Ex Parte Allen et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 12, 2012

10247769 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 12, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte PAUL ALLEN, JAMES IVIE, GREG PARKINSON,
DAREN THAYNE, and MICHAEL WOLFGRAMM
____________________

Appeal 2010-004372
Application 10/247,769
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS and LARRY J.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-004372
Application 10/247,769

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 20 and 27.
1
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 27 under appeal reads as follows:
27. A method for monitoring web traffic, the method
comprising:
providing:
a destination web page;
one or more source web pages, wherein each source web
page includes at least one link to the destination
web page;
making the destination web page available to a plurality of
users;
making the source web page available to a plurality of users;
tracking, over a period of time, information related to the
number of times a particular link has been selected on the source
pages; and
thereafter, in response to a user request, displaying the
information to a user, wherein displaying the information to a user
comprises displaying the information on the destination web page.

1
Appellants‟ Amendment After Final (02/29/08) amended claims 20 and 27,
and cancelled all other pending claims. The Examiner entered the
amendment. (Advisory Action 03/13/08). Due to the amendment deleting
language from claim 27, the Examiner modified the basis of its rejection
from § 103 to § 102. (See page 3 of the first Answer dated 11/26/08).

Appeal 2010-004372
Application 10/247,769

3
Rejection
2

The Examiner reject claims 20 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Balnaves (US 2006/0085734 A1).

Appellants’ Contentions
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 27
because:
According to claim 27, source pages are provided with
links to a destination page. Information is gathered as links to
the destination page are selected. Upon request, the
information is presented "on the destination web page."
Balnaves does not teach this.
(App. Br. 5).
The statistical information displayed on [Balnaves‟] annotated
web page does not, however, answer the question "how did I
get here?" The information displayed on Balnaves' annotated
page tells about the selection of links on that page, not
information about links selected to arrive at that page, which is
what claim 27 recites.
(App. Br. 5-6).
[I]t is clear that Balnaves does not teach displaying on a
destination web page information about the selection of links on
a source page, which links are to the destination web page, and
the rejection of claim 27 is believed to be improper, at least for
this reason.
(App. Br. 6).

2
Separate patentability is not argued for claim 20. Except for our ultimate
decision, this claim is not discussed further herein.
Appeal 2010-004372
Application 10/247,769

4
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims as being anticipated
because Balnaves fails to describe the argued limitations?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner‟s rejections in light of Appellants‟
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants‟
conclusions.
We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner‟s Answer in response to
Appellants‟ Appeal Brief (except as noted below). We concur with the
conclusion reached by the Examiner.
We begin by pointing out that Appellants‟ interpretation of claim 27 is
inconsistent with the Specification. Appellants‟ contentions read the claim
phrase “on the destination page” as using “on” to indicate location. The
portion of Appellants‟ Specification (¶¶[34]-[36]) referenced by Appellants
as disclosing this limitation (App. Br. 4) in fact displays the information at a
location on the referring page (source page) not the destination page. We
also direct Appellants‟ attention to originally filed claim 19 which reads in
part “a destination link contained in a referrer page that is displayed on a
user computer.” Appellants‟ Specification (¶¶[34]-[36]) describes the
displayed information as the “destination URLs” (Spec. 8:29) which is
information located on the referring page and we find this information is
information “with respect to,” “with regard to,” or “relating to” the
destination page.
Appeal 2010-004372
Application 10/247,769

5
While the “on” term has many variations in its prepositional meaning,
including:
3

A. (used to indicate place, location, situation, etc.): a scar on the face;
B. with respect or regard to (used to indicate the object of an action
directed against or toward): a critical essay on Shakespeare; and
C. concerned with or relating to: a program on archaeology;
the meaning “A” above as argued by Appellants for the clause “on the
destination page” is not consistent with Appellants‟ Specification. However,
meanings such as “B” and “C” are consistent therewith. It is well
established that claim interpretations that are not consistent with the
specification are not reasonable. “During examination, „claims ... are to be
given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, and ... claim language should be read in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.‟.”
In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed.Cir.2004)
(alteration in original) (quoting In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833
(Fed.Cir.1990)).
As to this issue of claim interpretation, the Examiner raises concerns
(page 4 of the second Answer dated 11/16/09) about Appellants‟ arguments
directed to or based on the claim 27 phrase “on the destination page”:
[In claim 27] the word "on" within "displaying information
relating to selection of a particular link to the destination page"
appears to be a typographical error. Using "to" rather than "on"
the phrase would be "displaying information relating to
selection of a particular link to the destination page", which
makes sense and is consistent with the disclosure of the

3
www.dictionary.com.
Appeal 2010-004372
Application 10/247,769

6
specification. As seen in figures 2-3, and in paragraphs [30]-
[33], the information relating to selection of a particular link
TO a destination page of links 1-4 on the web page 40 in figure
2 are added and displayed next to the links on the modified web
page 40' in figure 3. Therefore, there is no displaying of
information relating to selection of a particular link on the
destination page but only displaying of information relating to
selection of a particular link to the destination page on the
modified web page. The information relating information of a
link selection is displayed next to the link (for example, 127 for
link 3) and also in the box 54' (127 after "?") whenever a link is
hovered on the modified web page 40', not ON the destination
page. The claims, accordingly, as understood as the word "to"
is used rather than "on" since "on" appears to be a typographical
error.
(Ans. 4-5). We see no typographical error as usage of the “on” term
includes meanings such as, “with respect to,” “with regard to,” or “relating
to” as discussed above.
We now turn to the rejections before us. The Examiner references
Balnaves‟ paragraphs [0071]-[0072] which discuss the percentages shown in
Balnaves‟ Figure 4B. As previously discussed, Appellants point to their
Specification at paragraphs [34]-[36] (discussing Appellants‟ Figure 3) as
descriptive of the claimed invention. We also note Appellants‟ Specification
at paragraph [18] which discloses the various compiled statistics that may be
used to indicate the number of times that a particular link has been selected
(e.g., percentages). Based, on our above interpretation of Appellants‟ claim
27, and Appellants‟ supporting disclosure discussed here, we conclude that
the Examiner was correct in finding that Balnaves describes the invention of
Appellants‟ claim 27.

Appeal 2010-004372
Application 10/247,769

7
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 20 and 27 as being
anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
(2) Claims 20 and 27 are not patentable.

DECISION
The Examiner‟s rejection of claims 20 and 27 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

ELD