Sie sind auf Seite 1von 453

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. ISSUE DATE PATENT NO. ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.

09/843,923 03/22/2011 7912915 0026-0002 9916

44989 7590 03/02/2011


HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP
11350 Random Hills Road
SUITE 600
FAIRFAX, VA 22030

ISSUE NOTIFICATION

The projected patent number and issue date are specified above.

Determination of Patent Term Adjustment under 35 U.S.C. 154 (b)


(application filed on or after May 29,2000)

The Patent Term Adjustment is 2618 day(s). Any patent to issue from the above-identified application will
include an indication of the adjustment on the front page.

If a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) was filed in the above-identified application, the filing date that
determines Patent Term Adjustment is the filing date of the most recent CPA.

Applicant will be able to obtain more detailed information by accessing the Patent Application Information
Retrieval (PAIR) WEB site (http://pair.uspto.gov).

Any questions regarding the Patent Term Extension or Adjustment determination should be directed to the
Office of Patent Legal Administration at (571)-272-7702. Questions relating to issue and publication fee
payments should be directed to the Application Assistance Unit (AAU) of the Office of Data Management
(ODM) at (571)-272-4200.

APPLICANT(s) (Please see PAIR WEB site http://pair.uspto.gov for additional applicants):
Sergey Brin, Palo Alto, CA;

IRI03 (Rev. 10/09)


PART B - FEE(S) TRANSMITTAL
Complete and send this form, together with applicable fee(s), to: Mail Mail Stop ISi:'llJE FEE
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
or Fax (571)-273-2885
INSTRUCTIONS: This form should be used for transmitting the ISSUE FEE and PUBLICATION FEE (if required). Blocks 1 through 5 should be completed where
appropriate. All further correspondence including the Patent, advance orders and notification of maintenance fees will be mailed to the current correspondence address as
indicated unless corrected below or directed otherwise in Block 1, by (a) specifying a new correspondence address; and/or (h) indicating a separate "FEE ADDRESS" for
maintenance fee notifications. .
CURRENT CORRES~ONDENCE i\.OORESS (Nato: U,o Block I for any chongo of address) Note: A certificate of mS!hng can only be used for domestic mailings of the
Fee(s) Transmittal. This certificate cannot be used for any other accompanying
papers, Each additional paper, such as an assignment or formal drawing, must
have its own certificate of mailing or transmiSSIOn.
44989 7590 IlII7/2010
Certificate of Mailing or Transmission
HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP I hereby certify that this Fee(s) Transmittal is being deposited with the United
States Postal Service with sufficient postage for first class mai I in an envelop'e
11350 Random Hills Road addressed to the Mail Stop ISSUE FEE address above, or being facsimile
SUITE 600 transmitted to the USPTO (571) 273-2&&5, on the date indicated below.
FAIRFAX, VA 22030 (Depo,itor'. nome)

(Signalure)

(Date)

I APPLICATION NO.
I FILlNGDATE
I FIRST NAMED INVENTOR I ATTORNEY DOCKET NO, I CONFIRMATION NO.

091&43,923 04/30/2001 Sergey Brin 0026-0002 9916


TITLE OF INVENTION: SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ENTICING USERS TO ACCESS A WEB SITE

APPLN. TYPE SMALL ENTITY ISSUE FEE DUE PUBLICATION FEE DUE PREVo PAID ISSUE FEE TOTALFEE(S) DUE DATE DUE

nonprovisional NO $i510 $0 $0 $1510 02117/2011

EXAMINER ARTUNlT CLASS-SUBCLASS

AILES, BENJAMiN A 2442 709-2i6000


1. Change of correspondence address or indication of "Fee Address" (37 2. For printing on the patent front page, Ust
CFR 1.363). 1 HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP
(I) the names of up to 3 registered patent attorneys
o Change of correspondence address (or Change of Correspondence
Address form PTO/SB/I22) attached.
or agents OR, alternatively,
2 _
(2) the name of a single firm (having as a member a
o "Fee Address" indication (or "Fee Address" Indication form
PTO/SB/47; Rev 03-02 or more recent) attached. Use of a Customer
registered attorney or agent) and the names of up to
2 registered patent attorneys or agents, If no name is 3 _
Number is required. liste3, no name will be printed.

3. ASSIGNEE NAME AND RESIDENCE DATA TO BE PRINTED ON THE PATENT (print or type)
PLEASE NOTE: Unless an assignee is identified below, no assignee data will appear on the patent. If an assignee is identified below, the document has been filed for
recordation as set forth in 37 CFR 3.11. Completion of this form is NOT a substitute for filing an assignment.
(A) NAME OF ASSIGNEE (B) RESIDENCE: (CITY and STATE OR COUNTRY)
GOOGLE INC. Mountain View, California, USA

Please check the appropriate assignee category or categories (will not be printed on the patent) : 0 Individual Corporation or other private group entity 0 Government

4~;Jollowing fee(s) are submitted: 4b. Payment ofFee(s): (Please first reapply any previously paid issue fee shown above)
~ssucFee o A check is enclosed.
o Publication Fee (No small entity discount permitted) ·'Q'Payment by credit card. Form PTO-2038 is attached,
o Advance Order - # of Copies _ '~e Director is hereby authOlized to charge the required fee(s), any deficiency, or credit any
overpayment, to Deposit Account Number (enclose an extra copy of this form).
5. Change in Entity Statns (from status indicated above)
o a. Applicant claims SMALL ENTITY status. See 37 CFR 1.27. 0 b. Applicant is no longer claiming SMALL ENTITY status. See 37 CFR 1.27(g)(2).
NOTE: The Issue Fee and Publication Fee (if required) will not be accepted from anyone other than the applicant; a registered attorney or agent; or the assignee or other party in
interest as shown by the records of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

AuthorizedSignature /Paul A. Harrity, Reg. No. 39,574/ Date ~F_e_b_r_u_a_r_y


__ l_5_,_2_0_1_1 _

Typed or printed name Paul A. Ha.~r_r_i_t_y _ Registration No. __ ~_9_,_5_7_4 _

This collection of information is required by 37 CFR 1.31 J. The information is required to obtain or retain a benefit by the public which is to file (and by the USPTO to process)
an appljcation. Confidentiality.is governed by 35 U.S.C. 122.and 37 CFR 1.14. Th,is collection \s e~tjmated to take 12 minutes to complete, includipg gathering,.prepanng, and
submlttmg the completed applicatIOn form to the USPTO. Time Will vary dependmg upon the mdlVldual case. Any comments on the amount of time you reqUlre to complete
this form and/or suggestions for reducing this burden, should be sent to the Chief Information Officer, U,S, Patent and Trademark Office, U.S. Department of Commerce, P.O.
Box J450, Alexandna, Virginia 22313-1450. DO NOT SEND FEES OR COMPLETED FORMS TO THIS ADDRESS. SEND TO: Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450,
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number.

PTOL-&5 (Rev. 08/07) Approved for use through 0&/31/2010. OMB 0651-0033 U.S. Pntentand Trademark Office; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Electronic Patent Application Fee Transmittal

Application Number: 09843923

Filing Date: 30-Apr-2001

Title of Invention: SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ENTICING USERS TO ACCESS A WEB SITE

First Named Inventor/Applicant Name: Sergey Brin

Filer: Paul Harrity/Brooke Fredrick

Attorney Docket Number: 0026-0002

Filed as Large Entity

Utility under 35 USC 111 (a) Filing Fees

Sub-Total in
Description Fee Code Quantity Amount
USD($)

Basic Filing:

Pages:

Claims:

Miscellaneous-Filing:

Petition:

Patent-Appeals-and-Interference:

Post-Allowance-and-Post-Issuance:

Utility Appl issue fee 1501 1 1510 1510

Extension-of-Time:
Sub-Total in
Description Fee Code Quantity Amount
USD($)

Miscellaneous:

Total in USD ($) 1510


Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt

EFSID: 9446492

Application Number: 09843923

International Application Number:

Confirmation Number: 9916

Title of Invention: SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ENTICING USERS TO ACCESS A WEB SITE

First Named Inventor/Applicant Name: Sergey Brin

Customer Number: 44989

Filer: Paul Harrity/Brooke Fredrick

Filer Authorized By: Paul Harrity

Attorney Docket Number: 0026-0002

Receipt Date: 15-FEB-2011

Filing Date: 30-APR-2001

TimeStamp: 18:14:43

Application Type: Utility under 35 USC 111 (a)

Payment information:
Submitted with Payment yes

Payment Type Credit Card

Payment was successfully received in RAM $1510

RAM confirmation Number 5546

Deposit Account

Authorized User

File Listing:
Document I Document Description File Name
File Size(Bytes)/ I Multi ,I Pages
Number Message Digest Part /.zip (ifappl.)
I I
75217
0026-0002_IFCoverSheet_02-1
1 Fee Worksheet (PTO-87S) no 1
S-ll.pdf
1509c18609ce6920d2e3ffel e8edfcc945ee
eall

Warnings:
Information:

127781
0026-0002JeeTrans_02-1S-11.
2 Issue Fee Payment (PTO-8SS) no 1
pdf
c28a8e85 216bO 1d c0255 73a 822b989a 651
de594

Warnings:
Information:

30234
3 Fee Worksheet (PTO-87S) fee-info.pdf no 2
Sf426741 a4530ebbe9613ef8fcb8e6099a42
d2ad

Warnings:
Information:
Total Files Size (in bytes) 233232

This Acknowledgement Receipt evidences receipt on the noted date by the USPTO of the indicated documents,
characterized by the applicant, and including page counts, where applicable. It serves as evidence of receipt similar to a
Post Card, as described in MPEP 503.

