International Business Machines Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 2, 2020

2019003599 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 2, 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.
15/385,401 12/20/2016 Susann M. Keohane AUS920040515US3 6164
105678 7590 09/02/2020
IBM Corp. - Fishkill Drafting Center
2455 South Road
M/S P386, Bldg. 008-2
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
EXAMINER
DWIVEDI, MAHESH H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2168
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2020 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):
fdciplaw@us.ibm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SUSANN M. KEOHANE, GERALD F. MCBREARTY,
SHAWN P. MULLEN, JESSICA K. MURILLO,
and JOHNNY M. SHIEH

Appeal 2019-003599
Application 15/385,401
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC B. CHEN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–18. 1 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(a). Appellant identifies International Business Machines Corporation
as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-003599
Application 15/385,401

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “administration of search results.”
Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for administration of search results, the
method comprising:
displaying a set of search results from a search;
presenting a first user interface having a plurality of
selectable exclusion modes, the plurality of selectable exclusion
modes including an exclude all except mode;

receiving an indication that the exclude all except mode
has been selected;
receiving an indication of a first search result of the set of
search results;
responsive to selection of a user interface element of a
second user interface, the user interface element indicating one
or more results of the set of search results are to be excluded,
excluding all of the set of search results except the
first search result and a subset of the set of search results
that indicate related links, wherein the subset to except
from exclusion is determined based, at least in part, on
search results having a same domain name as a link of
the first search result; and
displaying the first search result and the subset of the set
of search results.

Appeal 2019-003599
Application 15/385,401

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:

Name Reference Date
Henderson US 2001/0051998 A1 Dec. 13, 2001
Pallmann US 2002/0078014 A1 June 20, 2002
Walther US 2005/0234891 A1 Oct. 20, 2005
Karls US 7,873,622 B1 Jan. 18, 2011

V4 Integration, Managing CATIA Version 4 Models, PROJECT Files and
Library Objects in CATIA Version 5, Dassault Systemes, 1999
(“Dassault”).

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 7, and 13 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Walther and Dassault. Final Act. 12–18.
Claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 14, and 15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Walther, Dassault, and Pallmann. Final Act. 18–23.
Claims 4, 6, 10, 12, 16, and 18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Walther, Dassault, and Karls. Final Act. 23–28.
Claims 5, 11, and 17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Walther, Dassault, Karls, and Henderson. Final Act. 28–29.
OPINION
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1, 17, and 13 over Walther and
Dassault
The Examiner finds Walther and Dassault teach all limitations of
claim 1. Final Act. 13–18. The Examiner finds Walther teaches all
limitations of claim 1 except “presenting a first user interface having a
Appeal 2019-003599
Application 15/385,401

4
plurality of selectable exclusion modes, the plurality of selectable exclusion
modes including an exclude all except mode; receiving an indication that the
exclude all except mode has been selected.” Final Act. 13–17.
In particular, the Examiner finds Walther teaches
responsive to selection of a user interface element . . . excluding
all of the set of search results except the first search result and a
subset of the set of search results that indicate related links,
wherein the subset to except from exclusion is determined based,
at least in part, on search results having a same domain name as
a link of the first search result
as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 13–16 (citing Walther ¶¶ 22, 70, 146, and
148).
The Examiner finds Dassault teaches “presenting a first user interface
having a plurality of selectable exclusion modes, the plurality of selectable
exclusion modes including an exclude all except mode; receiving an
indication that the exclude all except mode has been selected” as recited in
claim 1. Final Act. 17–18. The Examiner reasons
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings
of the cited references because [Dassault’s teachings] would
have allowed [Walther’s system] to provide a method to allow
for the creation, selection, and application of multiple filters in a
computer program.
Final Act. 18 (citing Dassault 16).
Appellant presents the following principal arguments:
i.
The cited passages [of Walther] describe techniques for
retrieving previously stored annotations and making those
previously stored annotations available with results of a web
search. However, they do not teach or suggest claim 1’s
Appeal 2019-003599
Application 15/385,401

5
technique that enables a user to exclude from search results all
but a particular web page associated with a given domain name
and other web pages associated with the domain name.
Appeal Br. 10–11; see also Reply Br. 2–3.
ii. “The combination of Walther and Dassault impermissibly
combines non-analogous art.” Appeal Br. 12. “Walther’s system for
annotating web pages is not analogous to Dassault’s system for presenting
images.” Appeal Br. 12.
iii. “Applicant submits one of ordinary skill in the web searching
art would not combine Dassault’s image filter designed to present all image
layers except a user-selected image layer with Walther’s web searching tool
that enables users to annotate web pages.” Appeal Br. 12–13. “[M]odifying
Walther’s web searching system with Dassault’s image filter would render
Walther’s system inoperable for its purpose of presenting user-provided web
page annotations.” Appeal Br. 13.
In response to Appellant’s argument (i), the Examiner explains
Walther teaches “the display of only the search results with the same domain
name when a user clicks on a link to view unfavorable hits when the site
option was chosen when initially rating a specific search result as
unfavorable.” Ans. 6, 7.
In response to Appellant’s argument (ii), the Examiner explains
in contrast to the assertions from the appellants, there is no
impermissible combination. Specifically, the secondary
reference of Dassault is directed towards providing a user
interface for users to exclude displayed data. The primary
reference of Walther also clearly provides a user interface for
users to exclude displayed data. Dassault clearly provides the
ability for users to select from multiple different exclusion modes
(including an exclude all except mode) such that users can have
Appeal 2019-003599
Application 15/385,401

