Facebook, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 4, 2020

14324746 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 4, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/324,746 07/07/2014 Lara Mehanna 19487.206.1.4 2465
107193 7590 09/04/2020
Keller Jolley Preece/Facebook
1010 North 500 East
Suite 210
North Salt Lake, UT 84054
EXAMINER
FILIPCZYK, MARCIN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2158
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/04/2020 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@kjpip.com
gjolley@kjpip.com
ljohnson@kjpip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Ex parte LARA MEHANNA

Appeal 2019-003514
Application 14/324,746
Technology Center 2100

Before LARRY J. HUME, JOYCE CRAIG, and MICHAEL T. CYGAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20, which are all of the pending
claims in the application. Appeal Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The real party in interest is stated to be Facebook, Inc.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-003514
Application 14/324,746

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed invention generally relates to allowing a user to select a
non-hyperlink term or phrase displayed on a web page and then presenting
the user with the option of using the selected term or phrase in a search
query. Appeal Br. 2.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method comprising
providing to a user a web page;
detecting, by at least one processor, a user selection of a term in
the web page, wherein the term is not a hyperlink within the
web page;
in response to the user selection of the term, providing, to the
user, a selectable option to use the term in a search query;
detecting, by the at least one processor, a user selection of the
selectable option corresponding to the term;
in response to detecting the user selection of the selectable
option, generating a search query, the generated search query
comprising the term; and
providing a search result corresponding to the generated search
query.
Appeal Br. 27 (Claims App.).
Independent claims 17 and 20 recite, respectively, a computer-
readable medium and a system having limitations similar to those in claim 1.
Appeal Br. 32–33. Dependent claims 2–16, 18, and 19 each incorporate the
limitations of their respective independent claims. Id. at 27–33.
REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Sathyanarayan US 6,691,106 B1 Feb. 10, 2004
Anick et al. (Anick) US 2004/0186827 A1 Sept. 23, 2004
Appeal 2019-003514
Application 14/324,746

3
REJECTION
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over
the combination of Sathyanarayan and Anick.2
OPINION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s obviousness rejection (Non-Final
Act. 8–16, Ans. 3–11) in light of Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner
has erred (Appeal Br. 6–16, Reply Br. 2–6). We are not persuaded by
Appellant’s contention that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–20
under 35 U.S.C. §103. We begin with claim 1.
The Examiner finds Sathyanarayan teaches providing to a user a web
page and a user’s highlighting (selection) of a non-hyperlink term in the web
page wherein the term is not a hyperlink within the webpage, where the
highlighting causes the term to be searched. Non-Final Act. 8 (citing
Sathyanarayan Fig. 1; Spec. 8:21–26). The Examiner finds that
Sathyanarayan’s selection of a term causes the term to be automatically
entered as a search query, rather than providing a selectable option to use the
term in a search query as claimed. Id.
The Examiner finds Anick teaches that a user’s selection of a search
term may cause a search to be optionally performed after selection of the
term. Id. (citing Anick Figs. 2, 6, items 136 and 614, ¶ 129, “[i]n step 612,
the subset of candidate terms is presented to the user. In step 614, the user
optionally selects a term 136”). The Examiner further finds Anick teaches

2 The Examiner withdrew the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in the Answer.
Ans. 3.
Appeal 2019-003514
Application 14/324,746

4
or suggests returning search results based upon the search terms. Id. at 9
(citing Anick Fig. 6, steps 612 and 614).
The Examiner provides the following explanation of how
Sathyanarayan and Anick may be combined to teach the claimed invention:
Sath[yanarayan] teaches that the user can highlight a word or
phrase on the Web page that the user is browsing so that it
becomes the search entry/query 120 . . . [and] implementing
user’s activity history in the immediate past, current context
and the like to construct further queries or further refine the
search . . . .
. . . . The selectable term/phrase in Sath[yanarayan]
system as construed is supplemented to Anick’s search
refinement options presented in figure 2 . . . . The set of
highlighted search terms/phrases in Sath[yanarayan] are
supplemented in Anick’s refine search option and are provided
to the user as a “selectable option to use the term” in the
combined system. . . . [Anick] clearly teaches providing user
an option to select a term 136 in the subset of candidate terms,
the term for use as a query replacement comprising highlighted
terms by the user as done in Sath[yanarayan], in addition to a
previously submitted query, or for other use as an exclusionary
term conjunction with previously submitted query (Anick). As
a combination, Sath[yanarayan] / Anick therefore teach “in
response to the user selection of the term, providing, to the user,
a selectable option to use the term in a search query” from
multiple terms/phrases in the Sath[yanarayan] /Anick system. . .
.
Similarly, Sath[yanarayan] / Anick teach “detecting by at
least one processor, a user selection of the selectable option”,
the detection taking place by user clicking the respective tags of
desired terms/phrases or terms/phrases directly (fig. 2, items
136, 138 and 139, shown above, Anick). Based on the user
clicking/selecting and system detecting, a query is generated
(fig. 6, item 614 and par. 129, query is generated, Anick).
Ans. 4–6.
Appeal 2019-003514
Application 14/324,746

5
In arguing error in the obviousness rejection of claim 1, Appellant
characterizes the Examiner’s combination as a user selecting a term or
phrase using the highlighting tool of Sathyanarayan in order to add the term
or phrase to the group of search refinement suggestions provided by Anick.
Reply Br. 2. Appellant argues that it would not have been obvious to one
having ordinary skill in the art to use the highlighting tool of Sathyanarayan
to provide a selectable search suggestion, because Sathyanarayan teaches
only that the highlighting tool’s selection “‘becomes the search entry’
automatically.” Id. at 3 (citing Sathyanarayan 8:21–26). Appellant further
argues that the search refinement suggestions of Anick are set at the time the
webpage is provided, not at a later time when a user may be reviewing the
webpage. Id.
To the extent that Appellant argues that one having ordinary skill in
the art would only have found obvious the use of the highlighting tool
exactly as described by Sathyanarayan, and the use of search refinement
suggestions exactly as described by Anick, we are not persuaded.
Appellant’s argument does not take into account the “inferences and creative
steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The person of ordinary skill is “a
person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421.
Furthermore, “one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually where, as here, the rejection[] [is] based on combinations of
references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck &
Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellant has provided neither
evidence nor reasoning persuasive to show error in the Examiner’s finding
Appeal 2019-003514
Application 14/324,746

6
that one having ordinary skill in the art would not have found it obvious to
use the highlighting tool of Sathyanarayan to provide a selectable search
suggestion, provided as an option selectable by a user as taught by Anick.
Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner errs for that
reason.
Appellant additionally argues that neither Sathyanarayan nor Anick
provides a selectable option to use a term in a search query. Reply Br. 4.
Appellant argues that Sathyanarayan and Anick could result in a system that
“enables a user to initiate a search using the highlighting tool of
Sath[yanarayan] to select a word or phrase to be used as the search query,”
and the combined system would provide search results that are then
supplemented by Anick’s candidate terms that could be selected to refine the
search. Id. at 4. Appellant argues that selection of a term, either by
Sathyanarayan’s highlighting tool or Anick’s selectable candidate terms,
automatically initiates a search. Id. at 4–5. Appellant argues that when a
user selects a term, the combined system would not present a selectable
option to use that term in a search query, in response to the user selection of
the term, whether the claimed “user selection of a term” is selected by
highlighting tool or selectable terms. Id. at 5; Ans 10–14.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. The Examiner relies
on Sathyanarayan to teach not only the highlighting selection tool, but also
“implementing user’s activity history in the immediate past, current context
and the like to construct further queries or further refine the search.” Ans. 4.
This further refinement of the search occurs through the addition of
additional, computer-generated keywords, which are used along with the
Appeal 2019-003514
Application 14/324,746

