Aravind Musuluri

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 22, 2020

2020000181 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 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.
15/231,776 08/08/2016 Aravind Musuluri MU-SE-IIC 9338
15889 7590 10/22/2020
Aravind Musuluri
15511 Tuckerton Rd
Apt 1324
Houston, TX 77095
EXAMINER
BROWN, SHEREE N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/22/2020 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):
amusuluri@teemingmind.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARAVIND MUSULURI
Appeal 2020-000181
Application 15/231,776
Technology Center 3600
Before JILL D. HILL, LEE L. STEPINA, and ARTHUR M. PESLAK,
Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–11. See Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. The real party in interest is the inventor Aravind Musuluri.
Appeal 2020-000181
Application 15/231,776

2
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates to a method for displaying search results
accompanied with inline visual representations. Claim 1, reproduced below,
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method executable on a computing device comprising
a processor, memory and a storage unit to display results of a
search operation on at least one data source comprising
document(s), said method comprising:
i. Accepting a search query from a user and
identifying search result(s) comprising of document(s) in
the data source comprising the search query;
ii. Identifying a search extract for each search result
comprising a relevant potion(s) of text in the document;
iii. Identifying visual representation(s) within the
document comprising the search extract;
iv. Determining properties of the visual
representation(s);
v. Identifying inline visual representation(s) from the
identified visual representation(s), wherein the inline
visual representation comprises a visual representation of
a height that is same or smaller as the height of a line of
text in which the visual representation occurs;
vi. Optionally alter the height of a visual
representation to form an inline visual representation;
vii. Return the search results comprising of the search
extract and the inline visual representation(s) to the user.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Gupta US 8,578,261 B1 Nov. 5, 2013
Stamm US 2013/0346396 A1 Dec. 26, 2013
Bowman US 2014/0222553 A1 Aug. 7, 2014
Appeal 2020-000181
Application 15/231,776

3
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being
indefinite.
2. Claims 1–11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Stamm, Gupta2, and Bowman.
ANALYSIS
Rejection 1; 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
In rejecting claims 1 and 2 as indefinite, the Examiner finds that the
claim 1 step of “determining properties of the visual representation(s),” is
unclear because it is not apparent how the determination step is executed.
Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 2. The Examiner also considers that the claim 1
term “optionally alter” renders the claim indefinite. Id.; see also Ans. 3. For
claim 2, the Examiner finds that it is unclear as to which element or elements
the word “their” refers. Id.; see also Ans. 3.
Appellant asserts that the Specification describes properties and
provides an example of how a property is determined. Br. 5 (citing Spec.
¶¶ 42, 64). Appellant asserts, moreover that “determining properties of a
visual representation is well known in the art.” Id. As to the term
“optionally alter,” Appellant asserts that this refers to the previously claimed
“inline visual representation” and the alteration is made when the visual
representation is not inline. Br. 6 (citing Spec. ¶ 67). For the term “their” in
claim 2, Appellant asserts that it is clear that this term refers back to the

2 The Examiner and Appellant refer to US 8,578,261 B1 by the second
named inventor, Goel.
Appeal 2020-000181
Application 15/231,776

4
terms “extract text” and the “inline visual representation” that precede
“their.” Id. For the following reasons, we do not sustain this rejection.
The Specification discloses that visual representation property
determining logic 112 may determine properties including, “type, size,
original dimensions, display dimensions, display location, creation date,
author, color, file format and the like.” Spec. ¶ 42. The Specification also
discloses that “display heights are calculated from the images by the visual
representation property determining logic 112,” or “the visual representation
display dimensions may be specified as part of the presentation semantics, in
which case the visual representation property determining logic 112 infers
height of the visual representations from the presentation semantics.” Id. at
¶¶ 63–64. Based on these two examples, we are not persuaded that one of
ordinary skill in the art would find the determining step of claim 1 unclear.
Although the determining step may be broadly claimed, it is not indefinite.
As to the term “optionally alter,” in step vi. of claim 1, the
Specification discloses “the search result constructing logic 113 (FIG. 1)
may identify the height of the line of text and compare the height of visual
representation(s) with the line height and modify the visual representation(s)
if required to an inline visual representation.” Spec. ¶ 67. Given that the
previous step, i.e., step v., determines whether the height is the same or
smaller than a line of text, we do not agree that there is any ambiguity as to
when the step of “[o]ptionally alter the height of a visual representation to
form an inline visual representation,” would occur. A skilled artisan would
understand from the Specification that the alteration may occur when the
height of the visual representation is not the same or smaller than the text.
Appeal 2020-000181
Application 15/231,776

5
Claim 2 recites “wherein arrangement of the search extract text and
the inline visual representation(s) in the search results is in accordance with
their arrangement in the document.” Br. 13 (Claims App.). We agree with
Appellant that the plain language of the claim makes clear that “their” refers
to “the search extract text” and “the inline visual representation(s)” that
immediately precede “their.”
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 2
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite.
Rejection 2; 35 U.S.C. § 103
The Examiner finds that Stamm discloses many of the limitations of
claim 1, including determining properties of the visual representations, but
relies on Gupta and Bowman to identify a visual representation of a height
that is same or smaller as the height of a line of text in which the visual
representation occurs. Final Act. 8–12. According to the Examiner, it
would have been obvious to modify Stamm based on the teachings of Gupta
“to enable improved dynamic search engine by implementing improved
viewing capabilities for the user without losing the focus from the current
view of the web page more effectively,” and based on the teachings of
Bowman “to enable improved dynamic search engine by implementing
easily integrated user interface builder more effectively.” Id. at 9–10 (citing
Gupta, Fig. 10; Bowman ¶ 69, Fig. 3).
Appellant argues, inter alia, that the Examiner’s reliance on Gupta’s
Figure 10, elements 1001–1004 as disclosing “Identifying visual
representation(s) within the document comprising the search extract,” as
recited in claim 1, step iii is improper because elements 1001–1004 of Gupta
are iconic representations of preview links, not visual representations
Appeal 2020-000181
Application 15/231,776

6
consistent with the Specification. Br. 9 (citing Gupta, 9:36–38; Final Act.
10). Appellant asserts that the Specification defines visual representations as
“images, multimedia objects, videos and audios that together with text form
the content of a document (digital content).” Id. (citing Spec. ¶¶ 15, 57; Fig.
3). According to Appellant, Gupta’s links do not represent the search result.
Id.
The Examiner responds by reproducing Gupta’s Figure 10 and
asserting Gupta meets limitation iii of claim 1. Ans. 5. For the following
reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1–11.
The Specification discloses that “visual representation[s] in
accordance with the invention are selected from an image, a multimedia
object, a video, an audio and combinations thereof.” Spec. ¶ 15. The
Specification also discloses that “[e]xemplary inline visual representations
(images in this example) 302a and 302b that occur in between textual
formats are illustrated in FIG. 3.” Id. ¶ 57. We reproduce Appellant’s
Figure 3 below.
Appeal 2020-000181
Application 15/231,776

7

Figure 3 illustrates an exemplary document comprising inline visual
representations. Spec. ¶ 25. Figure 3 illustrates “a portion of a document
300 identified by the URL 301” containing actual visual representations 302
that are returned to the user. Spec. ¶ 57.
Gupta’s Figure 10 illustrates “a preview link 1001 in the form of an
iconic representation showing a link to a FLASH™ file, and a preview link
1002 illustrating an iconic representation of a preview link to a PDFTM file.”
Gupta, 9:36–41. Gupta also discloses that Figure 10 further illustrates
“preview links 1003 (e.g., an icon representing a HTML file) and a preview
link 1004 (e.g., an icon representing a PPTTM file). Id. at 9:41–43. We
reproduce below Figure 10 of Gupta.
Appeal 2020-000181
Application 15/231,776

8

Figure 10 is a GUI illustrating the use and execution of preview links
in the form of iconic representations. Gupta, 2:1–2.
Gupta discloses that “a user conducting an on-line search may want to
preview digital content linked to the various search results. This preview
will allow the user to review this digital content without having to leave the
Web page displaying the search result.” Id. at 3:29–32. Gupta explains that
Appeal 2020-000181
Application 15/231,776

9
“the execution of the preview link 1002 [] results in the display of …
preview frame 802.” Id. at 9:44–46. Instead of an icon, “a preview link
[could be] in the form of a textual description 801 of a URL associated with
the search result, such as “View as Flash” or “View as PDF.” Id. at 9:2–4;
Fig. 8.
Although we appreciate that Gupta’s icon is an image, the icon itself
is not a “visual representation . . . comprising the search extract” as required
by claim 1. Rather, Gupta’s icons will be the FLASHTM icons having a link
to a FLASHTM file or the PDFTM icon having a link to a PDFTM file, and “a
user may click on, roll over, or otherwise select the hyperlink for the
purposes of previewing content through a preview frame.” Gupta, 7:13–15.
Even if Gupta’s FLASHTM icon or PDFTM icon is linked to the search result,
the claim requires more, i.e., a visual representation of the search result. A
preponderance of the evidence does not support the Examiner’s finding that
Gupta’s Figure 10, elements 1001–1004 disclose the claim 1 limitation,
“[i]dentifying visual representation(s) within the document comprising the
search extract.” See Final Act. 10. Bowman’s disclosure of templates using
“files that declare position placements and width and height” (Bowman ¶
69) does not remedy the deficiency in Gupta. Moreover, even if Gupta and
Bowman disclose visual representations as required by step iii, the portions
of these references relied upon by the Examiner appear to depict visual
representations larger than the adjacent text. See Gupta, Fig. 10; Bowman,
Fig. 3. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 and claims 2–11
which depend from claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Stamm, Gupta, and Bowman.
Appeal 2020-000181
Application 15/231,776

10
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.
More specifically,
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2 112(b) indefiniteness 1, 2
1–11 103 Stamm, Gupta,
Bowman
1–11
Overall
Outcome
1–11
REVERSED