Ex Parte Massie et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 23, 2014

11941554 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte WILLIAM RYAN MASSIE,
WILLIAM EDWARD REED JR., and YUE RONA YANG

____________________

Appeal 2012-007521
Application 11/941,554
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JASON V. MORGAN, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–5, 8–16, and 19–29. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 6, 7, 17, and 18 have been cancelled. Br. 3.
We AFFIRM.2

1 The Appeal Brief identifies IAC Search & Media, Inc. as the real party in
interest. Br. 3.
2 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed on September 7, 2011
(“Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed November 28, 2011 (“Ans.”); and
original Specification filed November 16, 2007 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2012-007521
Application 11/941,554

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims on Appeal
Appellants’ application relates to user interfaces for conducting
searches. Spec. 1. Claim 1 is reproduced below (disputed limitations in
italics):
1. A computer-readable medium having stored thereon a set of
instructions that are executable by a processor of a server-computer
system, the set of instructions comprising a user interface, including:
a first view transmitted from the server computer system to a
client computer system, the first view including a search box for
entering a search query, a plurality of vertical search determinators
simultaneously displayed in the first view, each respective vertical
search determinator having a plurality of the search identifiers
uniquely associated therewith such that a first search identifier
associated with a first vertical search determinator is not associated
with a second vertical search determinator and a second search
identifier associated with the second vertical search determinator is
not associated with the first vertical search determinator, entry of
data in the search identifiers associated with one of the vertical search
determinators subsequently causing transmission of a first search
request from the client computer system and reception at the server
computer system, the first search request being utilized at the server
computer system to extract at least one search result from a search
data source, the search result including information relating to a
geographic location and the search result depends on the search query,
on a respective one of the vertical search determinators selected by a
user in the first view and the data entered in the plurality of search
identifiers associated with the respective vertical search determinator;
and
a second view, at least part of which is transmitted from the
server computer system to the client computer system for display at
Appeal 2012-007521
Application 11/941,554

3

the client computer system, wherein the second view includes the
search result.

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1, 3, 10, 12, 14, 21, 25, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Leishman.3 Ans. 5–13.
Claims 2, 13, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Leishman and Neale.4 Ans. 13–14.
Claims 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 15, 16, 19, 20, and 22–24 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Leishman and Kreitler.5
Ans. 15–21.
Claims 27 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Leishman and Lambert.6 Ans. 21–22.

ISSUE
Does Leishman disclose the limitation of claims 1, 12, and 25
reciting:
a plurality of vertical search determinators simultaneously
displayed in the first view, each respective vertical search
determinator having a plurality of [the]7 search identifiers
uniquely associated therewith such that a first search identifier
associated with a first vertical search determinator is not
associated with a second vertical search determinator and a
second search identifier associated with the second vertical

3 Leishman et al., U.S. Patent 7,707,140 B2, issued Apr. 27, 2010.
4 Neale et al., U.S. Patent 6,925,608 B1, issued Aug. 2, 2005.
5 Kreitler et al., U.S. Patent App. Publication 2006/0026170 A1, published
Feb. 2, 2006.
6 Lambert et al., U.S. Patent App. Publication 2007/0088616 A1, published
Apr. 19, 2007.
7 This word appears in claim 1 but not in claims 12 and 25.
Appeal 2012-007521
Application 11/941,554

4

search determinator is not associated with the first vertical
search determinator?

ANALYSIS
Rejection of Claims 1, 3, 10, 12, 14, 21, 25, and 28 under § 102(e)
Appellants contend that Leishman does not disclose the disputed
limitation of claims 1, 12, and 25 noted above. Br. 10–16. Appellants argue
that the search text box and the search field are the same structure and serve the
same purpose, and therefore cannot be the first vertical search determinator and
the first search identifier. Br. 13. We are not persuaded by this argument.
Figure 5 from Leishman is reproduced below:

Figure 5 illustrates a graphical user interface in Leishman. The
Examiner found that “Search” is a vertical search determinator, and the search
Appeal 2012-007521
Application 11/941,554

