Ex Parte Carraher et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 21, 201613490020 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/490,020 06/06/2012 75532 7590 09/23/2016 LEE LAW, PLLC IBM SVLIP P.O. BOX 189 PITTSBORO, NC 27312 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Theodore R. Carraher 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. RSW920080355US2 1495 EXAMINER WEINRICH, BRIAN E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2169 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/23/2016 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@leelawpllc.com docketing_archive@leelawpllc.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte THEODORE R. CARRAHER and JAKE PALMER Appeal2015-003201 Application 13/490,020 Technology Center 2100 Before JASON V. MORGAN, MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-24. We have reviewed Appellants' contentions in the Briefs, the Examiner's rejection and the Examiner's response to Appellants' contentions. We concur with Appellants' conclusion that the Examiner fails to establish the combination of Eddings (US 7, 788,245 B 1; Aug. 31, 2010) and Bowden (US 2007/0073704 Al; March 29, 2007) teaches or suggests a uniform resource locator (URL) to the ML document with an appended page Appeal2015-003201 Application 13/490,020 anchor that comprises a text identifier of a markup language tag located within the ML document proximate to the location of a search term within the ML document ("URL limitation"), as recited in independent claims 1, 9, and 17. The Examiner relies on Eddings to teachings the URL limitation. Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 6. As correctly identified by Appellants (App. Br. 16-18), Eddings describes embedding of a search-engine URL into a "href' tag of a document to obtain search results for the search term (e.g., "golden retriever"). See Eddings col. 10, 1. 55---col. 11, 1. 35. We agree with Appellants that an embedded link to invoke a search engine to search for a specified term (e.g., a link to www.google.com to search for the term "golden retriever") is not a URL to a ML document with an appended page anchor. Appellants persuade us the Examiner has not established the combination of Eddings and Bowden teaches or suggests the URL limitation. The Examiner has not found the additional reference of record, Jensen, teaches or suggests this limitation. Accordingly, we will not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of independent claims 1, 9, and 17 and the remaining claims, which depend directly or indirectly from one of claims 1, 9, and 17. 1 1 We do not reach the additional contentions presented by Appellants because the identified issue is dispositive of the appeal. 2 Appeal2015-003201 Application 13/490,020 DECISION The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed. REVERSED 3 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation