UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Transcription

1 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 12/630,908 12/04/2009 Anders Isberg / PS US /16/2015 COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON 1400 CRESCENT GREEN SUITE 300 CARY, NC ART UNIT 2156 EXAMINER VO, TRUONG V PAPER NUMBER MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/16/2015 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

2 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ANDERS ISBERG, LOTTA WILLSTEDT, and JOHAN FREDRIK JONAS GULLIKSSON Appeal Technology Center 2100 Before DAVID M. KOHUT, ERIC B. CHEN, and JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. 134(a) from the Examiner s final rejection of claims App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 6(b). We affirm-in-part. 1 The real party in interest is Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB.

3 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants invention is directed to a wireless communication device, such as a cellular telephone, for example, that includes a browser application having an adaptive, context-sensitive search function. Particularly, the browser application configures itself to use different search engines for different contexts (e.g., different web sites). See Spec. 4. Claims 1 and 3 are illustrative and reproduced below with key disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A method of selecting a search engine on a wireless communication device, the method comprising: establishing a communication link between a wireless communication device and a network server hosting a web site; automatically detecting, at the wireless communication device, whether the web site provides a search engine based on data received from the web site; configuring a browser application executing on the wireless communication device to perform a search using the detected search engine responsive to detecting that the web site provides the detected search engine; and displaying the results of the search at the wireless communication device. 3. The method of claim 2 wherein the embedded indicator comprises meta data received from the web site via the established communication link, and identifies a file that defines the search capabilities of the detected search engine. THE REJECTION 2

4 The Examiner rejected claims 1 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as anticipated by Stading (US 2008/ A1; Oct. 2, 2008). Fin. Action CONTENTIONS The Examiner here finds that Stading teaches each limitation of the claims. Final Act Appellants, on the other hand, contend that Stading fails to disclose automatically detecting whether a web site being visited provides a search engine based on data received from the web site because Stading negates the need for such detection capabilities. See App. Br Specifically, Appellants argue that in Stading a user s device establishes communications with the system of Stading specifically to use its search services and therefore there is no need for the user s device to automatically detect whether the site provides those services, let alone based on data received from the web site, as claimed. App. Br. 7. Appellants also assert that Stading fails to disclose configuring a browser application to perform a search using the detected search engine. App. Br Further, Appellants argue that Stading fails to teach an embedded indicator (claims 2, 9, and 19) and identifying, storing, or downloading a file that defines the search capabilities of the detected search engine (claims 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 13, and 19). See App. Br ISSUES Did the Examiner err in finding that Stading discloses automatically detecting, at the wireless communication device, whether the web site provides a search engine based on data received from the web site; [and] 3

5 configuring a browser application executing on the wireless communication device to perform a search using the detected search engine responsive to detecting that the web site provides the detected search engine, as recited in claim 1? Did the Examiner err in finding that Stading discloses the embedded indicator of claims 2, 9, and 19? Did the Examiner err in finding that Stading discloses that the embedded indicator comprises meta data received from the web site via the established communication link, and identifies a file that defines the search capabilities of the detected search engine, as recited in claims 3 and 10? Did the Examiner err in finding that Stading discloses storing a search capability file in memory of the wireless communication device for each web site visited by the user that provides a search engine, as recited in claim 6 and similarly recited in claim 13? ANALYSIS Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 12, and Based on the record before us, we find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1 as anticipated by Stading. Appellants assert that Stading fails to teach the claimed automatically detecting limitation. See App. Br. 6 8; Reply Br 3 4. Namely, according to Appellants, [d]evices that visit web sites specifically to utilize the associated search services [, such as Stading s service engine services,] do not first automatically detect whether those web sites actually provide such services. App. Br. 7. Appellants further argue there is no need for this 4

6 automatic detection because the user s device establishes communication with the system precisely to use this search service. App. Br. 6. The Examiner finds though that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, Stading discloses this limitation by describing that the search system [] may provide a graphical user interface (GUI) that may be rendered within an Internet browser application of a remote computing device. Ans. 3 4 (emphasis omitted). In other words, by receiving and rendering the web site on the wireless communication device, Stading automatically detects whether the web site provides a search engine. Nothing in the claim precludes the user from visiting the web site for the purpose of using a search engine. Moreover, Appellants Specification describes using received HTML code, such as code received and used to render a website through a GUI, to automatically detect if the web site provides a search engine. See e.g., Spec. 6; see also Spec. 57 (noting that HTML code received from the server defines the web-page). As such, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that Stading discloses the claimed automatically detecting limitation. Appellants, using the same reasoning as discussed above, maintain that Stading also does not disclose the claimed configuring limitation. See App. Br. 8 10; Reply Br 4 5. In particular, Appellants urge that [n]either [the cited passage of Stading], nor anywhere else in Stading, discloses that a browser application reconfigures itself to utilize different search engines, as claimed. App. Br. 9. We note though that the claims do not require reconfiguration or that the configuration use different search engines. Instead, the claim merely requires configuring a browser application to perform a search using the 5

7 detected search engine responsive to detecting that the web site provides the detected search engine. Appellants have not persuasively explained why Stading s configuration of the browser application to display the website to perform a search through use of the GUI on the remote device, as found by the Examiner, fails to satisfy the claimed limitation. See Ans We are also not persuaded then that the Examiner erred in finding that Stading discloses this limitation. Appellants note that claim 8 recites similar limitations and refers to the arguments presented for claim 1. App. Br. 10. For the reasons discussed above, we are also not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 8. With respect to claim 15, Appellants additionally argue that Stading fails to disclose the claimed context-sensitive search function. App. Br ; see also Reply Br. 5. Stading provides the device with a GUI that includes the necessary fields to conduct a search for information. Further, those fields are provided to the user device from the server in the form of HTML code. The controller in Stading, therefore, does not configure a context-sensitive search function provided by the browser application to perform a search using a search engine identified by the web site. In contrast, Stading simply provides a conventional browser application that displays fields - including search fields - to the user. App. Br (emphasis omitted). Appellants, however, fail to explain why using HTML code from a particular website to configure a search function in a browser to conduct a search fails to satisfy the claimed limitation. Notably, the Specification describes that different context merely refers to different websites. See e.g., Spec. 36. As the Examiner explains, Stading s search services can 6

8 include any number of data sources, including commercial databases, secure data, websites, governmental websites, public data repositories, other data sources, or any combination thereof. Ans. 6 7 (emphasis omitted); see also Stading Fig. 4 (disclosing that, in step 402, a GUI is provided having multiple selectable elements, each associated with a category of information). As such, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that Stading teaches the claimed configuration limitation of claim 15. Therefore, we find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 8, and 15, as well as dependent claims 5, 7, 12, 14, and 16 18, not argued with particularity, as anticipated by Stading. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection as to these claims. Claims 2 and 9 Based on the record before us, we find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 2 and 9 as anticipated by Stading. Claims 2 and 9 require that automatically detecting whether the web site provides a search engine comprises determining whether the data received from the network server includes an embedded indicator. Appellants argue that Stading fails to disclose these limitations. App. Br In particular, Appellants maintain that the Stading s indicators, described in paragraph 74, are sent the results data and therefore the user device is already aware of the search system. App. Br. 12. The Examiner though also relies on the selectable indicators described at paragraph 81. Specifically, paragraph 81 discloses a method of searching data sources where the GUI includes list of stored searches and selectable indicators related to those searches. While this may indicate that the user 7

9 has previously conducted searches through the services, this is not precluded by the claim. As such, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner s findings. Therefore, we find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 2 and 9 as anticipated by Stading. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection as to these claims. Claims 3, 4, 10, 11, and 19 Based on the record before us, we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 3, 4, 10, 11, and 19 as anticipated by Stading. Claims 3 and 10 require that the embedded indicator comprises metadata that identifies a file that defines the search capabilities of the detected search engine. Similarly, claim 19 requires that the embedded indicator identifies a file on a network server that defines the search capabilities of the detected search engine. See App. Br., Claims App x. Appellants argue that All of the data discussed in [the cited] passage of Stading relates to the data stored by the different data sources, and may include user data. This has nothing to do with the capabilities of a search engine service tasked to retrieve such data, and nothing indicating such capabilities is ever sent to the user in Stading - let alone as embedded meta data, as claimed. App. Br. 13 (emphasis omitted). We agree. While we recognize that Stading generally teaches meta data, Stading does not disclose that meta data or an embedded indicator identifies a file that defines the search capabilities. Therefore, we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 3, 10, and 19 as well as claims 4 and 11 which depend from claims 3 and 10 respectively. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection as to these claims. 8

10 Claims 6 and 13 Based on the record before us, we find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 6 and 13 as anticipated by Stading. Claim 6 requires storing a search capability file in memory of the wireless communication device for each web site visited by the user that provides a search engine. Appellants here argue that Stading does not disclose the search system defining the search capabilities to the user s device, let alone in the form of a file. App. Br. 14. The Examiner explains that Stading discloses the search system can optionally download documents associated with the search results, index the resulting documents with advanced searching capabilities to produce a temporary index.... Ans. 9 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Stading 62). Appellants do not persuasively explain why this downloaded document and index fails to satisfy the claimed search capability file. Specifically, this file would represent, at least in part, the search capabilities of the search system. Therefore, we find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 6 and 13 as anticipated by Stading. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection as to these claims. DECISION The Examiner s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5 9, and is affirmed, but the Examiner s decision rejecting claims 3, 4, 10, 11, and 19 is reversed. 9

11 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R (a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART msc 10