Ex Parte Daniels et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 25, 2012

10711954 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte FONDA J. DANIELS, TIMOTHY E. FIGGINS, and DAVID B. KUMHYR _____________ Appeal 2010-005234 Application 10/711,954 Technology Center 2100 ______________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHNNY A. KUMAR and BRYAN F. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1-15 and 34. Br. 2. Claim 16-33 have been cancelled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. Appeal 2010-005234 Application 10/711,954 2 INVENTION The invention is directed to performing searches on a network, such as the Internet, private networks or the like and more particularly to a method and system to identify a previously visited or accessed universal resource locator (URL), network address or the like in results from a search. See Spec. [Para 1]. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. A method to identify a previously visited URL in results from a search, comprising: loading a URL personal databook collection object in response to receiving the results of a network search by a search engine, wherein the URL personal databook collection object comprises URL references that have been previously visited by a user and selectively saved in the URL personal databook collection object by the user; and a comment, associated with each URL reference, entered and saved by the user to indicate a reason why each URL reference was stored in the URL personal databook collection object; presenting all search results that satisfy the at least one search term including any URL references that have been previously visited by the user and selectively saved in the URL personal databook collection object by the user and including any URL references that satisfy the at least one search term but have not been previously visited by the user and therefore have not been saved in the URL personal databook collection object; and identifying any matches between results from the search and any URL object references of previously visited URLs in the URL personal databook collection object. REFERENCES Bates US 5,877,766 Mar. 2, 1999 Amro US 6,950,861 B1 Sep. 27, 2005 Appeal 2010-005234 Application 10/711,954 3 REJECTION AT ISSUE Claims 1-15, and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Amro and Bates. Ans. 3-12. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Amro and Bates teach the following limitations: a. “loading a URL personal databook collection object in response to receiving the results of a network search by a search engine [;]” and b. “wherein the URL personal databook collection object comprises URL references that have been previously visited by a user and selectively saved in the URL personal databook collection object by the user; and a comment, associated with each URL reference, entered and saved by the user to indicate a reason why each URL reference was stored in the URL personal databook collection object . . . ” (Independent claim 1)? ANALYSIS Appellants present arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11. Claim 1 recites “loading a URL personal databook collection object in response to receiving the results of a network search by a search engine.” Claims 2-10 are not argued separately and therefore fall with claim 1. See Br. 7-8. Claims 12-15 and 34 are not argued separately and therefore fall with claim 11. See Br. 8. Appeal 2010-005234 Application 10/711,954 4 Appellants argue that Amro does not disclose the above limitation in claim 1. App. Br. 5-7. Specifically, Appellants argue that “Amro clearly teaches that the search engine 112 accesses the bookmarks 102 before searching the database and websites associated with the bookmarks 102 and then provides the results of the search.” Id at 6. We are not persuaded by this argument. The Examiner construes the term loading to mean accessing. Ans. 13. Appellants provide no construction for the term loading but Appellants use the term accessing interchangeably with the term loading in the Appeal Brief. Br. 6. Our reviewing court has provided instruction that: [T]he PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant's specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Appellants’ Specification discusses “loading” as directed to loading a URL personal databook collection object. Spec. [para 14]. However, the Specification does not discuss what loading means. Specification discloses from where the URL personal databook is loaded by stating that “the URL personal databook collection object may be a predetermined memory location or portion of a memory or stored on a data storage device or system memory of a computer system or the like.” Spec. [para 13]. Thus, we find the URL personal databook collection may be loaded from memory. Appellants do not identify any description in the original disclosure that provides additional guidance in construing this term, or that precludes the Examiner’s construction. Accordingly, and in view of the record presented, Appellants Appeal 2010-005234 Application 10/711,954 5 have not persuasively argued that the Examiner’s construction is unreasonable in view of, or inconsistent with, Appellants’ Specification. Given the above construction of the term loading, we conclude that there is ample support for the Examiner’s finding that Amro teaches that the search engine 112 accesses the bookmarks 102 after searching the database and websites associated with the bookmarks 102 and then provides the results of the search. Ans. 5-6. According to Fig. 4, Amro teaches receiving an identifier associated with a bookmark, where the identifier may be a URL address. Amro, Fig. 4. Amro teaches subsequently searching a database using a search term and, upon receiving the results of the search, searching websites associated with bookmarks using the search term. Amro, col. 4, ll. 5-11, Fig. 4; see also Ans 13. We find that, in order to search the websites associated with the bookmarks, Amro must access the bookmark based on the received identifier. See Ans. 13. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Amro teaches “loading a URL personal databook collection object in response to receiving the results of a network search” as provided by the embodiment of the present invention.” Id. Claim 1 also recites “wherein the URL personal databook collection object comprises URL references that have been previously visited by a user and selectively saved in the URL personal databook collection object by the user; and a comment, associated with each URL reference, entered and saved by the user to indicate a reason why each URL reference was stored in the URL personal databook collection object.” Appellants further argue “that the URL personal databook collection object of the embodiments of the present invention are distinguishable from the bookmarks as commonly known in the computing arts and as used by Amro.” See Br. 7. Specifically, Appeal 2010-005234 Application 10/711,954 6 Appellants argue that “[b]ookmarks are short cuts or direct links to Websites whereas the personal databook collection of the embodiments of the present invention is used as an aid to help a user identify URLs in search results that have been previously visited and to recall why a particular URL was previously visited.” We are not persuaded by this argument. The Examiner relies on Amro and Bates to collectively show the URL personal databook collection object. Claim 1 recites the standard understanding of a bookmark, which is to help a user identify websites the user has previously visited, and adds a comment which allows a user to recall why a particular URL was previously visited. See Spec. [para 2] (describing a standard bookmark). Amro teaches using a bookmark. See, e.g., Amro, col. 4, ll. 5-11. The Examiner relies on Bates to supply the concept of a comment associated with a bookmark. Ans. 13. Bates teaches that a “pop-up window display may display the address or location (e.g., the URL) of the document associated with the node display element, a title or description thereof (optionally entered by an end user similar to a bookmark or favorite), and/or other information such as document size, the last date the document was accessed or updated, the creation date of the document, etc.” Bates, col. 25, ll. 36-42; see also, Ans. 4. Thus, Bates discloses user entered comments associated with a bookmark. We conclude that there is ample support for the Examiner’s finding that the bookmark of Amro combined with the bookmark comment of Bates is encompassed by the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “URL personal databook collection object” in the context of the invention and as recited in claim 1. See Ans. 13. Appeal 2010-005234 Application 10/711,954 7 For the reasons stated above, we find no error in the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-15, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Amro and Bates. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-15 and 34 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011). AFFIRMED tj