Ex Parte Best et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 27, 2014

11627387 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1
___________ 2
3
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD 4
___________ 5
6
Ex parte STEVEN FRANCIS BEST, 7
ROBERT JAMES EGGERS, JR., 8
and JANICE MARIE GIROUARD 9
___________ 10
11
Appeal 2011-011219 12
Application 11/627,387 13
Technology Center 2100 14
___________ 15
16
17
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. FETTING, and 18
NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges. 19
20
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. 21
22
23
DECISION ON APPEAL 24
Appeal 2011-011219
Application 11/627,387

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 1

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed December 10, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed May 2,
2011), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed March 4, 2011).
Steven Francis Best, Robert James Eggers, Jr., and Janice Marie 2
Girouard (Appellants) seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection 3
of claims 1-3, 7-11,15, 16, and 19, the only claims pending in the application 4
on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 5
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 6
The Appellants invented a way of manipulating results generated by a 7
search engine used to access information by the data processing system and 8
a way of determining which results of a search engine are accessible by the 9
data processing system (Specification, para. [0001]). 10
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of 11
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some 12
paragraphing added]. 13
1. A method for 14
processing search engine search results 15
by a browser executing on a client data processing 16
system, 17
comprising the steps of: 18
[1] receiving, 19
by the browser executing on the client data 20
processing system, 21
a user-specified search criteria; 22
[2] sending, 23
by the browser executing on the client data 24
processing system, 25
the user-specified search criteria 26
to a search engine; 27
[3] receiving, 28
Appeal 2011-011219
Application 11/627,387

3
by the browser executing on the client data 1
processing system, 2
search results from the search engine; 3
[4] determining, 4
by the browser executing on the client data 5
processing system in response to receiving the 6
search results from the search engine, 7
whether information 8
included in the search results received from 9
the search engine 10
can be accessed by the client data processing 11
system 12
and if not, 13
modifying a display characteristic 14
for a portion of the search results 15
pertaining to inaccessible information that 16
cannot be accessed by the client data 17
processing system, 18
wherein the information comprises a plurality of entries, 19
with each entry of the plurality of entries 20
containing a location identifier 21
for retrieving data associated with the each 22
entry, 23
wherein the display characteristic 24
of a given entry that cannot be accessed by 25
the client data processing system 26
is modified 27
such that the given entry is not displayed 28
when the search results received from the 29
search engine are presented to the user, 30
wherein the display characteristic 31
of a given entry that cannot be accessed by 32
the client data processing system 33
is set to a hidden value 34
by a script executing on the client data 35
processing system that also performs the 36
determining step; 37
and38
Appeal 2011-011219
Application 11/627,387

4
[5] presenting, 1
by the browser executing on the client data 2
processing system, 3
the search results to the user as modified by the browser. 4
5
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: 6
Brown US 6,405,192 B1 Jun. 11, 2002
Schneider US 2003/0110161 A1 Jun. 12, 2003
7
Claims 1-3, 7-11, 15, 16, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 8
as unpatentable over Schneider and Brown. 9
10
ISSUES 11
The issues of obviousness turn primarily on whether the references 12
describe setting a display characteristic to a hidden value so that it cannot be 13
displayed, as in limitation [4a]. 14
15
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES 16
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be 17
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 18
Facts Related to the Prior Art 19
Schneider 20
01. Schneider is directed to providing search results. Schneider, 21
para. [0002]. 22
02. Schneider may distinguish unavailable or dead links with an 23
indicator when search results are displayed. Schneider, 24
para. [0016]. 25
03. Schneider includes the steps of receiving the search request, 26
retrieving search results from the search request, determining 27
Appeal 2011-011219
Application 11/627,387

5
whether the search results include any unavailable links, providing 1
the search results to the user in response to determining that the 2
search results do not include any unavailable links, modifying at 3
least one unavailable link from the search results in response to 4
determining that the search results do include at least one 5
unavailable link, and providing the modified search results to the 6
user. Schneider, para. [0019]. 7
04. Fig. 4 is a flowchart that illustrates a process for modifying 8
unavailable or dead links from search results. After duplicate 9
identifiers from search results are removed and it is determined 10
that there are no search results, then information may be displayed 11
to the client to indicate that there are no results. When it is 12
determined that there is at least one result, availability for each 13
hyperlink may be determined before generating a web page of 14
results. In effect, all unavailable or dead links are filtered 15
from the retrieval of search results before displayed to the 16
client system assuring that all displayed hyperlinks are 17
available. Schneider, para. [0049]. 18
05. Fig. 5b is a flowchart illustrating the steps performed for 19
removal of unavailable links. Schneider, para. [0032]. In 20
processing a link that is determined to be dead or unavailable, 21
when the link is to be processed in step 450, then the link is 22
removed from results, and end of results may be determined. 23
Schneider, para. [0051]. 24
06. Fig. 5c is a flowchart that illustrates another method of link 25
processing, illustrating the steps performed for highlighting 26
Appeal 2011-011219
Application 11/627,387

6
unavailable links. Schneider, para. [0033]. When the link is to be 1
processed in step 450 then the link is marked up with a 2
distinguishable indicator from results and then end of results is 3
determined. For instance the link may be displayed using 4
distinguishable features such as fonts, character size, color, 5
underlining, background attributes, reverse video, etc. As will be 6
readily apparent to those skilled in the art, other distinguishing 7
characteristics can be used without departing from the spirit and 8
scope of the present invention. Schneider, para. [0052]. 9
Brown 10
07. Brown is directed to filtering and previewing data in a web 11
browser. Brown, 1:25-26. 12
08. A browser retrieves a web page for presentation to a user. 13
While the web page is being presented, using one or more 14
background threads, the web page is parsed for a set of links to a 15
set of linked web pages and that set of linked pages is retrieved. 16
The set of linked pages is parsed for criteria set by the user. In 17
response to finding the criteria on one or more of the linked pages, 18
the presentation of the first page is changed, ideally in real time as 19
a user watches, to indicate the presence of the criteria on 20
respective linked pages. Brown 2:16-25. 21
09. FIG. 7 is a more detailed flowchart of the method in FIG. 6. 22
While the web page is being loaded and presented to the user, the 23
web page is parsed for user specified criteria. If user specified 24
criteria are present on the web page, then the web page 25
appearance is modified in accordance with user configured 26
Appeal 2011-011219
Application 11/627,387

7
display preferences to indicate the presence of user specified 1
criteria. Brown 6:64–7:7. 2
3
ANALYSIS 4
We are persuaded by the Appellants’ argument that neither reference 5
describes setting a display characteristic to a hidden value so that it cannot 6
be displayed. App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 4 and 7. The Examiner finds that 7
Schneider describes setting a hidden value in Fig. 5c, further described by 8
Schneider paragraph [0052], and finds that Schneider describes not 9
displaying the entry in Fig. 5b, further described by Schneider paragraph 10
[0051]. Ans. 6-7. Each of these figures is an alternative to the other. They 11
cannot operate in combination. This is clear when one sees that the process 12
in Fig. 5b deletes the entries, making further value setting impossible. 13
Fig. 5c explicitly states that it operates to highlight, rather than hide, the 14
missing links. All of the independent claims have a similar limitation. 15
16
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 17
The rejection of claims 1-3, 7-11, 15, 16, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 18
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Schneider and Brown is improper. 19
20
DECISION 21
The rejection of claims 1-3, 7-11, 15, 16, and 19 is reversed. 22
23
REVERSED 24
25
26
27
Klh 28