Ex Parte Nations et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 1, 2018

13339190 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 1, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/339, 190 12/28/2011
67260 7590 11/05/2018
TAR GET BRANDS, INC.
1000 NICOLLET MALL, TPS-3165
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55403
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gregory M. Nations
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
201104119 9914
EXAMINER
BLACK,LINH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2163
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/05/2018 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):
USPTO.MAIL@TARGET.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GREGORY M. NATIONS, CHAD R. GOURLEY,
MICHAEL F. GONSALVES, and TROY NEIDERMIRE
Appeal2018-000907
Application 13/339,190
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, DENISE M. POTHIER, and
JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants 1 appeal from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, and 4--20, which constitute all the
claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ). Claim 3 was cancelled.
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Target Brands, Inc. App.
Br. 2.
Appeal2018-000907
Application 13/339,190
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' invention relates to a search result web page that displays
a breadcrumb trail and items meeting a user's search query. Spec. ,r,r 19-20.
The breadcrumb trail lists a chain of categories along a path from a root
category to a lowest level category in which the current displayed items are
found. Id. ,r 20. When the user selects a category in the breadcrumb trail,
the search result web page is altered to (1) change the breadcrumb trail so
that it ends at the selected category and (2) display only items that fall within
the selected category and meet the user's search query. Id. ,r,r 20, 34.
Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below:
1. A computer storage medium for filtering content of
internet search results presented to a user upon a user's selection
of an intermediate portion of a breadcrumb trail appearing on a
search result web page of a retailer, the computer storage
medium having computer executable instructions that when
executed by a processor cause the processor to perform steps
compnsmg:
displaying a first search result page of a retailer
comprising a plurality of items for sale and a first breadcrumb
trail describing a path a user of a retailer's website has taken
through a product category hierarchy of the retailer, the first
breadcrumb trail at a first end includes a root product category
and at a second end includes a lowest level product category that
the plurality of items are found within, the first breadcrumb trail
further includes an intermediate portion corresponding to a
product category between the root product category and the
lowest level product category in the product category hierarchy
of the retailer, each of the plurality of items for sale falling within
all of the categories in the product category hierarchy of the
retailer, the plurality of items for sale comprising only items that
match a first search query entered in a search box by the user and
the lowest level product category identifies a current location of
2
Appeal2018-000907
Application 13/339,190
the user in the hierarchical list of product categories; wherein the
first search query includes one or more terms;
receiving an indication that the intermediate portion of the
first breadcrumb trail has been selected; and,
in response to the intermediate portion of the first
breadcrumb trail being selected, automatically displaying a
second search result page of the retailer comprising a second
plurality of items for sale falling within the corresponding
product category of the intermediate portion of the first
breadcrumb trail, wherein the second search result page includes
a second breadcrumb trail ending with the intermediate portion
of the first breadcrumb trail;
prior to displaying the second search result page and after
selection of the intermediate portion of the first breadcrumb trail,
automatically filtering search results to be returned to the user in
the second search result page such that only items within the
corresponding category of the intermediate portion of the first
breadcrumb trail satisfying the one or more terms of the first
search query are displayed in the second search result page and
all items within the corresponding category of the intermediate
portion of the first breadcrumb trail that do not satisfy the one or
more terms of the first search query are excluded from the second
search result page.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, and 4--20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as being
directed to ineligible subject matter. Ans. 2-9. 2
Claims 1, 2, and 4--20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Madden-Woods (US 2011/0276562 Al; Nov. 10,
2011) and Blackwell (US 2011/0106834 Al; May 5, 2011). Final Act. 4--
28.
2 As noted, the§ 101 rejection in the Examiner's Answer is a new ground.
Ans. 2.
3
Appeal2018-000907
Application 13/339,190
ANALYSIS
THE PATENT INELIGIBLE SUBJECT MATTER REJECTION
Claim Construction
We begin by construing independent claim 8. During examination,
claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364
(Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, the body of claim 8 recites, in pertinent part,
determining whether a first page on which a breadcrumb trail is displayed
provides results of a search query having one or more terms entered by a
guest in a search box ("determining step"). Claim 8 then recites two steps,
only one of which is performed depending on the outcome of the recited
determining step.
The two conditional steps are similar to the conditional limitations
discussed in Ex parte Schulhauser, No. 2013-007847, 2016 WL 6277792
(PTAB Apr. 28, 2016) (precedential) (holding that, in a method claim, a step
reciting a condition precedent does not need to be performed if the condition
precedent is not met). See also MANUAL OF p ATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
(MPEP) § 2111.04(II) (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018) (citing
Schulhauser). The two conditional steps are the only two possible outcomes
of the recited determining step----i.e., either the first page on which the
breadcrumb trail is displayed provides results of the search query, or it does
not provide results of the search query. That is, performing one, and only
one, of the two conditional steps meets claim 8.
4
Appeal2018-000907
Application 13/339,190
The body of claim 8 further recites "subsequent to a determination
that the first page provides results of a search query ... , automatically
filtering search results ... such that only items within the corresponding
category of the intermediate portion of the breadcrumb trail satisfying the
one or more terms of the first search query are displayed .... " ("filter
step"). Thus, the filter step is performed only if the condition precedent in
the second conditional step is met.
In contrast with claim 8, independent claims 1 and 15 recite different
statutory classes (i.e., a computer storage medium and a computing system
respectively). Notably, Schulhauser indicates claims 1 and 15 require the
recited structure to be capable of performing all its recited function.
Abstract Idea
The Patent Act defines patent-eligible subject matter broadly:
"Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement
thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and
requirements of this title." 35 U.S.C. § 101. There is no dispute that claims
1, 2, and 4--20 are directed to one of these categories.
In Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566
U.S. 66, 70 (2012), and Alice Corp. Proprietary Ltd. v. CLS Bank
International, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014), the Supreme Court explained
that § 101 "contains an important implicit exception" for laws of nature,
natural phenomena, and abstract ideas. See Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S.
175, 185 (1981). In Mayo and Alice, the Court set forth a two-step analytical
framework for evaluating patent-eligible subject matter: (1) "determine
5
Appeal2018-000907
Application 13/339,190
whether the claims at issue are directed to" a patent-ineligible concept, such
as an abstract idea; and, if so, (2) "consider the elements of each claim both
individually and 'as an ordered combination' to determine whether the
additional elements" add enough to transform the "nature of the claim" into
"significantly more" than a patent-ineligible concept. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at
2355 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79); see Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v.
DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Step one in the Mayo/Alice framework involves looking at the "focus"
of the claims at issue and their "character as a whole." Elec. Power Grp.,
LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Instead of using
a definition of an abstract idea, "the decisional mechanism courts now apply
is to examine earlier cases in which a similar or parallel descriptive nature
can be seen-what prior cases were about, and which way they were
decided." Amdocs (Isr.) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1294
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353-54); see also
Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(finding "both [the Federal Circuit] and the Supreme Court have found it
sufficient to compare claims at issue to those claims already found to be
directed to an abstract idea in previous cases.").
Step two involves the search for an "inventive concept." Alice, 134
S. Ct. at 2355; Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353. For an inventive
concept, "more is required than 'well-understood, routine, conventional
activity already engaged in"' by the relevant community. Rapid Litig.
Mgmt. Ltd. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1047 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79-80).
6
Appeal2018-000907
Application 13/339,190
Claims 1, 2, 4--7, and 15-20
Step One of the Alice/Mayo Framework
Turning to step one of the Alice/Mayo framework, the Examiner
concludes independent claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, namely
"receive/collect a user selection through a product category hierarchy of a
retailer's website, analyze the received information, and displaying search
path and search results." Ans. 2. Appellants argue claim 1 is not directed to
an abstract idea because claim 1 is directed to "automatic filtering of an
intermediate portion of a breadcrumb trail on a web page such that upon
activation of the intermediate portion of the breadcrumb trail only items
matching a previously entered search query are displayed to the user."
Reply Br. 17.
The "directed to" inquiry cannot simply ask whether the claims
involve a patent-ineligible concept, because "all inventions at some level
embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena,
or abstract ideas." Mayo, 566 U.S. at 71. Rather, "the 'directed to' inquiry
applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification,
based on whether 'their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject
matter."' Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335 (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active
Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
In that regard, the Specification does not clearly point to what
particular problem the invention solves. The Background section of the
Specification discusses breadcrumbs as being graphical elements that
indicate a user's location within a hierarchy. Spec. ,r 1. The breadcrumbs
display separate categories that reflect the levels of the hierarchy. Id. "Most
7
Appeal2018-000907
Application 13/339,190
breadcrumbs are selectable such that the user can return to any category in
the breadcrumb by simply selecting on the category. The displayed web
page then reverts to the web page for the selected category." Id. ,r 2.