5

text box is a first search identifier associated with “Search.” Ans. 6. Figure 5
discloses that the search text box is separate from the “Search” label. Figure 5
illustrates a “GO” button next to the search text box also associated with
“Search.” This configuration is consistent with Appellants’ Specification: “An
area below the vertical search determinator 200 is open and search identifiers
in the form of a search box 206 and a search button 208 together with a
location identifier 210 are included in the area below the vertical search
determinator 200.” Spec. ¶ 93 (emphasis added). Based on the evidence of
record, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s findings regarding a
first vertical search determinator and a first search identifier.
Appellants also argue that the “Category Search” field and the
“Category Link” are identical structures and, therefore, cannot be a second
vertical search determinator and a second search identifier. Br. 13. We are not
persuaded because, as disclosed in Figure 5, the category links are separate
from the “Category Search” label.
Appellants further argue that the “Category Search” field does not
change and, thus, is not a determinator. Br. 16. Appellants still further argue
that the category links do not have unique search identifiers and there is no
teaching or suggestion that each of the categories provides different types of
search boxes. Br. 16. First, claim 1 does not require the determinators to
change, and Appellants do not direct us to persuasive evidence, such as a
definition in the Specification, requiring that determinators change. Second,
claim 1 does not require “different types of search boxes,” as argued by
Appellants. Rather, claim 1 requires “entry of data in the search identifiers.”
The Examiner found that Leishman discloses this limitation through its
teaching that “search queries can be initiated either through a direct keyword
input or by clicking on any category item.” Ans. 6–7 (quoting Leishman, col.
Appeal 2012-007521
Application 11/941,554

6

5, ll. 26–28) (emphasis added). Based on the evidence of record, we are not
persuaded of error in this finding. Moreover, Appellants do not persuasively
distinguish the entry of data in a search identifier from clicking on a category
item, as disclosed by Leishman.
Appellants also argue that Leishman does not disclose an “iterative
search based on search identifiers as claimed in the present invention.” Br. 16.
This argument is unpersuasive because the claims do not recite an “iterative
search.”
Finally, Appellants argue that “Leishman does not have the ability to
generate unique search identifiers for different types of search
determinators . . . .” Br. 16. We do not find this argument persuasive because
the claims do not recite “generat[ing] unique search identifiers for different
types of search determinators.” Rather, claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “each
respective vertical search determinator having a plurality of the search
identifiers uniquely associated therewith.” Furthermore, as discussed above,
we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s findings with respect to the
vertical search determinators and the search identifiers.
Based on the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 12, and
25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Leishman.8 Appellants do not advance

8 Should there be further prosecution of this application (including any
review for allowance), the Examiner may wish to ascertain whether the
“computer-readable medium” of claims 1 and 25 encompasses non-
transitory media, rendering it patent ineligible. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d
1346, 1355–57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to
statutory subject matter); see also MPEP 2106 (discussing claims directed to
a “computer readable medium”). The Specification states: “The term
‘machine-readable medium’ shall accordingly be taken to include, but not be
limited to, solid-state memories, optical and magnetic media, and carrier
wave signals.” Spec ¶ 88 (emphasis added).
Appeal 2012-007521
Application 11/941,554

7

additional persuasive arguments for patentability of dependent claims 3, 10,
14, 21, and 28. Br. 17. Therefore, the rejection of these claims is also
sustained.
Rejection of Claims 2, 13, and 26 under § 103(a)
Appellants do not advance additional persuasive arguments for
patentability of dependent claims 2, 13, and 26. Br. 17. Therefore, the
rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Leishman and Neale
is also sustained.
Rejection of Claims 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 15, 16, 19, 20, and 22–24
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellants have not presented separate arguments contesting the
rejection of claims 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 15, 16, 19, 20, and 22–24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Leishman and Kreitler. As such, the rejection of these claims
is summarily sustained.
Rejection of Claims 27 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellants have not presented separate arguments contesting the
rejection of claims 27 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Leishman and
Lambert. As such, the rejection of these claims is summarily sustained.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3, 10, 12–14, 21, 25,
26, and 28.
We summarily affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 5, 8, 9, 11,
15, 16, 19, 20, 22–24, 27, and 29.
Appeal 2012-007521
Application 11/941,554

8

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

tj