Ex Parte Read et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 22, 2013

11611822 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 22, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte DANIEL J. READ and ERIK T. COLLIER
__________

Appeal 2011-003094
Application 11/611,822
Technology Center 2100
__________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, LORA M. GREEN, and
JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal
1
under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a method
of interfacing with a client site. The Examiner rejected the claims as
obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

1
Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as IAC Search &
Media, Inc. (see App. Br. 3).
Appeal 2011-003094
Application 11/611,822

2
Statement of the Case
Background
“This invention relates to a user interface, typically of the kind used
for conducting Internet searches, a method for conducting a search and
interfacing with a client site, and a network system with associated computer
systems and storage media.” (Spec. 1 ¶ 0001.)
The Claims
Claims 9, 11-17, and 19-24 are on appeal. The claims have not been
argued separately and therefore stand or fall together with independent claim
9. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Claim 9 reads as follows:
9. A method of interfacing with a client site, comprising;
providing from at least one server to a client site first
content, including a plurality of categories at a plurality of
respective category areas, a first search box associated with
at least a first one of the category areas, and a second search
box that is displayed together with the first search box;
receiving a category search command and a category
search query from the client site at said at least one server,
indicative of entering a category-specific search query in the
category search box;
extracting category-specific search results from a
database using the category-specific search query; and
providing second content from said at least one server
to the client site, the second content including the category-
specific search results.

The issues
A. The Examiner rejected claims 9, 11-14, 17, and 19-22 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Barrera
2
and Gross
3
(Ans. 3-7).

2
Barrera et al., US 6,907,425 B1, issued Jun. 14, 2005.
Appeal 2011-003094
Application 11/611,822

3
B. The Examiner rejected claims 15, 16, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Barrera, Gross, and Shastri
4
(Ans. 7-8).
A. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Barrera and Gross
The Examiner finds that
Barrera teaches a method of interfacing with a client site, comprising:
providing from at least one server to a client site first
content, including a plurality of categories at a plurality of
respective category areas (taught as the categorized content
interface of col. 1, lines 56-63, and seen in Fig. 1), and a
first search box associated with at least a first one of the
category areas (taught as the display of a search box
associated with a selected category, at col. 1, line 64 through
col. 2, line 4, and seen in Fig. 2); receiving a category search
command and a category search query from the client site at
said at least one server, indicative of entering a category-
specific search query in the category search box; extracting
category-specific search results from a database using the
category-specific search query; and providing second
content from said at least one server to the client site, the
second content including the category-specific search results

(Ans. 3-4). The Examiner finds that “Barrera fails to explicitly teach a
second search box being displayed together with the first search box” (id. at
4). The Examiner finds that “Gross teaches a search interface similar to that
of Barrera. Furthermore, Gross teaches the concurrent use of a plurality of
search boxes, each being devoted to a distinct „information source‟” (id.).
The Examiner finds it obvious to
to modify the search interface of Barrera to include the
multiple, simultaneously displayed search boxes of Gross, in

3
Gross et al., US 2006/0190441 A1, published Aug. 24, 2006.
4
Shastri et al., US 6,845,485 B1, issued Jan. 18, 2005.
Appeal 2011-003094
Application 11/611,822

4
order to obtain a search interface with a second search box
being displayed together with the first search box. One
would have been motivated to make such a combination for
the advantage of streamlining access to commonly used
commands (i.e. commonly used search boxes)

(Ans. 4).
The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence of record
support the Examiner‟s conclusion that Barrera and Gross render claim 9
obvious?
Findings of Fact
1. The Specification teaches that the “term „machine‟ shall also be
taken to include any collection of machines that individually or jointly
execute a set (or multiple sets) of instructions to perform any one or more of
the methodologies discussed herein. The server or serves 204 in Figure 15
may also include one or more machines” (Spec. 42 ¶ 00117).
2. Barrera teaches that
An example of a Yahoo! interface is shown in FIG. 1.
An example of a category is Arts&Humanities, 101, which
has subcategories Literature 102 and Photography 103.
When a user selects the Literature subcategory 102, Yahoo!
displays the page shown in FIG. 2 to the user. FIG. 2 shows
numerous subcategories 201 of the Literature subcategory
102.