New Applications Under 35 U.S.c. 111


If a new application is being filed and the application includes the necessary components for a filing date (see 37 CFR
1.53(b)-(d) and MPEP 506), a Filing Receipt (37 CFR 1.54) will be issued in due course and the date shown on this
Acknowledgement Receipt will establish the filing date of the application.

National Stage of an International Application under 35 U.S.c. 371


If a timely submission to enter the national stage of an international application is compliant with the conditions of 35
U.S.c. 371 and other applicable requirements a Form PCT/DO/EO/903 indicating acceptance of the application as a
national stage submission under 35 U.S.c. 371 will be issued in addition to the Filing Receipt, in due course.

New International Application Filed with the USPTO as a Receiving Office


If a new international application is being filed and the international application includes the necessary components for
an international filing date (see PCT Article 11 and MPEP 1810), a Notification of the International Application Number
and of the International Filing Date (Form PCT/RO/l 05) will be issued in due course, subject to prescriptions concerning
national security, and the date shown on this Acknowledgement Receipt will establish the international filing date of
the application.
PATENT
Attorney Docket No. 0026-0002

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

In re Patent Application of: ) Mail Stop Issue Fee


)
SergeyBRIN ) Group Art Unit: 2442
)
Application No.: 09/843,923 ) Examiner: B. Ailes
)
Filed: April 30, 2001 )
)
For: SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR )
ENTICING USERS TO ACCESS A WEB )
SITE )

ISSUE FEE TRANSMITTAL COVER SHEET

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office


Customer Service Window, Mail Stop Issue Fee
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314

Sir:
The Commissioner is hereby authorized to charge any other appropriate fees that may be

required regarding the attached Issue Fee Transmittal (Form PTOL-85) to Deposit Account No.

50-1070.

Respectfully submitted,

HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP

By: IPaul A. Harrity, Reg. No. 39,5741


Paul A. Harrity
Reg. No. 39,574
11350 Random Hills Road
Suite 600
Fairfax, Virginia 22030
(571) 432-0800
CUSTOMER NUMBER: 44989
Date: February 15,2011
UNITED STAlES PAlENT 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

NOTICE OF ALLOWANCE AND FEE(S) DUE

EXAMINER
44989 7590 11117/2010
AILES, BENJAMIN A
HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP
11350 Random Hills Road ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
SUITE 600 2442
FAIRFAX, VA 22030 DATE MAILED: 11/17/2010

APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.

09/843,923 04/30/2001 Sergey Brin 0026-0002 9916


TITLE OF INVENTION: SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ENTICING USERS TO ACCESS A WEB SITE

APPLN. TYPE SMALL ENTITY ISSUE FEE DUE PUBLICATION FEE DUE PREV. PAID ISSUE FEE TOTAL FEE(S) DUE DATE DUE

nonprovisiona1 NO $1510 $0 $0 $1510 02/17/2011

THE APPLICATION IDENTIFIED ABOVE HAS BEEN EXAMINED AND IS ALLOWED FOR ISSUANCE AS A PATENT.
PROSECUTION ON THE MERITS IS CLOSED. THIS NOTICE OF ALLOWANCE IS NOT A GRANT OF PATENT RIGHTS.
THIS APPLICATION IS SUBJECT TO WITHDRAWAL FROM ISSUE AT THE INITIATIVE OF THE OFFICE OR UPON
PETITION BY THE APPLICANT. SEE 37 CFR 1.313 AND MPEP 1308.
THE ISSUE FEE AND PUBLICATION FEE (IF REQUIRED) MUST BE PAID WITHIN THREE MONTHS FROM THE
MAILING DATE OF THIS NOTICE OR THIS APPLICATION SHALL BE REGARDED AS ABANDONED. THIS
STATUTORY PERIOD CANNOT BE EXTENDED. SEE 35 U.S.C. 151. THE ISSUE FEE DUE INDICATED ABOVE DOES
NOT REFLECT A CREDIT FOR ANY PREVIOUSLY PAID ISSUE FEE IN THIS APPLICATION. IF AN ISSUE FEE HAS
PREVIOUSLY BEEN PAID IN THIS APPLICATION (AS SHOWN ABOVE), THE RETURN OF PART B OF THIS FORM
WILL BE CONSIDERED A REQUEST TO REAPPLY THE PREVIOUSLY PAID ISSUE FEE TOWARD THE ISSUE FEE NOW
DUE.

HOW TO REPLY TO THIS NOTICE:

I. Review the SMALL ENTITY status shown above.


If the SMALL ENTITY is shown as YES, verify your current If the SMALL ENTITY is shown as NO:
SMALL ENTITY status:
A. If the status is the same, pay the TOTAL FEE(S) DUE shown A. Pay TOTAL FEE(S) DUE shown above, or
above.
B. If the status above is to be removed, check box 5b on Part B - B. If applicant claimed SMALL ENTITY status before, or is now
Fee(s) Transmittal and pay the PUBLICATION FEE (if required) claiming SMALL ENTITY status, check box Sa on Part B - Fee(s)
and twice the amount of the ISSUE FEE shown above, or Transmittal and pay the PUBLICATION FEE (if required) and 1/2
the ISSUE FEE shown above.

II. PART B - FEE(S) TRANSMITTAL, or its equivalent, must be completed and returned to the United States Patent and Trademark Office
(USPTO) with your ISSUE FEE and PUBLICATION FEE (if required). If you are charging the fee(s) to your deposit account, section "4b"
of Part B - Fee(s) Transmittal should be completed and an extra copy of the form should be submitted. If an equivalent of Part B is filed, a
request to reapply a previously paid issue fee must be clearly made, and delays in processing may occur due to the difficulty in recognizing
the paper as an equivalent of Part B.
III. All communications regarding this application must give the application number. Please direct all communications prior to issuance to
Mail Stop ISSUE FEE unless advised to the contrary.
IMPORTANT REMINDER: Utility patents issuing on applications filed on or after Dec. 12, 1980 may require payment of
maintenance fees. It is patentee's responsibility to ensure timely payment of maintenance fees when due.

Page 1 of 3
PTOL-85 (Rev. 08/07) Approved for use through 08/31/2010.
PART B - FEE(S) TRANSMITTAL
Complete and send this form, together with applicable fee(s), to: Mail Mail Stop ISSUE FEE
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
or Fax (571)-273-2885
INSTRUCTIONS: This form should be used for transmitting the ISSUE FEE and PUBLICATION FEE (if required). Blocks I through 5 should be completed where
appropriate. All further correspondence including the Patent, advance orders and notification of maintenance fees will be mailed to the current correspondence address as
indicated unless corrected below or directed otherwise in Block I, by (a) specifying a new correspondence address; and/or (b) indicating a separate "FEE ADDRESS" for
maintenance fee notifications.
CURRENT CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS (Note: Use Block 1 for any change of address) Note: A certificate of mailing can only be used for domestic mailings of the
Fee(s) Transmittal. This certificate cannot be used for any other accompanying
papers. Each additional paper, such as an assignment or formal drawing, must
have its own certificate of mailing or transmission.
44989 7590 11117/2010
Certificate of Mailing or Transmission
HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP I hereby certify that this Fee(s) Transmittal is being deposited with the United
11350 Random Hills Road States Postal Service with sufficient postage for first class mail in an envelope
addressed to the Mail Stop ISSUE FEE address above, or being facsimile
SUITE 600 transmitted to the USPTO (571) 273-2885, on the date indicated below.
FAIRFAX, VA 22030 (Depositor's name)

(Signature)

(Date)

I APPLICATION NO.
I FILING DATE
I FIRST NAMED INVENTOR I ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. I CONFIRMATION NO.

09/843,923 04/30/2001 Sergey Brin 0026-0002 9916


TITLE OF INVENTION: SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ENTICING USERS TO ACCESS A WEB SITE

APPLN. TYPE SMALL ENTITY ISSUE FEE DUE PUBLICATION FEE DUE PREVo PAID ISSUE FEE TOTAL FEE(S) DUE DATE DUE

nonprovisional NO $1510 $0 $0 $1510 02/17/2011

EXAMINER ART UNIT CLASS-SUBCLASS

AILES, BENJAMIN A 2442 709-216000


1. Change of correspondence address or indication of "Fee Address" (37 2. For printing on the patent front page, list
CFR 1.363).
(I) the names of up to 3 registered patent attorneys
o Change of correspondence address (or Change of Correspondence
Address form PTO/SB/122) attached.
or agents OR, alternatively,
(2) the name of a single firm (having as a member a 2 _
o "Fee Address" indication (or "Fee Address" Indication form
PTO/SB/47; Rev 03-02 or more recent) attached. Use ofa Customer
registered attorney or agent) and the names of up to
2 registered patent attorneys or agents. If no name is 3 _
Number is required. listed, no name will be printed.

3. ASSIGNEE NAME AND RESIDENCE DATA TO BE PRINTED ON THE PATENT (print or type)
PLEASE NOTE: Unless an assignee is identified below, no assignee data will appear on the patent. If an assignee is identified below, the document has been filed for
recordation as set forth in 37 CFR 3.11. Completion of this form is NOT a substitute for filing an assignment.
(A) NAME OF ASSIGNEE (B) RESIDENCE: (CITY and STATE OR COUNTRY)

Please check the appropriate assignee category or categories (will not be printed on the patent) : 0 Individual 0 Corporation or other private group entity 0 Government

4a. The following fee(s) are submitted: 4b. Payment of Fee(s): (Please first reapply any previously paid issue fee shown above)
o Issue Fee o A check is enclosed.
o Publication Fee (No small entity discount permitted) o Payment by credit card. Form PTO-2038 is attached.
o Advance Order - # of Copies _ o overpayment,
The Director is hereby authorized to charge the required fee(s), any deficiency, or credit any
to Deposit Account Number (enclose an extra copy of this form).
5. Change in Entity Status (from status indicated above)
o a. Applicant claims SMALL ENTITY status. See 37 CFR 1.27. 0 b. Applicant is no longer claiming SMALL ENTITY status. See 37 CFR 1.27(g)(2).
NOTE: The Issue Fee and Publication Fee (if required) will not be accepted from anyone other than the applicant; a registered attorney or agent; or the assignee or other party in
interest as shown by the records of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Authorized Signature _ Date _

Typed or printed name _ Registration No. _

This collection of information is required by 37 CFR 1.311. The information is required to obtain or retain a benefit by the public which is to file (and by the USPTO to process)
an application. Confidentiality is governed by 35 U.S.c. 122 and 37 CFR 1.14. This collection is estimated to take 12 minutes to complete, including gathering, preparing, and
submitting the completed application form to the USPTO. Time will vary depending upon the individual case. Any comments on the amount of time you require to complete
this form and/or suggestions for reducing this burden, should be sent to the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, U.S. Department of Commerce, P.O.
Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450. DO NOT SEND FEES OR COMPLETED FORMS TO THIS ADDRESS. SEND TO: Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450,
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number.

PTOL-85 (Rev. 08/07) Approved for use through 08/3112010. OMB 0651-0033 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
UNITED STAlES PAlENT 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.

09/843,923 04/30/2001 Sergey Brin 0026-0002 9916

EXAMINER
44989 7590 11117/2010
AILES, BENJAMIN A
HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP
11350 Random Hills Road ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
SUITE 600 2442
FAIRFAX, VA 22030 DATE MAILED: 11/17/2010

Determination of Patent Term Adjustment under 35 U.S.C. 154 (b)


(application filed on or after May 29,2000)

The Patent Term Adjustment to date is 2024 day(s). If the issue fee is paid on the date that is three months after the
mailing date of this notice and the patent issues on the Tuesday before the date that is 28 weeks (six and a half
months) after the mailing date of this notice, the Patent Term Adjustment will be 2024 day(s).

If a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) was filed in the above-identified application, the filing date that
determines Patent Term Adjustment is the filing date of the most recent CPA.

Applicant will be able to obtain more detailed information by accessing the Patent Application Information Retrieval
(PAIR) WEB site (http://pair.uspto.gov).

Any questions regarding the Patent Term Extension or Adjustment determination should be directed to the Office of
Patent Legal Administration at (571)-272-7702. Questions relating to issue and publication fee payments should be
directed to the Customer Service Center of the Office of Patent Publication at 1-(888)-786-0101 or
(571)-272-4200.

Page 3 of 3
PTOL-85 (Rev. 08/07) Approved for use through 08/31/2010.
Application No. Applicant(s)

09/843,923 BRIN, SERGEY


Notice of Allowability Examiner Art Unit

BENJAMIN AILES 2442

-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address--
Ail claims being allowable, PROSECUTION ON THE MERITS IS (OR REMAINS) CLOSED in this application. If not included
herewith (or previously mailed), a Notice of Allowance (PTOL-85) or other appropriate communication will be mailed in due course. THIS
NOTICE OF ALLOWABILITY IS NOT A GRANT OF PATENT RIGHTS. This application is subject to withdrawal from issue at the initiative
of the Office or upon petition by the applicant. See 37 CFR 1.313 and MPEP 1308.
1. IZI This communication is responsive to BPAI decision rendered 23 September 2010.
2. IZI The allowed c1aim(s) islare 26, 30, 31, 35 (fe-numbered 1-4).

3. D Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
a) D All b) D Some* c) D None of the:
1. D Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
2. D Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No. _ _ .
3. D 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)).
* Certified copies not received: _ _.

Applicant has THREE MONTHS FROM THE "MAILING DATE" of this communication to file a reply complying with the requirements
noted below. Failure to timely comply will result in ABANDONMENT of this application.
THIS THREE-MONTH PERIOD IS NOT EXTENDABLE.

