Ex Parte Bennett

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 12, 2014

12422453 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 12, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JAMES D. BENNETT

____________________

Appeal 2012-007524
Application 12/422,453
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, JOHN A. EVANS, and
DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). Claim 20 has been canceled. App. Br. 19.
We AFFIRM IN PART.2

1 The Appeal Brief identifies Enpulz, LLC as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 3.
2 Our decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed on January 4, 2012
(“App. Br.”); Appellant’s Reply Brief filed April 11, 2012; Examiner’s
Answer mailed February 14, 2012 (“Ans.”); and original Specification filed
April 13, 2009 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2012-007524
Application 12/422,453

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims on Appeal
Appellant’s application relates to Internet search engines that use web
browsers. Spec. 1. Claims 1, 14, and 18 are independent claims. Claim 1 is
reproduced below:
1. An Internet system that supports a search service, the Internet
system comprising:
a search server that is adapted to receive search criteria from a
client device remote from the search server;
a historical data repository coupled to the search server,
wherein the historical data repository contains historical data collected
from over the Internet, and wherein the search server stores data
retrieved from over the Internet and eventually stores the data as
historical data within the historical data repository in response to
determining that the data is-no [sic] longer to be preserved in the
search server; and
wherein the search server receives the search criteria to search
for older historical data that was in existence on the Internet at a
previous time, wherein the search server obtains search results to
satisfy the search criteria by searching the historical data stored in the
historical data repository.
See App. Br. 16.

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1–7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Kwak3 and Dominowska.4 Ans. 4–12.

3 Kwak et al., U.S. Patent App. Publication 2007/0094243 A1, published
Apr. 26, 2007.
4 Dominowska et al., U.S. Patent App. Publication 2007/0124693 A1,
published May 31, 2007.
Appeal 2012-007524
Application 12/422,453

3

Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kelley5 and Kwak. Ans. 13–14.
Claims 8 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kwak, Dominowska, and Blume.6 Ans. 15–16.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kwak, Dominowska, and Ionescu.7 Ans. 16–17.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kwak, Dominowska, and Punaganti Venkata.8 Ans. 18.

ISSUES
(1) Does the combination of Kwak and Dominowska teach or suggest
the limitation of claim 1 reciting “wherein the search server stores
data retrieved from over the Internet and eventually stores the data
as historical data within the historical data repository in response to
determining that the data is-no longer to be preserved in the search
server”?
(2) Does the combination of Kwak and Dominowska teach or suggest
the limitation of claim 14 reciting “gathering search results
containing historical data from previous states of the Internet, the
historical data including data obtained from a crawl of at least one

5 Kelley et al., U.S. Patent App. Publication 2009/0077548 A1, published
Mar. 19, 2009.
6 Blume et al., U.S. Patent App. Publication 2002/0116375 A1, published
Aug. 22, 2002.
7 U.S. Patent No. 7,707,142 B1, issued Apr. 27, 2010.
8 Punaganti Venkata et al., U.S. Patent App. Publication 2007/0016570 A1,
published Jan. 18, 2007.
Appeal 2012-007524
Application 12/422,453

4

URL selected without regard to whether the URL has been
previously visited by a user”?
(3) Does the combination of Kelley and Kwak teach or suggest the
limitation of claim 18 reciting “performing a search for the user
using the search server, the search including searching not only
current Internet data, but also, in response to determining that the
current Internet data has been modified, searching archived
historical Internet data stored in a historical data repository
coupled to the search server”?

ANALYSIS
Issue 1 – Rejection of Claims 1–13
Appellant contends that neither Kwak nor Dominowska teaches or
suggests the limitation of claim 1 noted above. App. Br. 9–10. The
Examiner found that Dominowska teaches a system that creates an archive
of web information that is no longer available on the Internet. Ans. 6, 19
(citing Dominowska ¶ 8). The Examiner concluded that the combination of
Kwak and Dominowska teaches the disputed limitation. Ans. 5–6.
Appellant argues that Dominowska does not teach or suggest
“condition[ing] storage of a visited website on the fact that the search server
is no longer going to be preserving that data, as recited generally by Claim
l.” App. Br. 10. Appellant further argues that Dominowska indicates that
web information is archived continuously, regardless of whether or not it is
available on the server. Reply Br. 5 (citing Dominowska ¶ 7).
The Examiner relied on paragraph 8 of Dominowska, which begins:
“In addition to uninterrupted access to Web information, the system and
Appeal 2012-007524
Application 12/422,453

5

method can also create an archive of web information that is no longer
available on the Internet.” Dominowska ¶ 8. This passage suggests that the
archiving operation taught in paragraph 8 is functionality that is “in addition
to” the functionality taught in paragraph 7 concerning uninterrupted access
to information. Therefore, the disclosure of paragraph 7 does not undermine
the Examiner’s reliance on paragraph 8, as suggested by Appellant.
Furthermore, this passage states that information is archived “that is no
longer available on the Internet.” We agree with the Examiner’s findings
that Dominowska’s disclosure of archiving data that is no longer available
on the Internet teaches or suggests a determination that data is no longer to
be preserved in the server.
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claim 1 as obvious over Kwak and Dominowska. Appellant
does not advance additional persuasive arguments for patentability of
dependent claims 2–13. App. Br. 10. Therefore, the rejection of claims 2–7,
9, 10, and 12 as obvious over Kwak and Dominowska, the rejection of
claims 8 and 13 as obvious over Kwak, Dominowska, and Blume, and the
rejection of claim 11 as obvious over Kwak, Dominowska, and Ionescu are
also sustained.

Issue 2 – Rejection of Claims 14–17
Appellant contends that neither Kwak nor Dominowska teaches or
suggests the limitation of claim 14 noted above. App. Br. 10–12. Appellant
argues that both Kwak and Dominowska deal with searching and storing
information from web sites that have been visited by a user and, therefore,
do not teach or suggest operations that occur without regard to whether a
Appeal 2012-007524
Application 12/422,453

6

user has previously visited the site. App. Br. 11–12. In particular, Appellant
argues that Dominowska discloses crawling “favorites” and other previously
viewed pages so it is not done “without regard” to whether the page has been
previously visited. App. Br. 12 (citing Dominowska ¶ 33).
We do not find these arguments persuasive. Appellant has not pointed
to persuasive evidence that web sites in a user’s “favorites” list have been
viewed by the user, according to Dominowska, such that crawling sites in
the favorites list would not teach or suggest the disputed limitation.9
Furthermore, Dominowska suggests a distinction between “favorites” and
websites that have been previously viewed: “The system 200 includes a web
monitor 210 that can crawl and monitor the user’s preferred or desired web
pages based on the user’s ‘favorite’ sites or in accordance with the pages
that have been previously stored.” Dominowska ¶ 33 (emphasis added). As
such, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred.
Based on foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claim 14 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kwak and Dominowska. Appellant does not advance
additional persuasive arguments for patentability of dependent claims 15–17.
App. Br. 12. Therefore, the rejection of claims 16 and 17 as obvious over
Kwak and Dominowska and the rejection of claim 15 as obvious over Kwak,
Dominowska, and Punaganti Venkata are also sustained.

9 We note that claim 14 does not specify that the crawling is done without
regard to whether a URL has been visited by any particular user but merely
“a user.”
Appeal 2012-007524
Application 12/422,453

7

Issue 3 – Rejection of Claims 18 and 19
Appellant contends that the combination of Kelley and Kwak does not
teach or suggest the limitation of claim 18 noted above. App. Br. 13–14.
The Examiner found that Kwak teaches a system that generates a search
when a language or font on a website has changed. Ans. 14, 23 (citing
Kwak ¶ 139). The Examiner further found: “In order to generate the view,
the system searches the historical webpage database to retrieve the webpage.
Therefore, Kwak teaches generating a search of the webpage history
database in response to a changed webpage (language or font changes).”
Ans. 23.
Appellant argues that paragraph 139 of Kwak does not disclose
performing a search in response to a changed font. App. Br. 13; Reply Br.
11. Appellant further argues that Appellant has not been able to find, and
the Examiner has not relied on, any other disclosure in Kwak to support the
finding that Kwak teaches performing a search in response to a changed
font. Reply Br. 11.
We are persuaded by Appellant that the Examiner has not
demonstrated that Kwak teaches or suggests searching in response to
determining that a font has changed. Paragraph 139 of Kwak teaches:
Also, the visited website search service system searching a
website visited by a user and the visited website search service
method using the system may be capable of efficiently
generating a view by including an additional resource
component providing a resource required in generating the view
provided to a user via a web browser when a language or a font
is changed.
Appeal 2012-007524
Application 12/422,453

8

Kwak ¶ 139. This passage is insufficient to support a finding that Kwak
teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. As such, the evidence of record
is insufficient to support the conclusion that the combination of Kelley and
Kwak renders obvious the subject matter of claim 18.
Based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 18
and 19 as obvious over Kelley and Kwak.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–17; however, we
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 18 and 19.
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-IN-PART

tj