The invention is directed to "breadcrumb filtering." Spec., Title.
According to the Summary section of the Specification, only items that fall
within the selected category are displayed in response to selecting the
category in the breadcrumb. Id. ,r 4. Thus, in light of the Specification, the
implied advance over the prior art is displaying only items that fall within
the selected category and meet previously entered search criteria. In other
words,filtering the items for display.
Claim 1 recites four key steps performed by a processor in the
following sequential order: (A) displaying a first search result page
comprising items for sale and a breadcrumb trail describing a user's path
through a website, (B) receiving an indication that an intermediate portion of
the breadcrumb trail is selected, ( C) filtering search results to return to the
user on a second search result page such that only items within the
corresponding category of the intermediate portion satisfying a first search
query are displayed, and (D) displaying the second search result page. A
plain reading of the claim suggests that the claimed invention, as a whole, is
directed to collecting, analyzing, and displaying information, albeit
described more narrowly by limiting its practical application to filtering
search results upon selecting a portion of a displayed breadcrumb.
There is no definitive rule to determine what constitutes an "abstract
idea." Rather, we need only look to other decisions where similar concepts
were previously found abstract by the courts. See Amdocs, 841 F.3d at1294;
8
Appeal2018-000907
Application 13/339,190
see also Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1334--35. In that regard, we see little difference
between claim 1 and those claims in, for example, Electric Power Group. In
Electric Power Group, the Federal Circuit concluded claims that essentially
recited "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of
the collection and analysis" were directed to an abstract idea. Elec. Power
Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353-54. The claims before us similarly recite collecting
data (a user's path through a website in above-identified step (A) and a user
selection of a breadcrumb trail's intermediate portion in step (B)),
processing it (step (C)), and displaying the results of the collection and
analysis (step (D)).
Contrary to Appellants' arguments, Reply Br. 17, filtering search
results is an abstract idea. See Neiflix, Inc. v. Ravi Corp., 114 F. Supp. 3d
927 (N.D. Cal. 2015), aff'd, 670 F. App'x 704 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In other
words, "this case involves the mere 'reorganization' of data using categories,
there is no 'fundamental alteration' to the information itself." Id. at 943
(citing Card Verification Solutions, LLC v. Citigroup, Inc., No. 14-C-6339,
2014 WL 4922524 (N.D. Ill. 2014)). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v.
Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding "filtering
files/e-mail-is an abstract idea."); BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v.
AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding
"content filtering system for filtering content retrieved from an Internet
computer network[, e.g., to prevent users from accessing certain websites] ..
. is an abstract idea.").
For the foregoing reasons, we determine claim 1 is directed to an
abstract idea.
9
Appeal2018-000907
Application 13/339,190
Step Two of the Alice/Mayo Framework
Next, we tum to step two of the Alice/Mayo framework to determine
whether the limitations, when considered both "individually and 'as an
ordered combination"' contain an "inventive concept" sufficient to
transform the claimed "abstract idea" into a patent-eligible application.
Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355.
We find unavailing both Appellants' comparison of the claims to
those of BASCOM and Appellants' argument that "each pending claim
recites an invention which significantly improves the functioning of the
computer itself' under step two of the Alice/Mayo framework. Reply Br. 15.
In BASCOM, the Federal Circuit held "[t]he inventive concept described and
claimed in the '606 patent is the installation of a filtering tool at a specific
location, remote from end-users, with customizable filtering features
specific to each end user." BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1350 (emphasis added).
In determining this feature to be an inventive concept, the Federal Circuit
explained that the remote location of a filtering tool having customizable
user-specific filtering features provides the filtering tool both the benefits of
a filter on a local computer and the benefits of a filter on the ISP server. Id.
The Federal Circuit further explained that the "claims do not merely recite
the abstract idea of filtering content along with the requirement to perform it
on the Internet, or to perform it on a set of generic computer components,"
but instead the claims are "a technical improvement over prior art ways of
filtering [Internet] content." Id. Notably, the Federal Circuit specifically
determined that "the claims may be read to 'improve an existing
technological process."' Id. at 1351 ( citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358).
10
Appeal2018-000907
Application 13/339,190
Accordingly, in BASCOM, the Federal Circuit determined the claims
of the '606 patent included an inventive concept because the claims
represented a technical improvement to a physical arrangement involving a
local computer and an ISP server for filtering content, not because of the
specifically claimed filtering of search results on a computer, as Appellants
suggest. Reply Br. 18-19. As such, the present claims do not have an
inventive concept similar to that found in BASCOM.
The Examiner finds the additional elements in claim 1 include
recitations to "a computer storage medium" and "a processor" to perform
generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications.
Ans. 4--5. The Specification discloses the additional elements generically
and without any specific technological details. See Spec. ,r,r 42--49; Fig. 11.
Thus, like the Examiner, we conclude the additional elements in claim 1
recite no more than generic computers that do not transform the above-
discussed abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 134 S. Ct.
at 2358 (holding "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform
a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention");
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1341
(Fed. Cir. 2017) ("the claims recite both a generic computer element-a
processor-and a series of generic computer 'components' that merely
restate their individual functions .... That is to say, they merely describe
the functions of the abstract idea itself, without particularity. This is simply
not enough under step two.").
For the above reasons, claim 1 's limitations, viewed "both
individually and as 'an ordered combination,"' do not amount to
11
Appeal2018-000907
Application 13/339,190
significantly more than the judicial exception and are not sufficient to
transform the nature of the claims into patent-eligible subject matter. See
Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355.
Independent claim 15 recites a "computer system" having a memory,
a processor, and a computer storage medium to implement a method similar
to claim 1. Id. at 54--55 (Claims App.). These claims recite conventional
storage devices and media, which do not transform the claims into patent-
eligible subject matter. We refer to the above analysis for more details.
Claims 8-14
Turning to the rejection of independent claim 8, Appellants argue
there is nothing abstract about the filter step under step one of the
Alice/Mayo framework, Reply Br. 21, and, even if claim 8 is directed to an
abstract idea, the filter step is an inventive concept under step two of the
Alice/Mayo framework, id. at 21-23. But, as discussed above, the filter step
recited in claim 8 is one mutually exclusive conditional limitation that need
not be performed in response to some outcomes of the determining step.
Appellants' arguments are problematic for that reason alone. Even
considering the filter step, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 8 as being directed to ineligible subject matter under
35 U.S.C. § 101 for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
12
Appeal2018-000907
Application 13/339,190
Summary
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 and dependent claims 2,
4--7, 9--14, and 16-20.
THE NON-STAUTORY SUBJECT MATTER REJECTION
Claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, "[a] computer storage medium ...
having computer executable instructions that when executed by a processor
cause the processor to perform steps comprising" the steps of claim 1. App.
Br. 49 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). The Examiner additionally finds
claim 1 is directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101
because the Specification is silent regarding the term "computer storage
medium." Ans. 9. In response, Appellants argue "'computer storage
medium' ... does not include a signal per se as this phrase is specific to a
storage medium of the computer itself as opposed to a signal which is
readable by the computer." Reply Br. 19.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. At the outset, we find
unavailing Appellants' contention that the Examiner's Answer lacks the
required analysis, evidence, and legal authority to reject the claims under
35 U.S.C. § 101. Reply Br. 19. We find the Examiner's explanation
concerning the Specification's failure to exclude transitory signals from a
"computer storage medium" provides notice of the rejection with sufficient
particularity to allow Appellants a fair opportunity to respond to the
rejection. See 35 U.S.C. § 132; see also In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1363
(Fed. Cir. 2011).
13
Appeal2018-000907
Application 13/339,190
Signals are patent-ineligible under§ 101. In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d
1346, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2007). More recently, a precedential PTAB decision
found "those of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim term
'machine-readable storage medium' would include signals per se." Ex parte
Mewherter, Appeal 2012-007692, 2013 WL 4477509, at *7 (PTAB May 8,
2013) (precedential). Here, the claimed "computer storage medium" is not
distinguishable from the "machine-readable storage medium" in Mewherter.