4. D A SUBSTITUTE OATH OR DECLARATION must be submitted. Note the attached EXAMINER'S AMENDMENT or NOTICE OF
INFORMAL PATENT APPLICATION (PTO-152) which gives reason(s) why the oath or declaration is deficient.

5. D CORRECTED DRAWINGS ( as "replacement sheets") must be submitted.


(a) D including changes required by the Notice of Draftsperson's Patent Drawing Review ( PTO-948) attached
1) D hereto or 2) D to Paper No./Mail Date _ _.
(b) D including changes required by the attached Examiner's Amendment I Comment or in the Office action of
Paper No./Mail Date _ _.
Identifying indicia such as the application number (see 37 CFR 1.84(c)) should be written on the drawings in the front (not the back) of
each sheet. Replacement sheet(s) should be labeled as such in the header according to 37 CFR 1.121(d).

6. D DEPOSIT OF andlor INFORMATION about the deposit of BIOLOGICAL MATERIAL must be submitted. Note the
attached Examiner's comment regarding REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEPOSIT OF BIOLOGICAL MATERIAL.

Attachment(s)
1. D Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) 5. D Notice of Informal Patent Application
2. D Notice of Draftperson's Patent Drawing Review (PTO-948) 6. D Interview Summary (PTO-413),
Paper No./Mail Date _ _ .
3. D Information Disclosure Statements (PTO/SB/08), 7. ~ Examiner's AmendmenUComment
Paper No./Mail Date _ _
4. D Examiner's Comment Regarding Requirement for Deposit 8. D Examiner's Statement of Reasons for Allowance
of Biological Material
9. D Other _ _.
IKEVI N BATESI lB. A.I
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2456 Examiner, Art Unit 2442

u.s. Patent and Trademark Office


PTOL-37 (Rev. 08-06) Notice of Allowability Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20101110
Application/Control Number: 09/843,923 Page 2
Art Unit: 2442

Examiner's Amendment

1. An examiner's amendment to the record appears below. Should the changes

and/or additions be unacceptable to applicant, an amendment may be filed as provided

by 37 CFR 1.312. To ensure consideration of such an amendment, it MUST be

submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee.

Authorization for this examiner's amendment was given in a telephone interview

with Paul Harrity (39,574) on 10 November 2010 in view of the SPAI decision rendered

23 September 2010.

The application has been amended as follows:


Application/Control Number: 09/843,923 Page 3
Art Unit: 2442

Listing of claims:

1-25. (canceled)

26. (currently amended) A non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores

instructions executable by one or more processors to perform a method for attracting

users to a web page, comprising:

instructions for creating a special event logo by modifying a standard company

logo for a special event, where the instructions for creating the special event logo

includes instructions for modifying the standard company logo with one or more

animated images;

instructions for associating a link or search results with the special event logo,

the link identifying a document relating to the special event, the search results relating

to the special event;

instructions for uploading the special event logo to the web page;

instructions for receiving a user selection of the special event logo; and

instructions for providing the document relating to the special event or the search

results relating to the special event based on the user selection.

27-29. (canceled)

30. (currently amended) The computer-readable medium of claim 26, wherein the

instructions for creating a special event logo further include:

instructions for modifying the standard company logo with at least one of video or

audio data.
Application/Control Number: 09/843,923 Page 4
Art Unit: 2442

31. (currently amended) The computer-readable medium of claim 26, wherein the

instructions for creating a special event logo further include: instructions for modifying

the standard company logo with information associated with a holiday.

32-34. (canceled)

35. (previously presented) The computer-readable medium of claim 26, wherein the

instructions for uploading the special event logo include: instructions for replacing the

standard company logo with the special event logo on the web page.

36-41. (canceled)
Application/Control Number: 09/843,923 Page 5
Art Unit: 2442

Conclusion

Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the

examiner should be directed to Benjamin Ailes whose telephone number is (571 )272-

3899. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, IFP Hoteling schedule.

If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's

supervisor, Glenton Burgess can be reached on 571-272-3949. 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 may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.

Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.

For more information about 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 (EBC) 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.

