Singh, Sachin B. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 15, 2020

14959147 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 15, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/959,147 12/04/2015 Sachin B. Singh 170108-1181 1079
71247 7590 01/15/2020
Client 170101 c/o
THOMAS HORSTEMEYER, LLP
3200 WINDY HILL RD SE
SUITE 1600E
ATLANTA, GA 30339
EXAMINER
WEINER, ARIELLE E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3684
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/15/2020 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):
docketing@thomashorstemeyer.com
uspatents@tkhr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SACHIN B. SINGH and MARTIN C. EITREIM
____________

Appeal 2019-004091
Application 14/959,147
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Final
Rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
(2002).

THE INVENTION
Claim 1 is illustrative, and is reproduced below:
16. A method, comprising:

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). The Appellant identifies Amazon Technologies, Inc. as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-004091
Application 14/959,147

2
facilitating, by at least one computing device, an input of
a search string via a user interface;
performing, by the at least one computing device, a search
of displayable content within the user interface, the search
corresponding to the search string being based at least in part on
the search string, and at least a part of the displayable content
being positioned below-the-fold of the user interface;
causing to be rendered, by the at least one computing
device, an implementation of an action configured to direct
attention to a portion of the displayable content in response to the
search;
transmitting, by the at least one computing device, search
data to another at least one computing device for storage; and
reordering, by the at least one computing device, the
displayable content in response to the search data stored on the
other at least one computing device.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Zamir US 2006/0224587 A1 Oct. 5, 2006
Posner US 2008/0034329 A1 Feb. 7, 2008
Cross US 2009/0119254 A1 May 7, 2009
Pelenur US 2011/0137933 A1 June 9, 2011
Bellamy US 2012/0089945 A1 Apr. 12, 2012
Jerram US 2012/0221502 A1 Aug. 30, 2012
Kansal US 2013/0024282 A1 Jan. 24, 2013

THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
Claims 1–4 and 16–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Pelenur, Posner, and Zamir.
Appeal 2019-004091
Application 14/959,147

3
Claims 5–11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Pelenur and Zamir.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Pelenur, Zamir, and Jerram.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Pelenur, Zamir, and Cross.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Pelenur, Zamir, and Bellamy.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Pelenur, Zamir, and Kansal.

ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 1–4 and 16–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Pelenur, Posner, and Zamir.
Claims 1 and 16 are the independent claims. They call for a search
capability to search or performing a search of “displayable content within [a]
user interface”. Claims 1 and 16, respectively.
The Examiner’s position is that Pelenur’s discloses a page showing
search results and that that discloses a search capability to search
“displayable content within [a] user interface” as claimed (claims 1 and 16).
See Final Act. 11 with respect to claim 1 (“Pelenur, see at least: a search
results page lists search results (i.e. user interface comprising displayable
content”) and 21 with respect to claim 16 (“Pelenur, see at least: in response
to a query including one or more query terms (i.e. search string) a search
results page is received where the search results include query-relevant text
extracted from the resource (i.e. search of content) . . . .”).
Appellant disagrees, arguing with respect to claim 1 that
Appeal 2019-004091
Application 14/959,147

4
Pelenur merely discusses providing search results following a search
engine accessing an indexed cache to identify resources associated
with a received search query. Indeed, while Pelenur discusses
providing search results in response to a search query, nothing in
Pelenur appears to show or suggest “a search capability to
search the displayable content within the user interface,” as recited
in claim 1.
Appeal Br. 24. With respect to claim 16, Appellant argues that “Pelenur
merely discusses a search system that accesses the indexed cache to identify
resources that are relevant to the search query. Nothing in Pelenur appears to
show or suggest “perform[ing] a search of the displayable content within the
user interface,” as recited in claim 16.” Id. at 28 (brackets in the original).
As for claim 1, Examiner responds:
The examiner maintains that the “search capability to search the
displayable content within the user interface” is the capability
discussed in Pelenur that allows a user to hover over or click on a
query term and cause all instances of that query term in the search
results to be highlighted in some way.
Ans. 3. As for claim 16, see id. at 4–5:
Similar to the response above, Pelenur discloses searching for
instances of a query term in the search results (i.e., "the displayable
content"), in response to receiving, from a client device, input of
hovering over or clicking on the query term (i.e., “a search string
input via the search capability of the user interface”), see [0020],
[0068], and [0082-0083] of Pelenur. The examiner notes that “a
search string input” does not necessarily mean that the user is typing
characters to form a string. The broadest reasonable interpretation of
“a search string input” includes the user hovering over or clicking on
the query term they wish to search for within the displayed search
results. (i.e. “within the user interface”).
We have reviewed Pelenur and agree with Appellant.
While the Examiner correctly points out that Pelenur discloses
Appeal 2019-004091
Application 14/959,147

