988
"coordination of TV viewing with related Web activity" such that "a
viewer's access to resources on the Web is placed into a degree of
correspondence with what they are viewing on TV." Reisman ,-i,-i 560-561.
Reisman also describes the disclosed methods as "providing a new kind of
search engine." Reisman ,-i 682. Similar to conventional search tasks "users
might be provided with a search entry form in which a search query text
string may be entered" and a ranking of search results provided. Reisman
,-i 683. Further, as part of an "automated coordination" of populating a
personalized portal service of content, Reisman discloses the use of
"encoded forms of URLs or other embedded linking codes." Reisman
,-i,-i 561, 593.
Weisberg is generally directed to providing an online chat session to a
visitor of a webpage. Weisberg ,-i 12. Weisberg discloses various
embodiments for implementing that chat client (e.g., a popup window or
framed content). Weisberg ,-i,-i 29, 39. Additionally, Weisberg discloses the
use of tracking pixels "to collect and store information about user visits (e.g.,
the user's cookie ID, page visits and duration) and a specific ad or link(s)
that the user clicked on to visit the site." Weisberg ,-i 49. Tracking
information may be passed along to the chat agent (i.e., representative).
Weisberg ,-i 50.
Appellant argues the prior art, either alone or in combination, fails to
teach or reasonably suggest "generating a search results page that encodes a
resource identifier associated with a click tracking server in a style
specification for an attribute of a reference to a resource that is identified in
response to the search query," as recited in claim 2. App. Br. 3-5; Reply
Br. 2-3. In particular, Appellant asserts Weisberg's teachings of tracking
5
Appeal2016-007325
Application 14/031,988
pixels, or injecting an HTML or CSS margin into a website operator's web
page are unrelated to an attribute of a reference to a resource identified in
response to a search query. App. Br. 3--4 (citing Weisberg ,-i,-i 39, 49, 59).
Similarly, Appellant contends Weisberg's use of tracking files, such as
Personal Identification Elements (PIE), is not described as being in response
to a search query, or otherwise encoded as part of the generated search
results. App. Br. 4 (citing Weisberg ,-i 29).
In response, the Examiner states:
The click tracking server [ (of Weisberg)] (the server
computer 102, para. 50) receives the request from the tracking
pixel (click tracking) which will trace back to the client/visitor
computer (i.e., computer) 106 and the agent (resource) servicing
the chat; the server 102 will identify which agent (attribute) is
engaged or assigned to the chat, and the server 102 will then
transit the agent a messaging (response) notifying the agent that
the customer has reached this page (specific style specification),
para. 50) in a style specification (action tags, para. 49) for an
attribute (tag may contain information, para. 50; the JavaScript
(reference) provides the capability to enable/disable (attribute),
start/stop, and make the chat visible or invisible, para. 55) of a
reference (information that is uniquely identifies the customer,
para. 50) to a resource (webpage that is displayed to the customer
based on the selection from the customer, para. 57) that is
identified in response to the search query (the server will respond
to the customer's request (search query), para. 57).
Ans. 5-6.
We are mindful that the test for obviousness is whether the
combination of references, taken as a whole, would have suggested the
patentee's invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In re Merck
& Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (Non-obviousness cannot be established by
attacking references individually where the ground of unpatentability is
6
Appeal2016-007325
Application 14/031,988
based upon the teachings of a combination of references). Further, to
support a legal conclusion of obviousness, "there must be some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning" for combining elements in the
manner claimed. KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)
(quoting In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Here, the Examiner has not provided sufficient persuasive technical
reasoning or evidence that the tracking pixels of Weisberg are specified (or
encoded) in a style specification for an attribute of a reference to a resource
identified in response to a search query. The Examiner has not shown that
the teachings of Weisberg are in response to a search query. Rather, the
Examiner's Answer appears to equate an agent (i.e., the chat representative)
with a resource and an attribute (which the Examiner also appears to equate
with a tag). Further, the Examiner has not persuasively explained, or shown
by a preponderance of evidence, how Reisman's disclosed search engine and
results would be modified by the tracking pixel facility of Weisberg to teach
the disputed claim limitation.
We note Reisman discloses "[a] portal might collect feedback on
browsing behavior, such as clickstreams, ... to learn when its estimations
were confirmed by viewing and related browsing." Reisman ,-i 568; see also
Reisman ,-i 569 (describing using clickstream data as part of a semi-
automated linking portal). However, the Examiner has not addressed these
disclosures in Reisman, or how such clickstream information may be
embedded in the search results. 3 See Reisman ,-i 593.
3 Although the Board is authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b), no inference should be drawn when the Board elects not to do so.
See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1213.02 (9th ed. Rev.
08.2017, Jan. 2018).
7
Appeal2016-007325
Application 14/031,988
For the reasons discussed supra, we are persuaded of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 2. For similar reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 8 and 14, which recite similar limitations. Additionally,
we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 3-7, 9-13, and 15-19,
which depend therefrom.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 2-19.
REVERSED
8