"[W]here, as here, the broadest reasonable interpretations of ... the claims
... covers a signal per se, the claims must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101
as covering non-statutory subject matter." Id. See also Nuijten, 500 F.3d at
1352.
For the above reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
finding claim 1, and claims 2 and 4--7, which ultimately depend from claim
1, encompasses transitory media. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's
35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4--7 as non-statutory subject
matter.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, 4-6 and 15-20
On this record, we see no error in the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of independent claim 1. In the rejection, the Examiner finds
Madden-Woods discloses many recited element of claim 1 including
displaying a first search result page comprising ( 1) only items for sale that
match a user's first search query and (2) a first breadcrumb trail comprising
a first end, intermediate portion, and a second end. Final Act. 4 ( citing
Madden-Woods ,r 40; Fig. 3). The Examiner also finds Madden-Woods
14
Appeal2018-000907
Application 13/339,190
discloses displaying a second search result page in response to selecting the
first breadcrumb trail' s intermediate portion. Id. at 5---6 ( citing Madden-
Woods ,r,r 35, 39, 43, 49, 53, 71).
Claim 1 further recites
prior to displaying the second search result page and after
selection of the intermediate portion of the first breadcrumb trail,
automatically filtering search results to be returned to the user in
the second search result page such that only items within the
corresponding category of the intermediate portion of the first
breadcrumb trail satisfying the one or more terms of the first
search query are displayed in the second search result page and
all items within the corresponding category of the intermediate
portion of the first breadcrumb trail that do not satisfy the one or
more terms of the first search query are excluded from the second
search result page
App. Br. 50 (Claims App.) ("the disputed limitation").
We begin by noting the Examiner finds the combination of
Madden-Woods and Blackwell or, alternatively, either Madden-
Woods or Blackwell alone, teaches or suggests the disputed
limitation. See Final Act. 6-7 (finding Madden-Woods teaches the
disputed limitation except for "filtering"); id. at 7 (finding Blackwell
alone teaches the disputed limitation); Ans. 11-12 (finding Madden-
Woods and Blackwell each teach the disputed limitation); id. at 12
( finding "the combination of teachings of Madden-Woods and
Blackwell does teach said argued limitation"). We emphasize the
Examiner's alternative reliance on each reference or their
combination because the Examiner finds the teachings of Madden-
Woods and Blackwell are cumulative with respect to the disputed
15
Appeal2018-000907
Application 13/339,190
limitation. See MPEP § 1207 .03(a)(II) (Item 3 dealing with relying
on fewer than all references in support of an obviousness rejection).
Despite Appellants' arguments to the contrary, App. Br. 33-38, we
see no error in the Examiner's reliance on Blackwell as at least suggesting
the disputed limitation. Blackwell is directed to the "navigation of peer
listings on web sites providing faceted search capabilities." Blackwell ,r 2.
Blackwell's Figure 1 shows a faceted search conducted on a search web
page and is reproduced below:
110-I
112 114 116 122 124
~
~, \ ) ~\'-1----,'--
_J~=~~~~~-~-~~:J~---- LI s_EA_Rc_H...::! ==:;:==
----------'-"- 118
160
120
102/~
FIG_ 1
{PRTOR ART)
100 _,
,r
()(9!8]
126 132
rl1 111 ~ I I
180
; 130
Blackwell's Figure 1 showing a faceted search conducted on a search
web page
As shown in Blackwell's Figure 1, search web page 100 includes a
number of areas for entering search criteria and displaying results.
Blackwell ,r 35. Notably, Blackwell's search criteria includes department
16
Appeal2018-000907
Application 13/339,190
area 112 for selecting a department, category area 120 for selecting
categories and sub-categories, and key word area 130 for entering a key
word. Id. Blackwell's selected department may be composed of one or
more categories which, in tum, may be composed of one or more
subcategories. Id. ,r 36; Fig. 2. For example, Blackwell's Figure 2
illustrates that Department 1 includes Categories 1-3; Category 3 includes
Subcategories 3A-3F; Subcategory 3C 250 includes Subcategories 3Cl-
3C5. Id. ,r 36. Blackwell's results of the search criteria are displayed in
results area 190 "to reflect the current search criteria." Id. ,r 35.
Blackwell further discloses that "when a searcher selects a
department, a search category, and enters a keyword, the selections will
appear in a breadcrumb trail displayed in breadcrumb trail area 180." Id.
,r 35; Fig. 1. Blackwell's Figure 14 shows an exemplary breadcrumb trail
180 enhanced by icon targets and is reproduced below:
180
"':ii
1400
,;'j
134 119 1302 238 1304 250 1306 260 1338
~ORD:> DEP;"hlENT 1 ?:J;, CATEciORY 3 [] > SUBCAi~
1
RJJ~> SUBCATE6~RY 3C5 []
____________ J 240 / SUBCATEGORY3A C"-... 1310 '-
I 248 f SUBCATEGOR'f3B C"-... 1312
I 262 f SUBCAEG0RY3D Q"- l316 I 264 _, SUBCATEGORY3E Q,_ 1318
14101268 ./ SUBCATEGORY 3~ [}, 1320
FIG. 14
Blackwell's Figure 14 showing an exemplary breadcrumb trail
enhanced by icon targets
17
Appeal2018-000907
Application 13/339,190
As shown in Blackwell's Figure 14, breadcrumb trail 180 includes the
user selected keyword 134 from key word area 130, the user selected
Department 1 from department area 112, and the user selected Category 3
and Subcategories 3C, 3C5 from category area 120. Id. ,r 66. Blackwell's
Figure 14 further illustrates when a user placed cursor 102 over category 3C
icon 1306, which opens window 1410 populated with all peer Subcategories
3A-3B and 3D-3F of subcategory 3C. Id.
Blackwell discloses that "when an element in the breadcrumb display
is clicked on, the web page will reload and the display will reconfigure to go
back to that selection as though that selection had just been made." Id. ,r 65.
Blackwell, then, at least suggests that when a user clicks on Subcategory 3C
icon 1306 illustrated in Figure 14, search web page 100 reloads as though
the selection of Subcategory 3C had just been made. That is, Blackwell at
least suggests the results of the search criteria are displayed in results area
190 to reflect the current search criteria Subcategory 3C. Id. ,r 35. Thus,
Blackwell at least suggests prior to displaying the reloaded web page 100
(the claimed "second search result page") and after selection of Subcategory
3C 250 (the claimed "intermediate portion") of breadcrumb trail area 180
(the claimed "first breadcrumb trail"), automatically filtering search results
to be returned to a user in the reloaded web page 100 such that only items
within the corresponding category of Subcategory 3C 250 of the breadcrumb
trail area 180 satisfying the one or more terms of the user's search criteria
entered in key word area 130 (the claimed "first search query") are displayed
in the reloaded web page 100 and all items within the corresponding
category of Subcategory 3C 250 of breadcrumb trail area 180 that do not
18
Appeal2018-000907
Application 13/339,190
satisfy the one or more terms of the user's search criteria entered in key
word area 130 are excluded from the reloaded web page 100.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of (1) independent claim 1;
(2) independent claim 15, which was rejected on substantially the same basis
as claim 1, see Final Act. 22-27; and (3) claims 2, 4---6, and 16-20, which
depend from one of claims 1 and 15.
Claim 7
Claim 7 additionally recites, in relevant part, "a heading that indicates
that" category pages are category pages (i.e., pages that do "not provide
results of a search query entered in the search box"). Appellants' argue
Blackwell and Madden-Woods do not teach or suggest a heading that
indicates a category page is a category page and, more specifically, that
Blackwell and Madden-Woods do not teach or suggest "providing headings
which distinguish a search results page from a non-search results page."
App. Br. 47.
The Examiner finds Madden-Woods teaches a heading that indicates a
category page is a category page. See Final Act. 10-11 ( citing Madden-
Woods ,r,r 39-42); Ans. 15-16. The Examiner finds Madden-Woods teaches
navigating through a web-site to obtain a selected pair of shoes by starting at
a HOME web page, then selecting a SALES web page, and then selecting a
SHOES web page and displaying a breadcrumb on the SHOES web page
along with a selected pair of shoes. Ans. 15 ( citing Madden-Woods ,r 40).
The Examiner also finds Madden-Woods teaches breadcrumbs represent
hyperlinks showing the path a user took to navigate to the current web page
and the particular web page "can display breadcrumbs across the top of the
19
Appeal2018-000907
Application 13/339,190
resource below any title bars or headers." Id. at 15 (quoting Madden-Woods
,r 39). The Examiner concludes "displaying a header for a search result
webpage is a well-known, well-understood, and a long-standing practice."
