MARS FLAG Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 25, 2022

2020006702 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 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. 15/056,140 02/29/2016 Shinya TAKEI 0200-0001CON1 4697 96180 7590 01/25/2022 Snyder, Clark, Lesch and Chung, PLLC Yukiko O. Maekawa 205 Van Buren Street Suite 110 Herndon, VA 20170 EXAMINER FILIPCZYK, MARCIN R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2153 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/25/2022 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): PTO@SnyderLLP.com docket@snyderllp.com pto.archive@sclclaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _______________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _______________ Ex parte SHINYA TAKEI and UMIHITO KUSAMA _______________ Appeal 2020-006702 Application 15/056,140 Technology Center 2100 _______________ Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges. BUI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final rejection of claims 1-3 and 6-19, all the pending claims. Appeal Br. 22-30 (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm in part.2 1 Appellant refers to “applicant(s)” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as MARS FLAG CORPORATION. Appeal Br. 3. 2 Our Decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed April 13, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief filed September 24, 2020 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed July 24, 2020 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action Appeal 2020-006702 Application 15/056,140 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s claimed invention relates to a search system, shown in Figure 1, for searching Web sites on the Internet based on a search term, where “a user can easily identify a position of a search term in a document of search results, and a user can efficiently and swiftly reach a target document.” Spec. ¶¶ 7, 12. Figure 1, depicting a search system for searching Web sites on the Internet, is reproduced below with our annotations for illustration: Figure 1 depicts a search system including clients 101a-101c which enable a user to conduct an Internet search, via Internet 102 including (1) search server 103 which provides a search service for searching document files over mailed October 10, 2019 (“Final Act.”); and original Specification filed February 29, 2016 (“Spec.”). Appeal 2020-006702 Application 15/056,140 3 Internet 102 and manages information stored in full-text search database 105 and image database 106, and (2) web server 104 which provides Website information and manages information of document files for publishing a Website stored in Website information database 107. Id. ¶¶ 36-44. Figure 10A depicting a visual display of an example search result, is reproduced below: Figure 10A depicts an example search result including (1) link 1001 for connecting to a URL, (2) URL display 1002 for indicating a URL of a connection destination of link 1001, and (3) thumbnail image 1003. Spec. ¶ 80. Figure 10C depicting example preview area 1020 including an emphasized display of a search term superimposed on window 1000 displaying search results as per user’s selection (i.e., when a cursor is positioned over displayed result), is reproduced below with additional markings for emphasis: Appeal 2020-006702 Application 15/056,140 4 Figure 10C depicts example preview area 1020 including an emphasized display of a search term superimposed on window 1000 displaying search results as per user’s selection (i.e., when a cursor is positioned over displayed result). Id. ¶¶ 81, 95, 97. As shown in Figure 10C, search term 1024b (“ABC”) is displayed along with (1) captions 1021a, 1021b (i.e., the claimed “first indication”) of the search term 1024b; (2) flag icons 1022a, 1022b (i.e., the claimed “second indication”) to indicate that an image in Webpage corresponds to user-specified search term; and (3) “match in non- display area” 1023 (i.e., the claimed “third indication”) to indicate that meta- information of the Webpage is not displayed in the displayed Webpage and corresponds to the user-specified search term. Id. ¶ 97. Appeal 2020-006702 Application 15/056,140 5 Claims 1, 13, 15, and 16 are independent. Claim 1 is representative, as reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized: 1. An information processing apparatus, comprising: a display device; one or more processors; a memory; and one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for: displaying a search screen, on the display device, for accepting an input of a search term specified by a user, and a first instruction from a user of the information processing apparatus to perform a search using the user-specified search term, in response to accepting the first instruction, transmitting a search instruction including the user-specified search term to an external search server, receiving a search result, wherein the search result is a result of a search executed by the external search server in accordance with the search instruction, displaying the search result on the display device, wherein the displayed search result includes a plurality of pieces of link information, in response to selection of one of the plurality of pieces of link information by the user, transmitting a request for a Web page to a destination server different from the search server in accordance with the one of the plurality of pieces of link information, receiving the Web page in accordance with the request from the destination server, searching for the user-specified search term in the Web page received from the destination server, [1] inserting a tag into the received Web page for emphasizing the searched user-specified search term when the received Web page is displayed, by executing a first script described in the Web page, and displaying, on the display device, the Web page, into Appeal 2020-006702 Application 15/056,140 6 which the tag is inserted, with the user-specified search term emphasized according to the inserted tag, wherein the Web page displayed on the display device includes: a first indication that text in the displayed Web page corresponds to the user-specified search term, [2] a second indication that an image in the displayed Web page corresponds to the user-specified search term, and [3] a third indication that meta-information of the received Web page is not displayed in the displayed Web page, and corresponds to the user-specified search term. Appeal Br. 22-23 (Claims App.). REJECTION AND REFERENCES Claims 1-3 and 6-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Yoshimura et al. (US 2008/0172620 A1; published July 17, 2008; “Yoshimura”) and Mehanna (US 8,874,606 B2; issued Oct. 28, 2014). Final Act. 2-9. ANALYSIS In support of the obviousness rejection, the Examiner finds the combination of Yoshimura and Mehanna teaches or suggests all of the limitations of Appellant’s claims 1, 13, 15, and 16. Final Act. 2-9 (citing Yoshimura ¶ 44, Figs. 1, 5A-5B; Mehanna 5:23-60, Figs. 4, 10). Of particular relevance, the Examiner finds Yoshimura teaches most limitations of Appellant’s claimed “information processing apparatus,” except for the disputed limitations: [1] inserting a tag into the received Web page for emphasizing the searched user-specified search term when the received Web page is displayed, by executing a first script described in the Web page, and Appeal 2020-006702 Application 15/056,140 7 [2] a second indication that an image in the displayed Web page corresponds to the user-specified search term, and [3] a third indication that meta-information of the received Web page is not displayed in the displayed Web page, and corresponds to the user-specified search term. Id. at 3 (citing Yoshimura ¶ 44, Figs. 1, 5A-5B). The Examiner then relies upon Mehanna to teach the disputed limitations to support the conclusion of obviousness. Final Act. 4-5 (citing Mehanna 5:23-60, Figs. 4, 10). Appellant disputes the Examiner’s findings regarding Mehanna’s teachings. In particular, Appellant presents several principal arguments against the application of Mehanna. First, Appellant contends Mehanna does not teach or suggest the disputed limitation: [1] “inserting a tag into the received Web page for emphasizing the searched user-specified search term when the received Web page is displayed, by executing a first script described in the Web page.” Appeal Br. 13-14 (emphasis omitted). According to Appellant, Mehanna’s user is able to select search words, for example, “San,” “Diego,” and “Padres” in the displayed source document, and then words “San Diego Padres” are highlighted and enclosed in a rectangle. Id. at 14 (citing Mehanna 5:57-58, Fig. 4). However, Appellant argues “Mehanna does not [teach] or suggest inserting a tag into the source document for emphasizing the user selected words ‘San Diego Padres’ when the received Web page is displayed, by executing a first script described in the Web page.” Id. Appeal 2020-006702 Application 15/056,140 8 Second, Appellant contends Mehanna does not teach or suggest the displayed Web page includes the disputed limitation: [2] “a second indication that an image in the displayed Web page corresponds to the user-specified search term.” Appeal Br. 14 (emphasis omitted). According to Appellant, The webpage shown in Figs. 2 and 4 of Mehanna is a source document which is a display result responsive to the initial query. See col. 3, lines 35-36, col. 12, lines 15-21, and Fig. 11 of Mehanna. Mehanna merely discloses that some words displayed in the webpage may correspond to the search parameters and are highlighted. The webpage shown in Fig. 4 of Mehanna includes images of six players. Mehanna merely discloses that the sentences located at the side of one of the images correspond to one of the search parameters. Even though the webpage is responsive to the initial inquiry that includes the search parameters, the webpage does not include any indication that these images in the webpage correspond to the search parameter. Therefore, Mehanna does not disclose or suggest a second indication that an image in the displayed Web page corresponds to the user-specified search term, as recited in claim 1. Id. at 15 (emphasis added; some emphasis omitted). Third, Appellant contends Mehanna does not teach or suggest the displayed Web page includes the disputed limitation: [3] “a third indication that meta-information of the received Web page is not displayed in the displayed Web page, and corresponds to the user-specified search term.” Appeal Br. 16 (emphasis omitted). According to Appellant, Mehanna discloses at col. 4, lines 5-22 that the user elects to exclude one or more terms in the metadata from the query results, and indicates that query results corresponding to the excluded terms should not be included. For example, Mehanna discloses that the user elects to exclude the query result Appeal 2020-006702 Application 15/056,140 9 corresponding to both terms “Wells” and “Yankees” by selecting the term “Yankees” and the user indicates that the query result should not include or be responsive to the selected term “Yankees.” Mehanna does not disclose or suggest that the displayed webpage include any indication that meta-information of the received Web page is not displayed in the displayed Web page, and the meta-information corresponds to the user-specified search term. Therefore, Mehanna does not disclose or suggest that the Web page displayed on the display device includes a third indication that meta-information of the received Web page is not displayed in the displayed Web page, and corresponds to the user-specified search term, as recited in claim 1. Id. at 16-17 (emphasis added, underlining omitted). Appellant’s contentions are not persuasive of Examiner error. Instead, we find the Examiner’s findings, including the Examiner’s responses to Appellant’s contentions, are supported by a preponderance of the evidence on this record. Ans. 3-6. As such, we adopt the Examiner’s findings provided therein. Id. For additional emphasis, we note that Appellant’s independent claims 1, 13, 15, and 16 do not highlight the distinction between (1) a visual display of search results of a search term in window 1000, shown in Figure 10A, and (2) a preview, emphasized display of search results of the same search term in preview area 1020 superimposed on window 1000 as per user’s selection (i.e., when a cursor is positioned over displayed result), shown in Figure 10C. Spec. ¶ 81. Appellant’s claims 1, 13, 15, and 16 are, therefore, broader in scope of coverage relative to the disclosed embodiment shown in Figures 10A-10D and do not distinguish over Yoshimura and Mehanna. At the outset, we note that claim terms, during examination, are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In Appeal 2020-006702 Application 15/056,140 10 re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Here, the terms “first indication,” “second indication,” and “third indication” are not defined by Appellant’s Specification. According to Appellant, the term “second indication” refers to “an indication, such as flag displays . . . added to the images when a file name of the images, or a word corresponding to the information surrounded by quotation marks in a tag exists.” Appeal Br. 14 (citing Spec. ¶ 97, Fig. 10C). Likewise, the term “third indication” refers to “an indication, such as ‘NON-DISPLAY AREA MATCH’ . . . displayed even when a meta tag that does not appear in the table as display information in displaying the Web page, or the title, or the like includes a word that matches the search term.” Id. at 16 (citing Spec. ¶ 97, Fig. 10C). We agree with Appellant only in part. As correctly recognized by the Examiner, the term “second indication” is not limited to an example provided in Appellant’s Specification with regards to a “flag” or flag icons 1022a, 1022b, shown in Figure 10C. Ans. 5. Instead, the term “second indication” can be broadly, but reasonably, interpreted to encompass anything serving to indicate or point out that “an image in the displayed Web page corresponds to the user-specified search term,” as recited in Appellant’s claims 1, 13, 15, and 16, including, for example, Mehanna’s “image(s)” included in the web pages 405, 505, 605, 705, 805, shown in Appeal 2020-006702 Application 15/056,140 11 Mehanna’s Figures 4-8, “as a distinct display from the marked text display responsive to the user search configuration.” Id. (citing Mehanna 11:27-37). Likewise, the term “third indication” is not limited to an example provided in Appellant’s Specification with regards to “NON-DISPLAY AREA MATCH” 1023, shown in Figure 10C. Instead, the term “third indication” can be broadly, but reasonably, interpreted to encompass anything serving to indicate or point out that “meta-information of the received Web page is not displayed in the displayed Web page, and corresponds to the user-specified search term,” as recited in Appellant’s claims 1, 13, 15, and 16, including, for example, “[i]n a case when search data and profile is manipulated [in Mehanna], search configurator based on client and network capabilities, modifies the results such as by removing images, or some content from the display” which results in a “limited display of set of results not including a relevant image.” Id. at 6 (citing Mehanna 11:49-56) (emphasis omitted). For example, Mehanna’s Figure 4 shows a client device’s graphical user interface (GUI) 400 to enable a user to select a search term from document 405 for emphasis (e.g., highlighting) in order to generate search results responsive to a user’s predicted interest, as reproduced below: Appeal 2020-006702 Application 15/056,140 12 Mehanna’s Figure 4 depicts graphical user interface (GUI) 400 illustrating how real-time search results related to a selected item within a document may be presented. Mehanna 5:45-60. As shown in Figure 4, search controls 410 enable a user to select words and/or phrases to be “subtracted” from a search configuration so that search results can be retrieved that avoid, disfavor, or do not include the “subtracted” term. Mehanna 3:50-55. According to Mehanna, metadata tags (e.g., meta-information) may be used to analyze subsequent search analysis. Mehanna 15:22-42. Metadata tags (e.g., meta-information) are commonly known as tags used to embed in HTML documents to provide structured metadata about the Web page such as a document’s keywords, description, author name, character encoding, and other metadata (but will not display on the Web Appeal 2020-006702 Application 15/056,140 13 page). The use of metadata tags (e.g., meta-information) in a Web page is well known to those skilled in the art (e.g., Web designers) to describe the contents of a Web page. See general description of “meta element” at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta_element. For example, Mehanna utilizes metadata tags to emphasize or highlight certain words and/or phrases from a search term, as shown in Figures 4-8. Mehanna 5:45-60. The test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly disclosed in the references, but whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). In an obviousness analysis, it is not necessary to find precise disclosure directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this regard, “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 421. As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, obviousness requires an “expansive and flexible” approach that asks whether the claimed improvement is more than a “predictable variation” of “prior art elements according to their established functions.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 415, 417. Here, in contrast to that approach, Appellant’s contentions rigidly focus on a narrow reading of Yoshimura and Mehanna without taking full account of an ordinarily skilled artisan’s “knowledge, creativity, and common sense.” Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Here, a person skilled in the art would have the “knowledge, creativity, and common sense” to recognize that, in order to emphasize or Appeal 2020-006702 Application 15/056,140 14 highlight certain words, phrases or even images from a document obtained from the user-specified search term as taught by Mehanna, metadata tags would need to be embedded in the Web page by executing a script described in the Web page. A skilled artisan would also have the “knowledge, creativity, and common sense” to recognize that “meta-information of the received Web page is not displayed in the displayed Web page,” but “corresponds to the user-specified search term” in the manner recited in Appellant’s claims 1, 13, 15, and 16. Lastly, Appellant contends because “Yoshimura and Mehanna, whether taken alone, or in combination, do not disclose or suggest all the features recited in claim 1,” “it would not have been obvious to combine features from Yoshimura and Mehanna without the benefit of hindsight reasoning gained from the Appellant’s disclosure.” Appeal Br. 17. We do not agree because Appellant’s hindsight argument is of no moment where the Examiner provides a sufficient, non-hindsight reason to combine the references. See In re Cree, Inc., 818 F.3d 694, 702, n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2016). For these reasons, Appellant does not persuade us of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 13, 15, and 16 as obvious over the combination of Yoshimura and Mehanna and of their dependent claims 2, 3, 6-12, 14, and 19, which are not argued separately. Claims 17 and 18 Claim 17 depends from claim 1, and further recites: “wherein the first indication includes a caption that indicates the text corresponding to the user-specified search term.” Appeal 2020-006702 Application 15/056,140 15 Appellant argues “the[] search parameters disclosed at right side of [Mehanna’s] Figs. 4, 6, and 7 do not correspond to a caption that indicates the text, which is in the displayed Web page, corresponding to the user- specified search term, as recited in claim 17.” Appeal Br. 19. We disagree. As correctly recognized by the Examiner, “highlights, underlines and boxed text in [Mehanna’s] Figures 5 and 6 comprise a caption by inserting and executing script with reference to the marked text in a web page” and “[t]he caption or marked text may indicate user interest based on user search profile and search configuration.” Ans. 7 (citing Mehanna 5:41-44). For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17 as obvious over the combination of Yoshimura and Mehanna. Claim 18 depends from claim 1, and further recites: “wherein the second indication includes a flag icon displayed over the image corresponding to the user-specified search term.” Appellant argues “Figs 4, 7, and 10 of Mehanna do not disclose a flag icon displayed over the image corresponding to the user-specified search term.” Appeal Br. 19 (emphasis omitted). In response, the Examiner takes the position that “[t]he claimed flag is . . . no more than Mehanna’s matching of images based on user interest.” Ans. 8. We disagree with the Examiner. Mehanna’s matching of images based on user interest does not teach or suggest that “a flag icon” should be “displayed over the image corresponding to the user-specified search term” as recited in claim 18. We have also carefully reviewed Yoshimura and Mehanna, taken individually or in combination, but discern no evidence in Appeal 2020-006702 Application 15/056,140 16 the record, including Mehanna’s Figures 4, 7, and 10 to support a teaching that “a flag icon displayed over the image corresponding to the user- specified search term” as recited in claim 18. For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18 as obvious over the combination of Yoshimura and Mehanna. CONCLUSION On this record, Appellant does not demonstrate the Examiner errs in rejecting claims 1-3, 6-17, and 19 as obvious over the combined teachings of Yoshimura and Mehanna. However, Appellant demonstrates the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 18 as obvious over the combined teachings of Yoshimura and Mehanna. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-3, 6-19 103 Yoshimura, Mehanna 1-3, 6- 17, 19 18 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2019). AFFIRMED IN PART