`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`3?}
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO Box 1450
`Alexandria. Virginia 223l3-I450
`www.uspio.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`FILING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONFIRMATION N0.
`
`10/101,644
`
`03/19/2002
`
`Marc Vianello
`
`15703.10002
`
`'
`
`8626
`
`BLACKWELL SANDERS PEPER MARTIN LLP
`720 OLIVE STREET
`sunwoo
`
`ST. LOUIS, MO 63101
`
`_
`
`JEANTY, ROMAIN
`
`'
`
`3623
`
`DATE MAILED: 1 1/08/2006
`
`Please find below and/or. attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`PTO-90C (Rev. 10/03)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1020 (p.1/14) .
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1020 (p.1/14)
`
`

`

`Office ACtio.” Summary
`
`'
`
`Application No.
`
`Applicant(s)
`
`.
`
`10/101,644
`Examiner
`
`-
`
`VIANELLO. MARC
`Art Unit
`
`3623 -
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`.
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTH(S) OR THIRTY (30) DAYS,
`WHICHEVER IS LONGER FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.-
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a) In no event. however may a reply be timely filed
`after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for replyIs specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute. cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U. S C. § 133)
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication even if timerII"led may reduce any-
`eamed patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1. 704(b).
`
`Status.
`
`HE Responsive to communication(s) filed on 22 August 2006.
`2a)[Z This action is FINAL.
`2b)l:l This action is non-final.
`3)[:I Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quayle, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received. Attachment(s)
`
`Disposition of Claims
`
`ME Claim(s) 5 6 10 14 17 200 204 205 208-219 and 221-225 is/are pending in' the application.
`4a) Of the above claim(s)_220 is/are withdrawn from consideration
`SE Claim(s)__219 is/are allowed.
`
`6)IXI Claim(s) 5 6 10 14 17 200 204 208 209 and 214 221 223 is/are rejected.
`7)[:l Claim(s) 205 210-213 215-218 222 224 and 225 is/are objected to.
`8)|:I Claim(s) _ are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`
`Application Papers
`
`9)I:] The specificationIs objected to by the Examiner.
`10)|:I The drawing(s)Ifled on __is/are: a)I:I accepted or b)[:] objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be heldIn abeyance See 37 CFR 1 85(8).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction'Is required if the drawing(s)’lS objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121(d).
`11)l:l The oath or declaration is objected to by the Examiner. Note the attached Office Action or form PTO-152.
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12):] AcknowledgmentIs made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U. S C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`a)I:l All b)D Some* c)[_—__l None of:
`11:] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.1:] Certified c0pies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`31:] Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`1) E Notice of References Cited (PTO--892)
`2) [:1 Notice of Draflsperson's Patent Drawing Review (PTO--948)
`3) [:1 lnforrnation Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/OB)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date _.
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`4) CI interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper, No(s)/Mail Date. __ .
`5) D Notice 0f Informal Patent Application
`6) C] Other: _
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev, 08-06)
`
`.
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 103006
`Office Action Summary
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1020 (p. 2/14)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1020 (p.2/14)
`
`

`

`‘Application/Clontrol Number: 10/101,644
`A'rtUnit; 3623 ‘
`'
`‘
`
`-
`
`’
`
`.
`
`.
`
`’
`
`Page2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`1.
`
`_
`
`This Final Office Action is in response to the communication received August 22, 2006.
`
`Claims 5, 6, 10, 14, 17, 200, 204, 205, 208-219 and 221-225 are pending in the application.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`V 2.
`AppliCant's arguments with respect to claims 5, 6, 10, 14, 17, 200, 204, .205, 208-219 and
`221-225 have been considered butare mootin View ofthe new ground(s) ofrejection.
`I
`Applicant’s amendment has overcome to the 35 USC 112 second rejection. Therejection
`is withdrawn. However, a new 35 USC 112 second rejection is rendered below based on the '
`
`newly amended claims.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
`
`3.
`
`, The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 USC. 112:
`
`The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and
`distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
`Claim 5-6, 10, and 208 are rejected under 35 USC. 112, second paragraph, as being
`
`'4.
`
`. indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which
`
`applicant regards as the invention.
`
`Claim 5 recites the limitation "said requesting party". It is unclear as what requesting
`
`' party applicant is referring to. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the
`
`claim.
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1020 (p.3/14)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1020 (p.3/14)
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 1_0/101,644
`ArtUnit: 3623
`'
`‘
`'
`
`-
`
`,
`
`_
`
`Page 3.
`
`'
`
`Furthermore, claim: 208 recited the phrase “the opportunity”. It is unclear What the
`
`applicant means by said phrase. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this phrase in the
`
`claim.
`
`-
`
`Claims 6 and 10 depend from independent claim 5; therefore'claims 6 and 10 are rejected
`
`under the same rationale relied upon of claim 1.
`
`' Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`5.
`
`The-following is a quotation of 35 USC. 103(a) which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousness rejections set forth in this Office. action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically diSclosed or
`described as set forth in Section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject
`matter sought to be patented and the-prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
`would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary
`skill1n the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived
`by the manner in which the invention was made.
`Claims 5-8, 10-12, 14-15, 17, 198-200, 202204, 209, 214,221, and223 are rejected
`
`6. .
`
`under 35 USC. 103(a)’as being unpatentable over Walker et a1 “Walker” (US. Patent No.‘
`5,884,270) in view of Pineda et a1 “Pineda” (W00182185A2) and further in view of Phatak (U.S.
`
`2001/004203 8).
`
`I
`
`As per claims 5, 7-8, 12, 17, 200, 202-204, 209, 214, 221, and 223, Walker discloses an
`interactive employment recruiting service comprising:
`V
`i
`a processor, a memory Connected to the processor (col. 8, lines 15-65);
`
`automatically matching said candidate with said employer based on said candidate
`
`requirements and said employer requirements (col. 8, lines 20-37 and col. 8, lines 51-65),
`
`receiving a request for release of contact information from either said candidate or said employer
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1020 (p.4/14)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1020 (p.4/14)
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 10/101,644
`Art Unit: 3623
`
`,
`
`'Page 4
`
`(col. 5, lines 5-18), determining whether there is mutual content to said request for the release of
`
`contact information regarding the candidate for each specific request. Since walker teaches the
`control ‘ofrequested data and authorization for releasing information, it implies that there must
`i be mutual agreement between the parties before any information is released. Note col. 7,. lines
`24-41 and col. 21, line 58 through col. 22, line 9 of Walker.
`
`Walker further teaches providing exchange inforrnation in real time (col. 7, lines 24-41
`' and col; 21, line 58 through col. 22 line 9). '
`.
`
`Walker discloses all of the limitations above but fail to expreSsly disclose obligating
`- payment due from said employer in realtime and said payment due is a fee to a career site.
`
`Pinada in the same field of endeavor discloses the concept of charging a fee to an employer et a1
`
`operator by a web site host (Page 3, lines 18-21)." It would have been obvious to a person of
`ordinary skill in the art to modify the system ofWalker to include the teachings ofPineda in
`order to generate revenue on the basis of the number of qualified candidates that employers
`
`actually find through of a job-placement web site.
`
`Furthermore, the combinationof Walker and Pinada teaches all of the limitations above,
`
`but g fails to explicitly disclose
`
`receiving a search request from either said candidate or said
`
`employer to search the searchable profile of one or more of the candidates and employer
`
`databases for a possible employment opportunity based upon certain parameters, and that the
`
`attributes of the requesting one of said candidate and said employer satisfy the minimum
`
`requirements ofa non-requesting candidate or employer stored in the candidate and employer
`
`databases. However, Phatak discloses a method for conducting an auction for resources
`
`comprising a server for receiving candidate and employer and determining that the attributes of
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1020 (p.5/14)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1020 (p.5/14)
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 10/101,644
`ArtUnit: 3623
`
`,
`
`'
`
`'
`
`I
`
`.
`
`PageSV
`'
`
`the candidate and the employer satisfy minimum requirements. Note paragraphs 0035, 0044 and
`0045 ofPhatak. It would have been obvious to a person ofordinary skill in the art at the time the
`. invention was made to have modified the disclosures. of Walker and Pineda to include the
`teachings ofPhatak in order to allow an employer to advertise the desired Skills ofthe job
`Candidate a10ng with other attributes.
`I
`
`.
`
`As per claim 6, Walker further discloSes wherein said information exchange is the release .
`of contact information _(col. 7, lines 24-41 and col. 21, line 58 through col. 22, line 9). Walker
`
`does not state whether the exchange ofinformation occurs prior or after any direct contact
`
`between the employer and the candidate which it implies that the information exchange occurs
`
`before any direct contact between the party.
`
`‘ As per 'claim 10,4it is common that a company would pay a lot more to an'employment
`
`firm to fill in an executive position and vary the pay amount basedon the prospective
`
`employee’s experience level, types of position, open position and fee schedules, etc. Applicant’s
`claimed features “an amount of said payment is chosen from a general equivalency diploma
`
`amount, a high school amount, a vocational educational training amount, an associate degree
`
`amount, a bachelor degree amount, a master degree amount, and a doctorate amount, wherein
`
`said doctorate amount is less than or equal to said master degree amount, which is less than or
`
`equal to said bachelor degree amount, which is less than or equal to said associate degree
`
`amount, Which is less than or equal to said vocational educational training amount, which is less
`than or equal to said high school amount, which is less than or equal to said general equivalency
`diploma amount” are similar type of features a company would pay for a candidate for the
`
`motivation of attracting more qualified candidates.
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1020 (p.6/14)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1020 (p.6/14)
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 10/101,644
`
`Art Unit: 3623
`
`.
`
`Page 6
`
`i As per claim 11, claim 11 recites is a computer system, for coordinating information
`. exchange between at least one candidate in aplurality of talent-contributors and at least one .
`
`‘
`
`employer in a plurality of employers prior to any direct contact between said candidate and said
`
`employer, corresponding to method claim 1, and is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 for the same
`
`reason set. forth in claim 1.
`
`As per claim 14, claim 14~recites a distributed network for facilitating interviews between
`
`at least one candidate in a plurality of talent-contributors and at least one employer in a plurality
`. of employers, said candidate having candidate attributes including candidate requirements and
`
`said employer having requirements, corresponding to method claim 1, and is rejected under 35
`
`U.S.C 103 for the same reason set forth in claim I.
`
`As per claim 15, the limitation of receiving payment from said employer for providing
`
`contact information for said candidate, has already been. addressed in the rejection of claim 1.
`
`Note rejection of claim 1 above.
`
`As per claim 198, claim 198 recites a method executed by a computer processor in a
`
`network computing environment for authorizing information exchange between at least one
`candidate of a plurality of talent-contributors and at least one of a plurality ofemployers prior to
`
`any direct contact between said candidate and said employer, said candidate having one or more
`candidate attributes including candidate requirements, and said employer having employer
`
`requirements, said candidate having one or more contact information items, corresponding to
`
`method claim 1, and is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 for the same reason set forth in claim 1.
`
`As per claim 199, claim 199 recites a method executed in a computing environment, for
`
`authorizing information exchange between at least one candidate of a plurality of talent-
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1020 (p.7/14)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1020 (p.7/14)
`
`

`

`Application/ControlNumber:10/101,644.
`ArtUnit: 3623
`
`.
`
`.
`
`'
`
`4
`
`'
`
`Page7
`
`‘
`
`~ Contributors and at least One of a plurality'of employers prior to'any direct contact between said
`
`candidate and said employer, said candidate having one or more candidate attributes including '
`candidate requirements, and said employer having employer requirements, corresponding to
`
`method claim 1, and is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 for the same reason set forth in claim 1.
`As per claim 205, the combination ofWalker and Pineda fails to explicitly disclose if it is
`determined that either said employer or said candidate was previously requested to provide-a
`reSponse to arequest for release ofcontact information and no response wad received, then such
`
`nOn-responding empldyer or candidate is precluded frOm further interaction with the system until
`
`said response is provided. It wduld have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to '
`incorporate this feature into the. disclosures of Walkerand Pineda with the motivation to prevent
`an unauthorized candidate or employer from using the system.
`V
`
`As per claim 206, claim 206 recites a method utilized in a computer processor for
`authorizing information exchange between at least one candidate ofa plurality oftalent-
`contributors and at least one of a plurality of employers prior to any directcontact between said
`
`candidateand said employer, said candidate having one or more candidate attributes including
`
`candidate requirements, and said employer having employer requirements, corresponding to
`
`. method claim 1, and is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 for the same reason set forth in claim 1.
`
`Allowable Subject Matter
`
`7.
`
`Claims 205, 210-213, 215—218,‘222, and 224-225 would be allowable if rewritten to
`
`include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1020 (p.8/14)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1020 (p.8/14)
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 10/101,644
`Art Unit: 3623
`
`'
`
`i
`
`i
`
`'
`
`Page 8
`
`8.
`
`Claim 208 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rej ection(s) under'35
`
`U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all ofthe limitations of
`the base claim and any intervening claims.
`
`9.
`
`Claim 219 is allowed.
`
`The followingis a statement ofreasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
`. The closest prior art is to Walker (US Patent No. 5,884,270), Pineda et a1
`
`I
`
`(W00182185A2), and Phatak (U.S. 2001/004203 8). The combination of Walker, Pineda et a1
`and Phatak fails to teach determining ifeither said employer or said candidate has not yet
`
`responded to a request for release of contact information and if it is determined that said
`employer or said candidate has not yet responded to a request for release for contact information,
`
`then precluding said employer or candidate from further interaction with the computer system
`
`until said response is provided as recited in independent claim 219.
`
`‘ Remarks '
`
`10.
`Applicant asserted that Walker et a1 and Pineda fails to teach the claimed invention.
`Applicant further supported his assertion by arguing that the Walker method and system allows
`
`the first and second parties to communicate directly with each other in an anonymous fashion.
`
`This is verified by the Examiner's cite to Walker, Column 21, Line 58 through Column 22, Line
`
`9, and that this is totally differentfront Applicant's invention wherein no direct contact between
`
`the candidate and the employer, or between thefirst and secondparty, occurs until after there
`
`has been an exchange ofcontact information in real time. ‘In response, the examiner respectfully
`
`disagrees because, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., first party and
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1020 (p.9/14)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1020 (p.9/14)
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 10/101,644
`» ArtUnit: 3623
`
`4
`
`'
`
`'
`
`Page 9 .
`
`second party) are not recited in the rejected claim(s).l Although the claims are interpreted in light
`ofthe specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. 8% In re Van I.
`
`Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`Applicant further argue that thevPineda’system ....... does not provide thefeedback
`communication as clearly. set forth in the various claims pending in the present application. In
`
`respOnse, the examiner respectfiilly disagrees because, it is noted that the features upon which
`applicant relies (i.e., first party and second party) are notrecited in the rejected claim(s).
`
`Although the claims are interpreted in light ofthe specification, limitations from the specification '
`are not read into the claims. See In re Van Germs, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1993).
`
`_ Conclusion
`
`10.
`
`The prior art made of record and not relied upon is consideredpertinent to applicant's
`
`‘
`
`'
`
`disclosure.
`
`Ritzel (U.S. Patent No. 6,904,407) teaches an Internet site whichprovides a list of
`a.
`references for a particularjobseeker to an inquiring employer or recruiter upon request and upon
`paying of a fee.
`I
`
`Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this
`
`Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a).
`
`Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
`A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE
`
`, MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1020 (p.10/14)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1020 (p.10/14)
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 10/101,644 ‘
`Art Unit: 3623
`
`-
`
`-
`
`Page 10
`
`MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after
`
`the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period
`will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and. any extension fee pursuant to 37
`
`CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event,
`
`however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this .
`final action.
`'
`I
`I
`I
`i
`1
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`examinershould be directed to Romain Jeanty whose telephone‘number is (571) 272—6732. The
`examiner can normally be reached on' Mon—Thurs 7:30 am to 6:00 pm.
`I
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
`I supervisor, Tariq R. Hafiz can be reached on (571) 272-6729.. The fax phone number for the
`
`organization where this application-or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
`.
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent
`Application Information Retrieval. (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications
`
`I
`
`may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished
`applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more infonnationtabout the PAIR
`system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR'
`system, contact the Electronic Business Center (BBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would
`like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated
`
`information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1020 (p.11/14)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1020 (p.11/14)
`
`

`

`Application/comm] Number: 10/101 ,644
`
`Art Unilt2‘3623
`
`Page 11
`
`Primary Ex
`Art Unit 3623
`
`ine
`
`'
`
`October 30, 2006
`
`Monstet Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1020 (p.12/14)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1020 (p.12/14)
`
`

`

`Notice of References Cited Examiner
`
`Application/Control No.
`
`10/101544
`
`.
`
`Applicant(s)/Patent Under
`Reexamination ‘
`VIANELLO, MARC
`Art Unit
`
`Romain Jeanty
`U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
`
`.
`
`-
`
`3623
`
`Document Number
`Country Code-Number-Kind Code
`
`Date
`MM-YYYY'
`
`
`
`
`
`>
`
`
`
`Cl
`
`ti
`_fi
`aSSI ca on
`
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`_—
`_—
`Cens»
`——
`——
`——
`CCens»
`
`——
`
`— _ —
`
`cS”
`
`c ‘P
`
`c9”
`
`_
`__
`‘
`FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I
`
`.
`Document Number'
`Country Code-Number—Kind Code
`
`‘
`
`a
`
`Date
`MM-YYYY
`
`‘
`
`Cl
`
`t‘
`.f.
`335' '03 '0“
`
`.
`
`
`
`
`-
`
`.
`
`NON-PATENT DOCUMENTS
`
`Include as applicable: Author. Title Date. Publisher, Edition or Volume, Pertinent Pages)
`
`‘A copy of this reference is not being furnished with this Office action. (See MPEP § 707.05(a).)
`Dates in MM-YYYY format are publication dates, Classifications may be US or foreign.
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`
`
`PTO-892 (Rev. 01-2001)
`
`Notice of References Cited
`
`Part of Paper No. 103006
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1020 (p.13/14)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1020 (p.13/14)
`
`

`

`WEST Refine Search
`
`DB = USPT; THES=DTIC; PL UR = YES; OP=OR
`
`L_l_1
`Q0
`
`L2
`
`information adj exchang$5 near5 authoriz$
`L9 and authoriz$
`
`exchang$ near5 contact adj information
`
`exchang$ near5 contact adj information
`LE5
`L5 and export$
`'fl
`L5 nd export$
`L6
`Q L4 and access adj2 control
`
`A
`
`M L2 and 705/51 52.ccls.
`j
`L3
`(access adj control or copy adj right$ or c0py adj protection$) near5
`— export$
`-
`
`Q (access adj control or copy adj right$ or copy adj protection$)
`
`L1
`
`access adj control or copy adj right$ or copy adj protection$
`
`END OF SEARCH HISTORY
`
`
`
`65149
`265
`
`414
`17
`
`27114
`
`27114
`
`'
`
`‘
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1020 (p.14/14)
`
`Monster Worldwide, Inc. Exhibit 1020 (p.14/14)
`
`