Ex Parte Westphal

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 9, 2015

11158039 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
___________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
___________________

Ex parte GEOFFRY A. WESTPHAL
___________________

Appeal 2012-011654
Application 11/158,039
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JAMESON LEE, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and JUSTIN T. ARBES,
Administrative Patent Judges.

ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-011654
Application 11/158,039

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 18–25. App. Br. 2. Claims 1–17 were cancelled. Id.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The Invention
Appellant purportedly invented a new process for using a selection
guide to locate one or more items of interest. Spec. 2:12–14. According to
Appellant, the disclosed invention automatically invokes a selection guide
when the search terms inputted by a prospective user into a free form search
query are determined to be associated with a category of an item for which
the selection guide will provide the most efficient mechanism for the user to
locate one or more items of interest. Id. at 2:14–18. The disclosed invention
compares the search terms inputted by the user into the free form search
query with a listing of keywords that have been associated with a number of
selection guides. Id. at 2:18–20. If a match is found, the corresponding
selection guide may be launched automatically. Id. at 2:20–22. In one
embodiment, the search terms inputted by the user into the free form search
query may be used to pre-populate a template used in connection with the
corresponding selection guide. Id. at 3:4–7. If it is determined, however,
that the free form search query will provide search results that are narrow in
scope so as not to frustrate the user, the search results may be provided to
the user instead of automatically launching the corresponding selection
guide. Id. at 3:1–4.

Appeal 2012-011654
Application 11/158,039

3
Illustrative Claim
Claim 18 is the only independent claim. Claim 18 is directed to a
computer-readable media for facilitating access to one or more items of
interest by launching a particular selection guide. Claims 19–25 directly or
indirectly depend from independent claim 18. Independent claim 18 is
illustrative of the disclosed invention and is reproduced below (emphases
added):
18. A computer-readable media having computer
executable instructions for facilitating access to one or more
items of interest in an electronic catalog by means of one of a
plurality of selection guides each having a plurality of
parametric data entry fields used to specify requirements for the
one or more items of interest, the instructions performing steps
comprising:
receiving a free form search query provided for the
purpose of identifying the one or more items of interest, the free
form search query being comprised of a plurality of search
terms;
examining each of the plurality of search terms in the
free form search query to identify within the search query one
or more keywords in a keyword index;
examining each of the plurality of search terms in the
free form search query to discern a category of product for the
search query;
using both the identified one or more keywords and the
discerned category of product for the free form search query to
select one of the plurality of selection guides for launching;
automatically launching the selected one of the plurality
of selection guides;
accepting input that functions to populate the one or more
of the plurality of parametric data entry fields of the launched
one of the plurality of selection guides; and
providing to a search engine the requirements specified
within the populated one or more of the plurality of parametric
data entry fields in lieu of the received free form search query
Appeal 2012-011654
Application 11/158,039

4
to thereby perform a first search within the electronic catalog
for items corresponding to the received search query.

Prior Art Relied Upon
Lium US 2002/0078016 A1 June 20, 2002
Gonzalez US 2002/0152087 A1 Oct. 17, 2002
Ferrari US 2003/0097357 A1 May 22, 2003
Gross US 2006/0064411 A1 Mar. 23, 2006
(provisional applications
filed Sept. 22, 2004, and
Oct. 4, 2004)
Ibuki US 7,343,371 B2 Mar. 11, 2008
(filed Dec. 28, 2001)
Ashkenazi US 7,805,339 B2 Sept. 28, 2010
(filed Dec. 18, 2002)

Rejections on Appeal
Claims 18 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Gross and Ashkenazi. Ans. 5–7.
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Gross, Ashkenazi, and Ibuki. Id. at 7–
8.
Claims 20, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Gross, Ashkenazi, and Ferrari.
Id. at 9–11.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Gross, Ashkenazi, and Gonzalez. Id.
at 8–9.

Appeal 2012-011654
Application 11/158,039

5
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Gross, Ashkenazi, and Lium. Id. at
11–12.
Examiner’s Findings and Conclusions
The Examiner finds that Gross discloses all the limitations recited in
independent claim 18, except the second “examining” step, the “using” step,
and the “providing” step. Ans. 5–6. The Examiner finds that Ashkenazi
teaches these limitations. Id. at 6–7 (citing Ashkenazi, 10:13–35, Figs. 6, 7).
The Examiner then concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill the art to modify Gross with the teachings of Ashkenazi
because Ashkenazi discloses “a conventional process that is known to those
skilled in the art of comparison shopping sites.” Id. at 7 (citing Ashkenazi,
10:14–15).
Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant contends that, although Figure 7 of Ashkenazi discloses an
interactive screen, Ashkenazi’s online comparison shopping system does not
possess the functionality to select an interactive screen for launching using
both identified keywords and a discerned category of product for a free form
search query, as required by independent claim 18. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 4.
Instead, Appellant argues that Ashkenazi’s interactive screen illustrated in
Figure 7 is selected for launching from amongst a plurality of forms
provided to a user only after a search is performed by the user interacting
with the online comparison shopping system. App. Br. 8 (citing Ashkenazi,
10:22–26, Fig. 6).
Appellant further contends that, rather than providing a selection
guide with pre-populated fields to a search engine to perform a first search,
Appeal 2012-011654
Application 11/158,039

6
as required by independent claim 18, Ashkenazi discloses that its online
comparison shopping system uses a free form search query to perform the
first search. Id. at 7–8. Appellant argues that Ashkenazi does not disclose,
expressly or inherently, how the product search results illustrated in Figure 7
are obtained. Reply Br. 2–4. Appellant asserts that these product search
results disclosed in Ashkenazi are obtained by providing a free form search
query to a search engine to perform a first search within an electronic
catalog for items of interest, instead of providing a particular selection guide
to the search engine as the first search. See id.

II. ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in determining that the combination of Gross
and Ashkenazi teaches the following limitations recited in independent claim
18:
(a) “using both the identified one or more keywords and the
discerned category of product for the free form search query to select one of
the plurality of selection guides for launching”; and
(b) “providing to a search engine the requirements specified within
the populated one or more of the plurality of parametric data entry fields in
lieu of the received free form search query to thereby perform a first search
within the electronic catalog for items corresponding to the received search
query”?

Appeal 2012-011654
Application 11/158,039

7
III. ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection—Combination of Gross and Ashkenazi
Claim 18
We do not discern error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 18, which recites, inter alia, the “using” step and the
“providing” step. As we explained above, the Examiner relies upon
Ashkenazi’s Figures 6 and 7, and their corresponding descriptions, to teach
these disputed claim limitations. We begin our analysis with a brief
discussion of Ashkenazi’s Figures 6 and 7, and then we turn to each disputed
claim limitation.
Figure 6 of Ashkenazi, reproduced below, illustrates interactive screen
600.

As shown in Figure 6, when a prospective user enters the word
“palm” into keyword area 610, multiple forms 620 are retrieved and placed
in the search results. Ashkenazi, 10:17–21. Forms 620 include a personal
organizer accessories form, a personal organizers form, and a networking
adapting form. Id. When the user selects one of these forms 620, e.g., the
Appeal 2012-011654
Application 11/158,039

8
personal organizer accessories form, a search is executed using the keyword
“palm” and the selected form. Id. at Figs. 6, 7.
Figure 7 of Ashkenazi, reproduced below, illustrates the results of this
search. Ashkenazi, 10:22.

As shown in Figure 7, interactive screen 700 displays product search
results 710 of the products associated with the keyword “palm” and the
personal organizer accessories form selected by the user in Figure 6. Id. at
10:23–25. Product search results 710 include product search links 720 to
merchant websites. Id. at 25–26.
With respect to the “using” step recited in independent claim 18, the
process illustrated in Ashkenazi’s Figure 6 of using at least one keyword,
i.e., “palm,” to retrieve multiple forms, each of which represents a product
category, in conjunction with selecting a product category, i.e., personal
organizer accessories, amounts to invoking or launching a particular
selection guide. The results of invoking or launching the selection guide are
illustrated in Ashkenazi’s Figure 7, e.g., accessories for a palm or personal
digital assistant (“PDA”), such as a leather carrying case. We, therefore, are
Appeal 2012-011654
Application 11/158,039

9
persuaded that the Examiner has presented sufficient evidence to support a
finding that Ashkenazi teaches the “using” step recited in independent claim
18.
With respect to the “providing” step recited in independent claim 18,
as we explained above, Ashkenazi’s Figure 6 illustrates invoking or
launching a particular selection guide to locate items of interest, e.g., the
accessories for a palm or PDA illustrated in Ashkenazi’s Figure 7. Invoking
or launching a particular selection guide amounts to providing the selection
guide to the search engine used by Ashkenazi’s online comparison shopping
website. It is self-evident that providing the selection guide to the search
engine is done instead of providing a free form search query to the search
engine.
Contrary to Appellant’s assertions, Ashkenazi’s disclosure of using at
least one keyword to retrieve multiple forms, each of which represents a
product category, does not amount to performing a first search for one more
items of interest. See App. Br. 7–8; Reply Br. 2–4. Rather, as we explained
above, refining the search parameters in this way allows the user to invoke
or launch the selection guide. The first search that locates the items of
interest illustrated in Ashkenazi’s Figure 7 is performed only after invoking
or launching the selection guide. We, therefore, are persuaded that the
Examiner has presented sufficient evidence to support a finding that
Ashkenazi teaches the “providing” step recited in independent claim 18. It
follows that the Examiner has not erred in determining that the combination
of Gross and Ashkenazi renders independent claim 18 unpatentable.
Appeal 2012-011654
Application 11/158,039

10
Claim 24
Appellant does not provide separate and distinct arguments for
patentability with respect to dependent claim 24. We, therefore, group this
dependent claim with its underlying base claim. Consequently, dependent
claim 24 falls with independent claim 18. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Remaining 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejections
Claims 19–23 and 25
Appellant does not provide separate and distinct arguments for
patentability with respect to dependent claims 19–23 and 25. We, therefore,
group these dependent claims with their underlying base claim.
Consequently, dependent claims 19–23 and 25 fall with independent claim
18. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

IV. CONCLUSION OF LAW
The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 18–25 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

V. DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 18–25.
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

kis