7
highlighted term to form a modified search query. Id. at 5 (citing
Sathyanarayan 8:27–33). The modified search query is executed to search
the highlighted term together with the additional keywords, or other search
refinements, to provide a single search result. Id. For example, the search
term may be searched with the further refinement of avoiding recently
viewed results, thus resulting in search results that do not include those that
have been recently viewed. Id.
The Examiner adds Anick for the purpose of providing the computer-
generated additional keywords or other refinements as selectable options to
the user, drawing upon Anick’s teaching of presenting additional computer-
generated search keywords as selectable options to the user. Id. at 5. In this
manner, the Examiner has combined the teachings of Sathyanarayan and
Anick to provide the user with a selectable option to use the term, with
additional keywords or refinements, in a search query. As combined by the
Examiner, the execution of a search query comprising the highlighted term
is not automatically generated until the Examiner is presented with
additional options for refinement of the search query. Consequently, we are
not persuaded that the Examiner’s combination of the teachings of the
references results in purely automatic selection of a term, devoid of a
selectable option to use a user-selected term in a search query comprising
that term.3

3 We additionally note that Anick’s Figure 2, cited by the Examiner as part
of Anick’s teaching of presenting a user-selectable option to search a term,
shows a “Find” button that provides the user an option to use a term in a
search query. Ans. 5. We do not rely upon this feature, beyond the
Appeal 2019-003514
Application 14/324,746

8
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Claims
2–20 are rejected under the same grounds of rejection as claim 1. Appellant
argues claims 3–15, 17, 19, and 20 on the same reasoning as for claim 1, and
we treat those claims as falling with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(iv).
Consequently, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3–15, 17, 19,
and 20.
Claim 2 adds the further limitation of “providing a plurality of
additional selectable options corresponding to the term in response to the
user selection of the term.” Appeal Br. 27 (Claims App.) Appellant argues
that while Anick teaches a system that provides a plurality of items along
with a corresponding term, this does not provide selectable options “in
response to the user selection of the term,” and therefore the combination
fails to teach the limitation of claim 2. Id. at 15. Appellant thus argues that
the rejection of claim 2 is in error for the same reasons as argued against
claim 1. Id.
For the same reasons described in the discussion of claim 1, we are
not persuaded by Appellant’s argument against the rejection of claim 2. The
Examiner relies upon Sathyanarayan’s discussion of using information about
the “user’s current context” including the “user’s current goals (search
goals)” in providing for additional keywords to refine the search. Ans. 4–5
(citing Sathyanarayan 8:27–33). The Examiner further relies upon Anick’s
discussion of multiple selectable terms to refine a search based on a user-
selected term. Id. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner errs

Examiner’s discussion in the Non-Final Action and the Examiner’s Answer,
in sustaining the Examiner’s rejection.
Appeal 2019-003514
Application 14/324,746

9
in finding the combination of references teaches or suggests providing a
plurality of additional selectable options corresponding to the term in
response to the user selection of the term. Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 2.
Claim 16 adds, inter alia, the additional limitation of “identifying
contextual information associated with the previous search query based on
content within the web page.” Appeal Br. 31 (Claims App.) Claim 18 adds,
inter alia, the additional limitation of “the previous search result being
associated with a previous search query.” Id. at 32 (Claims App.).
Appellant argues against both claims on the same rationale, namely, that
Sathyanarayan’s use of profile information to determine a user context is not
the same as determining whether a search result within a generated search
query is contextually relevant to the previous search query. Appeal Br. 15–
16.
The Examiner finds that Anick teaches determining the relevance of a
set of documents in relation to the initially provided search term. Ans. 10
(citing Anick Fig. 2). The Examiner further finds that Sathyanarayan
teaches determining whether the search result associated with the generated
search query is contextually relevant to a previous search query. Id. (citing
Sathyanarayan 9:1–11). We agree with the Examiner’s finding that both
Anick and Sathyanarayan teach or suggest presenting additional keywords to
a search query based upon the context of that query, such as Anick’s
example of applying greater weight to a candidate term that includes a term
from a previous query (Anick ¶ 104), and Sathyanarayan’s example of using
information relating to the current web page to construct additional queries
Appeal 2019-003514
Application 14/324,746

10
(Sathyanarayan 8:27–33). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 16 and 18.
CONCLUSION
For the above-described reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 1–20 as being obvious over the applied references under
35 U.S.C.§103.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103 Sathyanarayan,
Anick
1–20

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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED