Ex Parte Gorzela

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 25, 2013

11279372 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 25, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte RICHARD GORZELA
____________________

Appeal 2011-006577
Application 11/279,372
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY, III, THU A. DANG,
and CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-006577
Application 11/279,372

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-5, 7, 8, 20-25, and 32-45 (App. Br. 2). Claims 6, 9-19, and 26-31
have been cancelled (id.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to a Weblog editing system having a
user interface that enables the author of the Weblog to define an associated
Weblog-specific search scope allowing a Weblog reader to perform a search
across the content defined in the Weblog search scope (Abstract).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method of defining search scopes provided through a
Weblog, comprising:
providing a Weblog author user interface accessible only to at
least one Weblog author user associated with said Weblog, wherein
said Weblog author user interface enables said Weblog author to enter
postings into said Weblog, and wherein said Weblog author user
interface further includes a search scope definition interface that
allows said Weblog author user to define at least one Weblog-specific
search scope, wherein said search scope definition interface allows
said Weblog author user to indicate specific content to be associated
with said Weblog-specific search scope, said specific content
selectable by said Weblog author through said search scope definition
interface from at least one of the group consisting of a Web page
pointer and a Weblog feature indicated by said Weblog author, and
wherein said search scope definition interface further allows said
Weblog author to specify a search scope name associated with said
Weblog-specific search scope;
Appeal 2011-006577
Application 11/279,372

3
providing a search interface within said Weblog to a Weblog
reading user, wherein said search interface includes a display of said
search scope name of said Weblog-specific search scope, wherein said
search interface enables said Weblog reading user to perform a search
across said at least one Weblog-specific search scope defined by said
Weblog author user by said Weblog reading user selecting said search
scope name of said Weblog-specific search scope within said search
interface within said Weblog, and wherein said resulting search is
performed for content within said search scope matching at least one
search term provided by said Weblog reading user; and
performing said search across said at least one Weblog-specific
search scope defined by said Weblog author user, wherein said
performing said search across said at least one Weblog-specific search
scope includes searching said specific content associated with said
Weblog-specific search scope specified by said Weblog author user
for content within said search scope matching said at least one search
term provided by said Weblog reading user.

C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 20-22, 32, 36-41, and 45 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Desai in view of Brundege.
Claims 2-4 and 33-35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Desai in view of Brundege and Nickerson.
Claims 23-25 and 42-44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Desai in view of Brundege and Thota.

Appeal 2011-006577
Application 11/279,372

4
II. ISSUES
The dispositive issues before us are whether the Examiner has erred in
determining that the combination of Desai and Brundege teaches or would
have suggested:
1. “wherein said search scope definition interface allows said Web
log author user to indicate specific content to be associated with said
Weblog-specific search scope … wherein said search scope definition
interface further allows said Web log author to specify a search scope name
associated with said Weblog-specific search scope” (claim 1, emphasis
added); and
2. “wherein said search interface enables said Weblog reading user to
perform a search across said at least one Weblog-specific search scope
defined by said Web log author user by said Weblog reading user selecting
said search scope name of said Web log-specific search scope within said
search interface within said Weblog” (claim 1, emphasis added).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
The Invention
1. According to Appellant, Admitted Prior Art includes Weblog
implementations that permit a Weblog user to search using search scopes
that are pre-defined by a hosting entity that hosts the Weblog; wherein, all
search scopes are the same for all Weblogs hosted by that entity (Spec. 3:14-
17).
Appeal 2011-006577
Application 11/279,372

5
2. Search scopes provided within existing Weblogs include
searches across: 1) all content reachable over an enterprise specific Intranet,
2) all content within Weblogs contained within an associated enterprise, or
3) all content within the entire Web (via Google® or some other Internet
search engine) (Spec. 3:17-20).
Desai
3. Desai discloses a Weblog utility that enables the author to enter
identifying search criteria or to specify keywords that tag its user-created
content 204 for searching of the content by a Weblog reader (Fig. 3;
¶[0032]). The author can create the searchable criteria that will identify and
retrieve the content 204 associated with the blog entry they have posted (Fig.
5; ¶[0032]).
4. When the reader performs a search, the central server 104 will
seek a match of the selected search criteria pre-defined by the author by
associating the search criteria with the content 204 (id.).
Brundege
5. Brundege discloses a search parameter Graphical User Interface
(GUI) including a search scope area 506 that includes selection buttons 528
to indicate which courses or portions of the data should be searched (Fig. 5;
¶¶[0040]-[0042]). A search terms area 502 may include four fields where
search terms may be entered for matching any or all words 514a, 514c,
exclusion of all words 514b, and any given phrase 514d (¶ [0042]).
Additionally, the user may search other items, such as image tags,
comments, different types of pages, and meta data (id.).
Appeal 2011-006577
Application 11/279,372

6

IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 20-22, 32, 36-41, and 45
Appellant contends that
while Desai provides some control with regard to whether a
specific blog entry will be returned based on whether an associated
keyword is matched by a search term contained within a
subsequently issued search query, neither Desai nor Brundege
includes features enabling the Weblog author to define a named
search space or “scope” that can subsequently conveniently be
referenced by its name in a Weblog reading user interface and
searched for content matching one or more search terms provided
by the Weblog reading user. . . .
(App. Br. 16-17).
However, the Examiner finds that “Desai teaches an interface for
creation of Weblog, adding user content to the created Weblog, defining
search criteria associated with the user content, and searching the Weblog
using the user created search criteria” and “further define[s] search criteria
as including keyword, terms, location, topic[,] etc[.]” (Ans. 15). The
Examiner notes that “[s]earch scope as defined in conventional art
include[es] depth of the search, location etc.” (id.). The Examiner finds
further that “Brundege teaches an interface that enable[s the] user to define
[a] search scope” (id.). The Examiner notes that a “Weblog implementation
that permit[s] [the] Weblog user to search using search scopes that are pre-
defined by Weblog authors was admitted as prior art by [Appellant] ” (Ans.
16).
Desai discloses a Weblog utility that enables the author to enter
identifying search criteria or to specify (named) keywords that tag its user-
created content for searching of the content by a Weblog reader (FF 3 and
Appeal 2011-006577
Application 11/279,372

7
4). Given these teachings, we find that Desai teaches or suggests an
“interface [that] allows said Weblog author user to indicate specific content
to be associated with [data]” wherein the “interface further allows said
Weblog author to specify a … name associated with said Weblog-specific
search scope,” within the meaning of claim 1.
In addition, Brundege is directed to a search parameter Graphical User
Interface (GUI) including a search scope area that includes selection buttons
to indicate which courses or portions of the data should be searched; wherein
the user can choose the corresponding buttons for his search (FF 5). We find
that this GUI comprises a search scope area that enables the user to perform
a search for content using its own specific search scope. That is, we find
that Brundege teaches or suggests a “search interface [that] enables said
Weblog reading user to perform a search across said at least one Weblog-
specific search scope defined by said Weblog author user by said Weblog
reading user selecting said search scope name of said Weblog-specific
search scope within said search interface within said Weblog” (claim 1).
Further, we agree with the Examiner’s note that Appellant’s APA
discloses conventional Weblog implementations that exist which permit a
Weblog user to search using search scopes that are pre-defined by a hosting
entity that hosts the Weblog (FF 1 and 2). We find that the conventional
Weblog teaches or suggests a “search scope definition interface that allows
… [a] user to indicate specific content to be associated with said Weblog-
specific search scope” (claim 1).
We find that the combination of Desai and Brundege at least suggests
all of the contested limitations of claim 1.
Appeal 2011-006577
Application 11/279,372

8
Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Desai in view of Brundege. Further,
independent claims 32 and 45 having similar claim language and 5, 7, 8, 20-
22, and 36-41 (depending from claims 1 and 32) which have not been argued
separately, fall with claim 1.
Claims 2-4, 23-25, 33-35, and 42-44
Appellant argues that claim 2-4, 23-25, 33-35, and 42-44 are
patentable over the cited prior art for the same reasons asserted with respect
to claim 1 since neither Nickerson nor Thota cures the deficiencies with
respect to the “features [which] enable[e] the Weblog author to define a
named search space or ‘scope’ that can subsequently conveniently be
referenced by its name in a Weblog reading user … interface and searched
for content matching one or more search terms provided by the Weblog
reading user” (App. Br. 19-20).
As noted supra, however, we find that the combined teachings of
Desai and Brundege at least suggest all the features of claim 1. We
therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-4 and 33-35 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over Desai in view of Brundege and Nickerson and of claims
23-25 and 42-44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Desai in view of Brundege and
Thota.

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 20-25 and 32-45 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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).
Appeal 2011-006577
Application 11/279,372

9

AFFIRMED

tj