5
“hovering over, or clicking on, a query term can cause all instances of that
query term to be highlighted in some way” (para. 68), we do not see that as
disclosing or suggesting a search capability or the performing of it as
claimed. Pelenur discloses hovering/clicking on a query term on a search
results page whereby all occurrences of said hovered–over/clicked–on query
term are “highlighted” on said search results page. By contrast, the claims
call for “a search capability to search” (claim 1) or “performing . . . a
search” (claim 16). The ordinary and customary meaning of “search” in the
context of computers is “[t]o look for specific data in a file or an occurrence
of text in a file. A search implies either scanning content sequentially or
using algorithms to compare multiple indexes to find a match”
(computerlanguage.com, “search,” accessed Jan. 10, 2019). Pelenur does
not perform a “search” as that claim terms is reasonably broadly construed.
Rather, a matching procedure is performed. The difference is alluded to in
the Specification:
Once Joe enters the search string in the search box, either the
server or his client device may perform a search of the item detail
page based on the search string. The search also may be performed on
the content linked or attached to the item detail page. After the search
is performed, the result of the search may be displayed to Joe in
various ways. For example, Joe can see the item detail page screen
automatically scroll to the location where the search string is found.
Also, text may be highlighted in the item detail page that matches his
search string. He may also see a separate floating or peaking window
that contains the result of the search and links for him to click for
further information.
Para. 12 (emphasis added). Accordingly, because Pelenur is performing a
matching operation rather than a search, Pelenur does not thereby disclose
the claim limitations at issue.
Appeal 2019-004091
Application 14/959,147

6
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claims 1 and 16 and the
claims depending therefrom is not sustained.
The rejection of claims 5–11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Pelenur and Zamir.
The rejection of independent claim 5 suffers for the same reasons
discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 16. Here, similarly, claim 5
calls for “perform[ing] a search of the displayable content within the user
interface in response to receiving a search string input from the client device
where the search string input is facilitated by the search capability.” The
Examiner takes the position that this disclosed in Pelenur at, inter alia, para.
68. Final Act. 33. For the reasons discussed above, we are unpersuaded that
Pelenur’s disclosed text–matching procedure meets or suggests to one of
ordinary skill in the art performing a search as claimed.
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claim 5 and claims 6–11
depending therefrom is not sustained.
The rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Pelenur, Zamir, and Jerram.
The rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Pelenur, Zamir, and Cross.
The rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Pelenur, Zamir, and Bellamy.
The rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Pelenur, Zamir, and Kansal.
With regard to these rejections, the Examiner does not rely on the
additional references (Jerram, Cross, Bellamy, and Kansal) to cure the
deficiencies discussed above. Thus, the rejections of claims 12–15 are not
sustained for the reasons given above for not sustaining the rejection of
Appeal 2019-004091
Application 14/959,147

7
independent claim 5 from which they depend.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 16–20 103(a) Pelenur, Posner,
Zamir
1–4, 16–20
5–11 103(a) Pelenur, Zamir 5–11
12 103(a) Pelenur, Zamir,
Jerram
12
13 103(a) Pelenur, Zamir,
Cross
13
14 103(a) Pelenur, Zamir,
Bellamy
14
15 103(a) Pelenur, Zamir,
Kansal
15
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED