`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313- 1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`
`
`
`
`F ING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`
`
`
`
`CONF {MATION NO.
`
`11/565,411
`
`11/30/2006
`
`JOHN NICHOLAS GROSS
`
`JNG 2006—7
`
`4147
`
`.
`EXAMINER
`.
`Law Office of J. N1cholas Gross, Prof. Corp. —
`01’0”“ —
`7590
`23694
`PO BOX 9489
`COLLINS, JOSHUAL
`BERKELEY, CA 94709
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`ART UNIT
`
`2491
`
`
`
`
`
` NOT *ICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`01/03/2014
`
`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):
`
`jngross @pacbellnet
`anthonygreek @ gmail. com
`
`Page 1 of 6
`Page 1 of 6
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1014
`FORD EXHIBIT 1014
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Ex parte JOHN NICHOLAS GROSS
`
`Appeal 2011-004811
`Application 11/565,411
`Technology Center 2400
`
`Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JOHN A. EVANS, and
`
`MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION ON APPEAL
`
`Page 2 of 6
`Page 2 of 6
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1014
`FORD EXHIBIT 1014
`
`
`
`Appeal 2011-004811
`Application 11/565,411
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
`
`Final Rejection of claims 1-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`6(b).
`
`We reverse.
`
`THE INVENTION
`
`Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to presenting relevant
`
`advertising to user search queries. The ads are based on content which is
`
`derived from a set of documents/pages from websites forming a collective.
`
`See Abstract.
`
`Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
`
`matter on appeal.
`
`1.
`
`A method of identifying appropriate electronic
`advertising information for a search engine implemented using
`computer software instructions embodied in a computer usable
`medium executing on one or more computing machines and
`comprising:
`forming a website collective whose members include a
`plurality of different websites characterized by a common
`parameter including at least one of a common content topic
`and/or a common contractual arrangement;
`further wherein said website collective members are
`
`treated as a single aggregate content entity by the search engine
`for responding to searches related to at least said common
`content topic;
`compiling content taken from webpages in the website
`collective to generate a synthetic document representing
`aggregated content from said different websites for said single
`aggregate content entity;
`identifying an advertisement to be associated with said
`aggregated content and said single aggregate content entity by
`
`Page 3 of 6
`Page 3 of 6
`
`2
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1014
`FORD EXHIBIT 1014
`
`
`
`Appeal 2011-004811
`Application 11/565,411
`
`comparing content of said advertisement and said synthetic
`document.
`
`REFERENCES and REJECTION
`
`1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-15, 19, and 21-24 as indefinite
`
`under 35 U.S.C.§ 112, second paragraph.
`
`2. The Examiner rejected claims 1-5 and 10-23 under 35 U.S.C.§
`
`103 (a) as unpatentable over Poremsky (Diane Poremsky, G00gle
`
`and Other Search Engines: Visual Qaiekstart Guide (2004)), Dean
`
`(U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0059708, Mar. 25, 2004), Chang (U.S. Pub.
`
`No. 2002/0052674 A1; May 2, 2002), Applicant Admitted Prior
`
`Art (AAPA) AdSense and Giguere (Eric Giguere, Make Easy
`
`Money with G00gle.‘ Using the AdSense Advertising Program
`
`(2005)) (collectively referred to as the “Primary References”).
`
`3. The Examiner rejected claims 8-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`
`unpatentable the above Primary References and Calishain (Tara
`
`Calishain, Web Search Garage (2004)).
`
`4. The Examiner rejected claims 6-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`
`unpatentable under the above Primary References and Appleman
`
`(US. Patent No. 6,081,788, Jun. 27, 2000);
`
`5. The Examiner rejected claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`
`unpatentable under the above Primary References and Johnson (US
`
`Patent No. 6,574,624 B1, Jun. 3, 2003);
`
`ISSUES
`
`The issues are Whether the Examiner erred in finding that the:
`
`1. recitation of “and/or” renders the claims indefinite; and
`
`Page 4 of 6
`Page 4 of 6
`
`3
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1014
`FORD EXHIBIT 1014
`
`
`
`Appeal 2011-004811
`Application 11/565,411
`
`2. combination of Poremsky, Dean, Chang, AAPA, and Giguere teaches
`
`the limitation of a website collective members “treated as a single
`
`aggregate content entity by the search engine for responding to
`
`searches” as recited in claim 1.
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`Claims 1-15, 19, and 21-24 under 35 U.S.C.§ 112
`
`The Examiner rejected claims 1-15, 19, and 21-24 as indefinite based
`
`on the use of the term “and/or” (Ans. 4). We agree with Appellant that
`
`“and/or” covers embodiments having element A alone, element B alone, or
`
`elements A and B taken together (App. Br. 16).1
`
`Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-15, 19
`
`and 21 -24 as being indefinite.
`
`Claims 1-24 under 35 U.S.C.§ 103(a)
`
`Appellant argues, inter alia, that the combination of the prior art
`
`references does not teach the limitation of a website collective members
`
`“treated as a single aggregate content entity by the search engine for
`
`responding to searches” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 18-21).
`
`We agree with Appellant. The Examiner relies on Chang’s teaching
`
`of a search result being stored and used to determine changes, the search
`
`result itself being the single entity made from a collective (Ans. 7). We
`
`agree with Appellant that Chang teaches that as the user moves, diflerent
`
`results can be retrieved based on their respective position (App. Br. 15 and
`
`1 Should there be further prosecution, we note that the preferred verbiage to
`claim “at least” clauses of elements A and B would be “at least one of A
`
`and B” and not “at least one of A and/or B.”
`
`Page 5 of 6
`Page 5 of 6
`
`4
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1014
`FORD EXHIBIT 1014
`
`
`
`Appeal 2011-004811
`Application 11/565,411
`
`Chang’s 11 [0064]). While these search results can be stored, Chang does not
`
`explain what format they are stored on the mobile device, let alone that they
`
`are made part of a search “index” (App. Br. 15). To the contrary, we agree
`
`with Appellant that Chang at best suggests that the prior location search
`
`results are kept in some sort of database that can be compared later on
`
`against a new list (based on a current location) (App. Br. 15 and Chang’s 11
`
`[0064]). See e.g., FIG. 14 and discussion at col. 9, ll. 7 - 8.
`
`Thus, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and for the same
`
`reasons, the rejections of claims 2-24.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`The Examiner erred in finding that the:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`recitation of “and/or” renders the claims indefinite; and
`
`combination of Poremsky, Dean, Chang, AAPA, and Giguere teaches
`
`or suggests the limitation of a website collective members “treated as a
`
`single aggregate content entity by the search engine for responding to
`
`searches” as recited in claim 1.
`
`The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-24 is reversed.
`
`DECISION
`
`REVERSED
`
`ke
`
`Page 6 of 6
`Page 6 of 6
`
`5
`
`FORD EXHIBIT 1014
`FORD EXHIBIT 1014
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