6
different options when determining data to be excluded when
displayed. The combination would result in expanding Walther
such that specific multiple different exclusion modes (including
an exclude all except mode) is available to a user when that user
is desiring to filter displayed data.
Ans. 8.
In response to Appellant’s argument (iii), the Examiner explains
the combination would result in the filtering of search results
(which is already done in Walther) to include a specific type of
filter of an exclude all except mode (from Dassault) as search
results are simply data. There would be no inoperable rendering
of Walther as the combination would simply expand on the
different types of exclusion options available to a user to include
a specific exclude all except mode.
Ans. 9.
We do not see any error in the contested Examiner’s findings. We
concur with the Examiner’s conclusions.
Walther discloses “[u]sers are able to annotate and view their
annotations for any document they encounter while interacting with [a]
corpus, including hits returned in a search of the corpus. Users are also able
to search their annotations or to limit searches to documents they have
annotated.” Walther, Abstract (emphasis added).
Walther further discloses “[f]or annotations whose host flag is set to
‘site,’ a match (also referred to herein as a ‘partial match’) is detected if the
beginning portion of the hit URL matches the URL (or partial URL) stored
in the annotation (e.g., in URL field 308 in FIG. 3).” Walther ¶ 146
(emphasis added).
Walther further discloses
Appeal 2019-003599
Application 15/385,401

7
In some embodiments, reranking at step 1420 may also
include dropping any hits that match unfavorably rated pages or
sites from the list of hits to be displayed. In such embodiments,
the search results page delivered to the user may include an
indication of the number of hits that were dropped due to
unfavorable ratings and/or a “Show all hits” button (or other
control) that allows the user to see the search results displayed
with the unfavorably rated hits included. In another variation,
the user can click on a link to see just the unfavorably rated hits.
Walther ¶ 148 (emphasis added).
Thus, we agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s finding that
Walter teaches
responsive to selection of a user interface element . . . excluding
all of the set of search results except the first search result and a
subset of the set of search results that indicate related links
[(Walther discloses excluding all hits except unfavorably rated
hits)], wherein the subset to except from exclusion is determined
based, at least in part, on search results having a same domain
name as a link of the first search result [(Walther discloses setting
the host flag for the unfavorable annotation to “site”)]
as recited in claim 1. See Walther Abstract, ¶¶ 146, 148; see also Final Act.
13–16; Ans. 6, 7.
Accordingly, Appellant’s argument (i) does not show any error.
Further, the Examiner’s reason to combine Dassault with Walther is
rational on its face and supported by evidence drawn from the record. See
Final Act. 18 (citing Dassault 16). Appellant’s arguments (ii) and (iii) do not
show any error in this reasoning because we agree with and adopt as our
own the Examiner’s explanation on pages 8 and 9 of the Answer reproduced
above. See Ans. 8, 9.
Appeal 2019-003599
Application 15/385,401

8
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We also
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 and 13, which are not separately
argued with particularity.

The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 14, and 15 over Walther,
Dassault, and Pallmann
Appellant argues Pallmann does not cure the alleged deficiency of
Walther and Dassault, and the combination of Walther and Dassault is
improper. See Appeal Br. 13–14.
For reasons discussed above, we determine Walther and Dassault are
not deficient, and the combination is not improper.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 8, 9,
14, and 15.

The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 4, 6, 10, 12, 16, and 18 over Walther,
Dassault, and Karls
Appellant argues Karls does not cure the alleged deficiency of
Walther and Dassault, and the combination of Walther and Dassault is
improper. See Appeal Br. 14.
For reasons discussed above, we determine Walther and Dassault are
not deficient, and the combination is not improper.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 6, 10, 12,
16, and 18.
Appeal 2019-003599
Application 15/385,401

9
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 5, 11, and 17 over Walther, Dassault,
Karls, and Henderson
Appellant argues Karls and Henderson do not cure the alleged
deficiency of Walther and Dassault, and the combination of Walther and
Dassault is improper. See Appeal Br. 15.
For reasons discussed above, we determine Walther and Dassault are
not deficient, and the combination is not improper.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 11, and
17.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–18 is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 7, 13 103(a) Walther, Dassault 1, 7, 13
2, 3, 8, 9,
14, 15
103(a) Walther, Dassault,
Pallmann
2, 3, 8, 9,
14, 15

4, 6, 10, 12,
16, 18
103(a) Walther, Dassault,
Karls
4, 6, 10,
12, 16, 18

5, 11, 17 103(a) Walther, Dassault,
Karls, Henderson
5, 11, 17
Overall
Outcome
1–18
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED