Google Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 6, 2022

2020006664 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 6, 2022)

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. 15/182,118 06/14/2016 Scott Tadashi Davies 16113-7893001 3688 26192 7590 01/06/2022 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. PO BOX 1022 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022 EXAMINER LE, MIRANDA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2153 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/06/2022 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): PATDOCTC@fr.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte SCOTT TADASHI DAVIES and JUSTIN LEWIS ____________ Appeal 2020-006664 Application 15/182,118 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before KARL D. EASTHOM, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1-18, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Google LLC. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-006664 Application 15/182,118 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention relates to “distribution of digital content to a client computing device.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 5, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 5. A method comprising: receiving, by one or more servers and from a given client device, a search query; identifying, by the one or more servers, a set of electronic documents using the search query; generating, by the one or more servers, a composite search results page that i) is hosted by a different domain than at least some electronic documents in the set of electronic documents ii) includes various electronic documents from the set of electronic documents, iii) presents a set of search results that include hyperlinks to the electronic documents, and iv) hides presentation of the electronic documents in the composite search results page until user interaction with the set of search results presented in the composite search results page; generating, by the one or more servers, one or more digital content asset packages, each digital content asset package including i) digital content assets and ii) one or more instructions that specify a configuration of the digital content assets for presentation of the digital content assets on the electronic documents when the electronic documents are revealed; generating, by the one or more servers, a digital content asset package list that specifies an order of presentation of the digital content assets on the electronic documents as the electronic documents are revealed in the composite search result page and replace the set of search results in the composite search results page at the given client device in response to user interaction with search results from the set of search results presented in the composite search results page; and in response to the search query, transmitting, by the one or more servers and to the given client device, the composite search Appeal 2020-006664 Application 15/182,118 3 results page, the one or more digital content asset packages, and the digital content asset package list. REJECTION ON APPEAL Claims 1-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Craswell et al. (US 2010/0228744 A1; published Sept. 9, 2010) (“Craswell”) and Nagaishi et al. (US 7,062,487 B1; issued June 13, 2006) (“Nagaishi”). Final Act. 3. ANALYSIS Dispositive Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Craswell and Nagaishi teaches or suggests (emphasis added): generating, by the one or more servers, a composite search results page that i) is hosted by a different domain than at least some electronic documents in the set of electronic documents ii) includes various electronic documents from the set of electronic documents, iii) presents a set of search results that include hyperlinks to the electronic documents, and iv) hides presentation of the electronic documents in the composite search results page until user interaction with the set of search results presented in the composite search results page; [and] generating, by the one or more servers, a digital content asset package list that specifies an order of presentation of the digital content assets on the electronic documents as the electronic documents are revealed in the composite search result page and replace the set of search results in the composite search results page at the given client device in response to user interaction with search results from the set of search results presented in the composite search results page; as recited in independent claim 5, and commensurately recited in independent claims 1 and 12? Appeal 2020-006664 Application 15/182,118 4 The Examiner finds that Craswell’s enhancing a search result snippet including identifying subsets that “are prepared to be retrieved at a later time” teaches hiding presentation of the electronic documents in the composite search results page until user interaction with the set of search results presented in the results page. Final Act. 4 (citing Craswell ¶ 39). The Examiner also finds that Craswell teaches that “web pages 412, 414, 428 (i.e. electronic document) are not displayed until the user click on subject URL in the search result pages 418, 420, 422,” which “teaches electronic document[s] that are included in the search result page but hidden until users interact with the search result.” Ans. 3-4 (citing Craswell ¶ 27); see id. at 6, 8, 10. Appellant argues that Craswell teaches “ways in which a search result snippet can be modified by ‘visibly distinguishing terms included in the snippet that are determined to be potentially relevant to the URL,’” but does not teach that “any electronic documents that are included in the search results page, but hidden until users interact with the search results.” Appeal Br. 5-6; see also id. at 7, 10. Specifically, Appellant argues that “Craswell is simply referring to a way in which text descriptive of a URL can be identified to create a search results snippet, and in no way refers to an electronic document that is revealed within a search results page when a user interacts with the search results.” Id. at 8. Appellant argues that, in contrast to the claims that “specifically require that the ‘composite search results page’ actually ‘include[] the electronic documents’ identified using the search query as well as ‘hyperlinks to [those] electronic documents,’” Craswell teaches that “if a user clicks on a search result, a request for the web page linked to by that search result will be requested.” Reply Br. 2. Appeal 2020-006664 Application 15/182,118 5 According to Appellant, the references do not teach the claim requirement “that the composite search results page ‘hide[] presentation of the electronic documents in the composite search results page until user interaction with the set of search results.’” Id. at 2-3. We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Craswell is generally directed to “enhancing a search result snippet that is associated with a URL” using “descriptive terms of the URL” and “causing common terms to be visibly distinguished when the snippet is displayed.” Craswell, Abstr. Craswell discloses that “a search-result snippet refers to a combination of characters that provide a summary of content associated with a URL,” and may include, as an example, “a title for the URL and a body of text related to the URL.” Id. ¶ 18. These “[s]nippets are often displayed to a user in response to a search query, such that each snippet provides a portion of content of a respective URL.” Id. As an example, Craswell recites that “search results page 418 includes a search query 432 having search terms [A, E, F]” and “a set of search results 434, which are returned in response to search query 432,” and each of the “[s]earch results 434 include a link to subject URL 410 as an individual search result.” Id. ¶ 27. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner does not make sufficient findings that Craswell’s search results including links to subject URLs teaches “a composite search results page that . . . hides presentation of the electronic documents in the composite search results page until user interaction with the set of search results presented in the composite search results page” as claimed. Specifically, as argued by Appellant, Craswell’s search results include links to subject URLs, which do not teach electronic Appeal 2020-006664 Application 15/182,118 6 documents that are hidden “in the composite search results page” and then are “revealed in the composite search results page” as claimed. The Examiner’s finding that Nagaishi’s user viewing the clustering results and clicking on the title portion to “display the body of the document corresponding to the title” teaches presenting the search results including the electronic documents is not supported by any evidence. See Final Act. 5 (citing Nagaishi, col. 13, ll. 27-32); see Ans. 7. As cited by the Examiner, Nagaishi discloses that the “user views the table of the clustering results, and clicks the title portion of a document which is likely to contain information desired by the user.” Nagaishi, col. 13, ll. 27-30. In response to the user’s selection of a title portion, a “displaying process is performed to display the body of the document corresponding to the title.” Id. at col. 13, ll. 30-32. As persuasively argued by Appellant, the cited sections of Nagaishi, teach “a user interacting with a title of a document to display the document,” but do not teach “that the document referred to by the search result title is actually included in a search results page, but hidden from view until a user interacts with the search results page.” Appeal Br. 6-7; see id. at 9-11. Specifically, the Examiner has not sufficiently explained how Nagaishi’s displaying the body corresponding to the title necessarily requires that the body is hidden “in the composite search results page” and is “revealed in the composite search results page.” Therefore, the Examiner has not sufficiently explained how the combination of Craswell’s search results including links to subject URLs and Nagaishi’s broadly displaying the body of a document teaches “a composite search results page that . . . hides presentation of the electronic Appeal 2020-006664 Application 15/182,118 7 documents in the composite results page until user interaction with the set of search results” and “an order of presentation of the digital content assets on the electronic documents as the electronic documents are revealed in the composite search result page” as claimed. Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments. Accordingly, on this record, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claims 1, 5, and 12, and dependent claims 2- 4, 6-11, and 13-18. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-18 103 Craswell, Nagaishi 1-18 REVERSED