Ex Parte Zamir et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 10, 2014

11097792 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 10, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte OREN E. ZAMIR, JEFFREY L. KORN, and
ANDREW FIKES
____________________

Appeal 2011-007729
Application 11/097,792
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
DEBRA K. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-007729
Application 11/097,792

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-6, 10-14, and 18-29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 7-9 and 15-17 have been canceled.
We AFFIRM.

Introduction
According to Appellants, the claims are directed to a method of using
user information to customize a user’s searching and browsing environment
in a computer network system (Spec. ¶ [0001]).

Exemplary Claims
Claims 1 and 12, reproduced below, are representative of the claimed
subject matter.
1. A method of combining sets of locations, comprising:
at a query server of a search system having one or
more processors and memory storing one or more
programs for execution by the one or more processors:
receiving a single request from a client system, for
a user associated with the client system, for a list of
locations satisfying one or more criteria associated with
the request;
responding to the single request, including:
accessing a user information database of the
search system, the user information database of the
search system including historical browsing activities of
the user and historical browsing activities of a
community of users;
Appeal 2011-007729
Application 11/097,792

3
identifying a first set of locations from
historical browsing activities of the user stored in the user
information database of the search system, each location
in the first set having one or more respective ranking
values and satisfying the one or more criteria;
separately identifying a second set of
locations from historical browsing activities of users in
the community of users, the second set of locations
stored in the user information database of the search
system, each location in the second set having one or
more respective ranking values and satisfying the one or
more criteria;
combining the first set and the second set;
ordering the combined set based on the one
or more respective ranking values, wherein the ordering
is in accordance with a first weighting factor applied to
the first set of locations and a second weighting factor
applied to the second set of locations; and
after the ordering, returning to the client
system a response to the request based on the combined
set.

12. A method of creating a set of locations for a community
of users, comprising:
at a query server of a search system having one or
more processors and memory storing one or more
programs for execution by the one or more processors:
in response to a single request, at a query server of
a search system:
separately identifying for each of a plurality
of members in the community of users, a respective set of
previously visited locations from the respective
member’s historical browsing activities, each location in
the respective set having one or more respective ranking
values and satisfying predefined criteria, the predefined
Appeal 2011-007729
Application 11/097,792

4
criteria selected from the set consisting of locations
comprising user selected search results, locations
comprising user selected advertisements, locations
associated with one or more categories that are associated
with the user, and product reviews, wherein all the
respective sets are obtained from a same database;
combining the respective sets into a
combined set;
applying a respective weighting factor to the
one or more ranking values in each of the respective sets
of previously visited locations; and
ordering the combined set in accordance
with the weighted one or more ranking values; and
after the ordering, returning a response to
the request based on the combined set.

REFERENCES
Singhal US 6,370,527 B1 Apr. 9, 20021
Soumen Chakrabarti et al., Using Memex to Archive and Mine
Community Web Browsing Experience, 33 COMPUTER NETWORKS 669
(2000).

REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claims 1-6, 10-14, and 18-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Chakrabarti and Singhal.

Appeal 2011-007729
Application 11/097,792

5
ISSUES
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Chakrabarti and
Singhal. With respect to claim 1, Appellants argue the invention as recited
requires separately identifying a first and a second set of locations from
historical browsing activities of (i) the user and (ii) users in the community
of users in response to a first request (App. Br. 21-22). Furthermore,
Appellants argue Chakrabarti does not disclose “separately identifying for
each of a plurality of members in the community of users, a respective set of
previously visited locations from the respective member’s historical
browsing activities . . . wherein all the respective sets are obtained from a
same database,” as required by claim 12 (App. Br. 17-24; Reply Br. 6-13).
Specifically, Appellants contend Chakrabarti discloses “only that either an
individual user’s browsing activities can be searched or alternatively a
community of users historical activities can be searched” (App. Br. 19).
Thus, Appellants maintain Chakrabarti does not teach: “(1) separately
identifying (2) for each of a plurality of members in the community of users,
(3) a respective set of previously visited locations from the respective
member’s historical browsing activities” (id. at 20). In addition, Appellants
argue, with respect to both claims 1 and 12, Singhal does not teach the first
and the second sets are identified from the same database (id. at 22).
Appellants argue their invention is not obvious over Chakrabarti and
Singhal because the combination does not disclose: (i) “ordering the
combined set based on the one or more respective ranking values, wherein
the ordering is in accordance with a first weighting factor applied to the first
Appeal 2011-007729
Application 11/097,792

6
set of locations and a second weighting factor applied to the second set of
locations,” as recited in claim 1, and (ii) “applying a respective weighting
factor to the one or more ranking values in each of the respective sets of
previously visited locations,” as recited in claim 12 (id. at 24-30, 34; Reply
Br. 14-17). Specifically, Appellants assert Singhal teaches assigning a
weighting factor to a search engine but fails to teach assigning different
weighting factors (i.e., the claimed “first weighting factor” and “second
weighting factor”) to different sets of data from the same database (App. Br.
24). Moreover, Appellants assert Singhal’s “weights” are weights given to
search engines whereas the “weights” of the claims are weights given to
locations from historical browsing activities (id. at 26).
Appellants next argue the combination does not disclose “responding
to the single request, including: accessing a user information database of the
search system, the user information database of the search system including
historical browsing activities of the user and historical browsing activities of
a community of users,” as recited in claim 1 (id. at 21-22, 30-33; Reply Br.
17-19). Specifically, Appellants assert Chakrabarti teaches searching either
a user’s historical browsing activities or a community’s historical browsing
activities, but never both in response to a single request (App. Br. 30).
According to Appellants, the invention as recited in claim 1 requires
separately identifying two sets of locations in response to a single request
and combining the two sets (id.).
Further, Appellants argue the combination does not disclose
“combining the first set and the second set,” as required by claim 1 (id. at
30-33; Reply Br. 17-19). Specifically, Appellants assert the combination
Appeal 2011-007729
Application 11/097,792

7
does not disclose combining the two sets because neither reference teaches
the possibility of obtaining both a user’s historical browsing activities and
the browsing activities of a community of users in response to a single
request (App. Br. 32).
Thus, the issues presented by these arguments are:
Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Chakrabarti and Singhal teaches or suggests
responding to the single request . . . :
. . .
identifying a first set of locations from historical
browsing activities of the user stored in the user information
database of the search system . . . ;
separately identifying a second set of locations from
historical browsing activities of users in the community of
users, the second set of locations stored in the user information
database of the search system . . . ;
combining the first set and the second set
as recited in claim 1 and
in response to a single request . . . :
separately identifying for each of a plurality of members
in the community of users, a respective set of previously visited
locations from the respective member’s historical browsing
activities . . . wherein all the respective sets are obtained from a
same database;
combining the respective sets into a combined set
as recited in claim 12?
Issue 2: Has the Examiner erred in concluding Chakrabarti and
Singhal teaches or suggests the “ordering the combined set based on the one
or more respective ranking values, wherein the ordering is in accordance
Appeal 2011-007729
Application 11/097,792

8
with a first weighting factor applied to the first set of locations and a second
weighting factor applied to the second set of locations,” as recited in claim 1,
and “applying a respective weighting factor to the one or more ranking
values in each of the respective sets of previously visited locations; and
ordering the combined set in accordance with the weighted one or more
ranking values,” as recited in claim 12?
Issue 3: Has the Examiner improperly combined the teachings of
Chakrabarti and Singhal?

ANALYSIS
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions. We
emphasize the following.
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Chakrabarti compiles a
community browsing history from the individual browsing histories of a
community of users by separately identifying the bookmarks of each user
and aggregating these bookmarks into a single hierarchical structure
searchable by the user (Ans. 15). Moreover, we agree with the Examiner’s
finding that Singhal teaches the functionality of performing searches of
separate sets of data with a single query (in response to a single request),
combining the results of such a query, and assigning relative weights to the
set of results based on the location where the result was retrieved (id. at 17).
Appellants have not persuaded us it would not have been obvious to
an ordinarily skilled artisan to add Singhal’s multiple source metasearch
functionality to Chakrabarti’s single hierarchical structure of aggregated
bookmarks (see id. at 18).
Appeal 2011-007729
Application 11/097,792

9
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Chakrabarti and Singhal teaches or suggests the limitations
as recited in independent claims 1, 12, and 18-20 and dependent claims 2-6,
10, 11, 13, 14, and 21-29. Further, we are not persuaded the Examiner
improperly combined the teachings of Chakrabarti and Singhal. As a result,
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6, 10-14, and 18-29 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Chakrabarti and Singhal.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6, 10-14, and 18-291 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chakrabarti and Singhal 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

bab

1 Should there be further prosecution with respect to claims 18, 28, and 29,
the Examiner’s attention is directed to In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346 (Fed.
Cir. 2007), David J. Kappos, Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer
Readable Media, 1351 OFFICIAL GAZETTE U.S. PAT. & TRADEMARK OFF.
212 (Feb. 23, 2010), and Ex parte Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857, 1859
(PTAB 2013) (“[T]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to
a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and
other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible
media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and
customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the
specification is silent.” (citation omitted)).