Id. at 15. The Examiner, however, fails to explain sufficiently how Madden-
Woods' general disclosure of displaying headers above breadcrumbs teaches
or suggests "a heading that indicates that the first category page is a category
page," as recited in claim 7. In that regard, the Examiner does not state or
explain that disclosing any heading is sufficient to meet the heading
limitation recited in claim 7. 3 Therefore, on this record, we are constrained
to conclude the Examiner findings are insufficient to demonstrate that
Madden-Woods discloses the recited heading limitation and we do not
sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 7.
Claims 8-12 and 14
Appellants do not contest the Examiner's finding that Madden-Woods
teaches the first conditional step of claim 8. See Final Act. 13-14 (citing
Madden-Woods ,r,r 40-42). Given the Examiner's undisputed findings that
Madden-Woods teaches the first conditional step, we see no error in the
Examiner's rejection of claim 8 regardless of whether the cited prior art
teaches the second conditional step, because the second conditional step
3 Should this matter undergo further prosecution, we leave to the Examiner
to determine whether the recited heading limitation, and particularly the
content of the heading, patentably distinguishes claim 7 over the cited prior
art. Specifically, we leave to the Examiner to determine whether claim 7 's
recitation that the header "indicates that the first category page is a category
page" is non-functional descriptive material.
20
Appeal2018-000907
Application 13/339,190
need not be performed when the condition precedent does not occur. See
Schulhauser, 2016 WL 6277792.
Appellants argue that Madden-Woods and Blackwell do not teach or
suggest the filtering step of claim 8. App. Br. 39-43. Even considering
claim 8 's filtering step, which is commensurate in scope to the disputed
limitation of claim 1, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 8. As discussed above, we see no error in the Examiner's reliance on
Blackwell for at least suggesting the disputed limitation of claim 1. Thus,
we see no error in the Examiner's reliance on Blackwell for at least
suggesting the commensurate filtering step of claim 8.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of (1) independent claim 8 and
(2) claims 9--12 and 14, which depend from claim 8.
Claim 13
Claim 13 depends from claim 8 and additionally recites, in relevant
part, "determining that the first page does not provide[] results of a search
query ... and, displaying a third page including items for sale that fall
within the selected category level ... without reference to a search query."
As discussed above, claim 8 recites conditional steps. Claim 13 incorporates
the limitations of claim 8, but by reciting that the method determines the first
page does not provide search results, claim 13 explicitly precludes the final
two steps in claim 8 from occurring. Thus, claim 13 does not recite
displaying any pages providing search results.
Appellants argue Blackwell and Madden-Woods do not teach
"treat[ing] differently a selection of an intermediate portion of a breadcrumb
21
Appeal2018-000907
Application 13/339,190
appearing on a search page from the selection of an intermediate portion of a
breadcrumb appearing on a non-search page." App. Br. 47--48.
As the Examiner finds, this argument is not commensurate with the
scope of the claim. See Ans. 16. Claim 13 does not recite displaying pages
providing search results or selecting a portion of a breadcrumb trail
appearing on a search page. Thus, claim 13 cannot require treating selecting
a portion of a breadcrumb trail on a search page differently than selecting a
portion of a breadcrumb trail on a non-search page. Moreover, to the extent
Appellants' argument is understood as asserting the combination of Madden-
Woods and Blackwell does not teach or suggest using breadcrumb trails to
navigate among both category pages and search pages (which, again, is not
required by claim 13), we disagree for the reasons discussed above with
respect to independent claim 1.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
concluding that claim 13 would have been obvious. Accordingly, we sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claim 13.
CONCLUSION
Under § 101, the Examiner did not err in rejecting (1) claims 1, 2, and
4--20 as ineligible subject matter under the Alice/Mayo framework; and (2)
claims 1, 2, and 4--7 as encompassing non-statutory subject matter.
Under§ 103(a), the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4--6,
and 8-20, but the Examiner did err in rejecting claim 7.
22
Appeal2018-000907
Application 13/339,190
DECISION
Because we affirm at least one ground of rejection with respect to
each claim on appeal, we affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1,
2, and 4--20. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(a)(l).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
23