(Barrera, col. 1, ll. 56-61.)
3. Barrera teaches that “Yahoo! also accommodates keyword
searching. In FIG. 2, a user has entered a search for the keyword „telephone‟
202 that is restricted 203 to websites in the Literature category” (Barrera,
col. 1, ll. 64-66).
Appeal 2011-003094
Application 11/611,822

5
4. Figure 1 of Barrera is reproduced below:

“FIG. 1 shows an interface to a prior art embodiment of a
category/descriptive information search engine” (Barrera, col. 3, ll. 21-22).
5. Barrera teaches that “[w]hen the search button 204 is selected,
only website descriptions, and not website content, that fall under the
category „Literature‟ are searched for the term „telephone‟” (Barrera, col. 2,
ll. 1-4).
Appeal 2011-003094
Application 11/611,822

6
6. Figure 4 of Barrera is reproduced below:

“FIG. 4 shows the AltaVista” interface in which a user has submitted a key-
word search request for the term „AT&T‟ 401. In response, AltaVista”
searches its stored content for occurrences of the term „AT&T‟, and shows
the user the websites that have content in which the term occurs (402.)”
(Barrera, col. 2, ll. 33-38).
Appeal 2011-003094
Application 11/611,822

7
7. Gross teaches that
The program code is configured to display a control panel
listing a plurality of user selectable information sources. The
program code is further configured to at least partially cause
a toolbar to be added to a user interface of an application. . .
. The toolbar includes (a) a quantity of search dialogue fields
that is based on a quantity of information sources selected
by the user in the control panel, wherein each of the search
dialogue fields corresponds to one of the quantity of
information sources selected by the user in the control panel,
and (b) a preferences menu though which the control panel
is accessible. The program code is further configured to
cause a search to be performed on an information source
using a term entered into the corresponding search dialogue
field.

(Gross 2 ¶ 0011.)
8. Gross teaches an embodiment where a “search toolbar provides
multiple dialogue boxes corresponding to different information sources that
are to be searched. The information sources include both information
sources that are remotely accessed via a computer network (such as websites
and Internet search engines), as well as information sources that are locally
accessed” (Gross 2 ¶ 0022).
9. Gross teaches that in an example embodiment “a plurality of
dialogue boxes 134 are provided for the plurality of remote search engines
110, such that a user can select the search engine to which a query is to be
submitted by entering the query in an appropriate dialogue box 134” (Gross
3 ¶ 0037).

Appeal 2011-003094
Application 11/611,822

8
Principles of Law
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). “If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its
patentability.” Id. at 417.
Analysis
Barrera teaches a method of interfacing where the Yahoo server
provides content to a browser client site, including a plurality of categories
with a plurality of category areas which includes a search box associated
with the category areas (FF 2-4). Barrera teaches receiving a search query
limited to a particular category from a user, teaching where “a user has
entered a search for the keyword „telephone‟ 202 that is restricted 203 to
websites in the Literature category” (Barrera, col. 1, ll. 64-66; FF 3). Barrera
teaches that only category-specific results are extracted, teaching “[w]hen
the search button 204 is selected, only website descriptions, and not website
content, that fall under the category „Literature‟ are searched for the term
„telephone‟” (Barrera, col. 2, ll. 1-4; FF 5). Barrera teaches providing the
second content including the category specific search results (FF 6).
The Examiner notes that the text of Barrera does not expressly teach
incorporation of two search boxes with two different information sources
(Ans. 9), though in fact, figure 4 of Barrera shows an example of a generic
search box and a business search category search box (FF 6).
Gross teaches an embodiment where a “search toolbar provides
multiple dialogue boxes corresponding to different information sources that
Appeal 2011-003094
Application 11/611,822

9
are to be searched. The information sources include both information
sources that are remotely accessed via a computer network (such as websites
and Internet search engines), as well as information sources that are locally
accessed” (Gross 2 ¶ 0022; FF 8).
Applying the KSR standard of obviousness to the findings of fact, we
conclude that the person of ordinary skill would have reasonably
incorporated the two search boxes of Gross into the search system of Barrera
since Gross teaches that this permits search of different information sources
(FF 8). We agree with the Examiner that the ordinary artisan “would have
been motivated to make such a combination for the advantage of
streamlining access to commonly used commands (i.e. commonly used
search boxes)” (Ans. 4). Such a combination is merely a “predictable use of
prior art elements according to their established functions.” KSR, 550 U.S. at
417.
Appellants contend that “[c]learly, Barrera does not disclose two
search boxes that are displayed together and as such does not disclose a
category specific search box displayed together with a general search box”
(App. Br. 7).
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds that “Barrera shows in
Fig. 4 the display of two search boxes simultaneously, one being located at
the very top of the figure, the other being labeled item 401, and including the
text search string „AT&T". Thus, Barrera does indeed disclose two search
boxes being displayed together” (Ans. 8-9). What is at issue is whether
Barrera teaches that the two different search boxes are used to search
different information sources. The Examiner, rather than risk over-
Appeal 2011-003094
Application 11/611,822

10
interpretation of Barrera, has cited Gross to demonstrate that the ordinary
artisan recognized the utility of having two search dialogue boxes which
corresponded to different information sources (FF 8). See KSR, 550 U.S. at
421 (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not
an automaton.”)
Appellants contend that in Gross, “the toolbar includes search boxes.
Because the toolbar is already resident on the client site 104 in Figure 1, it is
not received from the server 111. Hence, the search boxes shown in Figure 3
are not received from the server 111 at the client site 104” (App. Br. 7).
Appellants contend that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art will not assume
that a search engine interface that is received from a server is the same as a
toolbar that resides on a client site” (id.).
We are not persuaded. While the search boxes of Gross may be
resident on the client device instead of being received from a server, the
ordinary artisan at the time of invention would have reasonably been
motivated to incorporate the use of two search dialogue boxes directed to
different information sources into a client-server environment such as that of
Barrera in order to stream line access to various commands (Ans. 4).
Indeed, Gross expressly recognizes that the information sources which may
be accessed include “sources that are remotely accessed via a computer
network (such as websites and Internet search engines)” (Gross 2 ¶ 0022; FF
8). See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for
obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that
the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
Appeal 2011-003094
Application 11/611,822

11
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art”.)
Appellants contend that “the Examiner has not established why one of
ordinary skill in the art would design a system wherein both the first search
box and the category-specific search results are received from a server at a
client site” (App. Br. 8).
We are not persuaded. We agree with the Examiner, who “cited ¶
0004 of Gross, which states that a user would be motivated to modify a
toolbar appearance, position, and elements so as to streamline access to
commonly-used commands” (Ans. 10). We agree that the ordinary artisan
would be “motivated to modify the search interface appearance, position,
and elements of Barrera to streamline access to commonly-used commands,
such as commonly searched categories and information sources” (id.).
Conclusion of Law
The evidence of record supports the Examiner‟s conclusion that
Barrera and Gross render claim 9 obvious.
B. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Barrera, Gross, and Shastri
The Examiner finds Shastri teaches “such selection means as a
„mouseover‟, or moving a cursor into a defined area to represent a selection
of that area” (Ans. 8). The Examiner finds it obvious to “modify the
category area click-selection of Barrera and Gross to incorporate the
mouseover selection of Shastri . . . . One would have been motivated to
make such a combination, as Shastri indicates mouseover selection is
analogous to „other selection actions‟ such as the click-selection of Barrera
and Gross” (id.).
Appeal 2011-003094
Application 11/611,822

12
The Examiner provides sound fact-based reasoning for combining
Shastri with Barrera and Gross. We adopt the fact finding and analysis of the
Examiner as our own. Appellants‟ do not separately argue this rejection.
Therefore, consistent with the rejection which we affirmed above, we affirm
this rejection for the reasons stated by the Examiner.
SUMMARY
In summary, we affirm the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as obvious over Barrera and Gross. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1), we also affirm the rejection of claims 11-14, 17, and 19-22, as
these claims were not argued separately.
We affirm the rejection of claims 15, 16, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) over Barrera, Gross, and Shastri.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

cdc