/B. A. A./ /KEVI N BATES/


Examiner, Art Unit 2442 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2456
Page 1 of 1

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

BIB DATA SHEET


CONFIRMATION NO. 9916

SERIAL NUMBER FILING or 371(c) CLASS GROUP ART UNIT ATTORNEY DOCKET
DATE NO.
09/843,923 04/30/2001 709 2442 0026-0002
RULE
APPLICANTS
Sergey Brin, Palo Alto, CA;
** CONTINUING DATA *************************
This appln claims benefit of 60/200,957 05/01/2000
** FOREIGN APPLICATIONS *************************
** IF REQUIRED, FOREIGN FILING LICENSE GRANTED **
06/21/2001
Foreign Priority claimed DYes ~No STATE OR SHEETS TOTAL INDEPENDENT
35 USC 119(a-d) conditions met 0 Yes ~ No o Metafter
Allowance COUNTRY DRAWINGS CLAIMS CLAIMS
Verified and /BENJAMIN A AILES/ baa
Acknowledged Examiner's Signature Initials CA 10 27 8

ADDRESS
HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP
11350 Random Hills Road
SUITE 600
FAIRFAX, VA 22030
UNITED STATES
TITLE
Systems and methods for enticing users to access a web site

10 All Fees 1
10 1.16 Fees (Filing) 1
FILING FEE FEES: Authority has been given in Paper 10 1.17 Fees (Processing Ext. of time) 1
RECEIVED No. to charge/credit DEPOSIT ACCOUNT
1236 No. for following: 10 1.18 Fees (Issue) 1
10 Other 1
10 Credit 1

BIB (Rev. 05/07).


Application/Control No. Applicant(s)/Patent Under
Reexamination
Index of Claims 09843923 BRIN, SERGEY

Examiner Art Unit

Ailes, Benjamin A 2142

Rejected Cancelled N Non-Elected A Appeal

= Allowed Restricted Interference o Objected

D Claims renumbered in the same order as presented by applicant D CPA D T.D. D R.1.47

CLAIM DATE
Final Original 11/07/2007 11/10/2010
1 - -
2 - -
3 - -
4 - -
5 - -
6 - -
7 - -
8 - -
9 - -
10 - -
11 - -
12 - -
13 - -
14 - -
15 - -
16 - -
17 - -
18 A -
19 A -
20 A -
21 A -
22 A -
23 A -
24 A -
25 A -
1 26 A =
27 A -
28 A -
29 A -
2 30 A =
3 31 A =
32 A -
33 A -
34 A -
4 35 A =
36 A -
u.s. Patent and Trademark Office Part of Paper No.: 20101110
Application/Control No. Applicant(s)/Patent Under
Reexamination
Index of Claims 09843923 BRIN, SERGEY

Examiner Art Unit

Ailes, Benjamin A 2142

Rejected Cancelled N Non-Elected A Appeal

= Allowed Restricted Interference o Objected

D Claims renumbered in the same order as presented by applicant D CPA D T.D. D R.1.47

CLAIM DATE
Final Original 11/07/2007 11/10/2010
37 A -
38 A -
39 A -
40 A -
41 A -

u.s. Patent and Trademark Office Part of Paper No.: 20101110


Application/Control No. Applicant(s)/Patent Under Reexamination

Issue Classification 09843923 BRIN, SERGEY

Examiner Art Unit

BENJAMIN AILES 2442

ORIGINAL INTERNATIONAL CLASSIFICATION


CLASS SUBCLASS CLAIMED NON-CLAIMED
709 216 G 0 6 F 15 / 167 (2006.01.01 )

CROSS REFERENCE(S)

CLASS SUBCLASS (ONE SUBCLASS PER BLOCK)

D Claims renumbered in the same order as presented by applicant D CPA D T.D. D R.1.47

Final Original Final Original Final Original Final Original Final Original Final Original Final Original Final Original

1 17 33
2 18 34

3 19 4 35

4 20 36

5 21 37

6 22 38

7 23 39

8 24 40

9 25 41

10 1 26

11 27

12 28

13 29

14 2 30

15 3 31

16 32

IBENJAMIN AILESI
Examiner.Art Unit 2442 11/10/2010 Total Claims Allowed:

4
(Assistant Examiner) (Date)
IKEVI N BATESI
Primary Examiner.Art Unit 2456 11/15/2010 O.G. Print Claim(s) O.G. Print Figure

(Primary Examiner) (Date) 1 3

u.s. Patent and Trademark Office Part of Paper No. 20101110


Application/Control No. Applicant(s)/Patent Under
Reexamination
Search Notes 09843923 BRIN, SERGEY

Examiner Art Unit

BENJAMIN AILES 2442

SEARCHED

Class Subclass Date Examiner


709 204,216 11/10/2010 baa
705 26 11/10/2010 baa
345 473, 730, 738 11/10/2010 baa

SEARCH NOTES

Search Notes Date Examiner


EAST - updated class/subclass and text search of USPAT, USPGPub; 11/10/2010 baa
updated inventor name and assignee search of USPAT, USPGUb, EPO,
JPO, DERWENT and IBM TDB;

INTERFERENCE SEARCH

Class Subclass Date Examiner


UPAD, PGPub, USPAT text search - see Interference 11/10/2010 baa
search printout

u.s. Patent and Trademark Office Part of Paper No. : 20101110


EAST Search History

EAST Search History

EAST Search History (Prior Art)

.IR~T#"".[H'i't'~"".!S~'~~~h"Q'~~~'t""""""""""""""""":·!,D'B~"""""""""rD~f'~~'lt"""""""""·[p'I~'~~I'~":·fri'~'~"St~'~'P"""""·1
1::
:~ : :
! ~
:Operator: 1
1
: ~
I ~

.1'82"""""" !'1"""""'" !('('image"g'rapil'ic''bi'im'ap''icon'''''' [uS:"""""""""'" !'OR"""""""""""""""" !OFF"""""" [20'1'07'1''1'7'1'0'''''''''''''' I


I j!iconic metaphor a v a t a r ! P G P U B ; I ! 1 2 0 : 5 7 1
1 ! !emoticon) adj5 (keyword !USPAT! ! 1 1
I I Iterm word phrase text) adj5 I I~ I I I~
.~
.~ i, i'( search query) ad'J3 i ' i i" ~ ~
I I, I(command$4
"$
request$4 I I I I I
.~
.~ i iretnev )) and i i i",~
~ ~
~

I ! !(@ad<"2001 0430" or ! I ! I I
I ! !@rlad<"2001 0430") and! I ! I I
:
I~ :
'.• : :
:@pd>"20060817" : :
' ; ............................• 1
: ':
I~ '
I~
.1&3"""""" [0"""'''''' !nciickab'le"~se'r'=seiec'ia'bler"'''''· [uS:"""""""""" lOR""""""""""""""'''' [OFF"""'''''' [20'1'0;''1''1;''1'0'''''''''''''' I
1 ! !adj3 (image graphic bitmap !PGPUB;! ! 121 :00 1
I ! !icon iconic metaphor avatar !USPAT I ! I I
I ! !emoticon) adj5 (search! : ! 1 I
I ! !query)) and ! I ! 1 I
I ! !(@ad<"2001 0430" or ! I ! I I
I ! !@rlad<"2001 0430") and! I ! I I
I: ~
:: :@pd>"20060817"
.: :
; : :
: ~
I ~ JI
.1'84""""'' ' [0""""""Ini'mage'g'r'ap'il'ic"i)i'im'ap"icon"'"!,uS:"""""""""" lOR""""""""""""""'''' [OFF""""'''' f20'1'0;''1''1'7'1'0'''''''''''''' I
I ! !iconic metaphor avatar !PGPUB;: ! 121 :01 I
I ! !emoticon) adj5 !USPAT I ! I I
I ! !predetermined adj (search! : ! 1 I
I ! !query)) and ! I ! 1 I
I ! !(@ad<"2001 0430" or ! I ! I I
I ! !@rlad<"2001 0430") and! I ! I I
I:~ :: :@pd>
:
"20060817" :
;
:~
:
;
I~
I~
I
..

.rS5""""'' ' ['1'0""'"'' Ini'mage'g'r'ap'il'ic"i)i'im'ap"icon""" fuS:"""""""""" lOR""""""""""""""'''' [OFF"""'''''' f20'1'0;''1''1'7'1'0''''''''''''''


' ' ............................• '. ' ..........................................•

I ! !iconic metaphor avatar !PGPUB;: ! 121 :01 I


I ! !emoticon) adj3 (search !USPAT I ! I I
I ! !query) adj3 (command$4! : ! 1 I
I ! !request$4)) and ! I ! 1 I
I ! !(@ad< "2001 0430" or ! I ! I I
I ! !@rlad< "2001 0430") and! I ! I I
I: ~
:: :@pd>
.: "20060817" :
; : :
; ~
I ~ JI
.1'8'6""""'' ' [24""'"'' Inp~edet'er'mi'~'ed"em'b'edd'ed"""" fuS:"""""""""" lOR""""""""""""""'''' [OFF"""'''''' f20'1'0;''1''1'7'1'T''''''''''''' I
1 ! !prestored predefined) adj3 !PGPUB;! ! 107:20 1
.~I ,: '(: search query) ad'J3 'USPAT
: :~ "
: I I~
I. ~
!, !(command$4
, request$4! ,~,,,
: ! 1 I ~

1 ! !string instruction ! ! ! 1 1
I ! !parameters)) and ! : ! 1 I
I ! !(@ad< "2001 0430" or ! I ! I I
I ! !@rlad< "2001 0430") and! : ! 1 I
I: ~
!: !@pd>
:
"20060817" !
:
I !
: ~
1 ~
I ~
~
~
~
~
,
~

file:!//CI/Documents%20and%20Settings/baileslMy% 20Doc...3923/EASTSearchHistory.09843923_AccessibleVersion.htm (I of 2) 11/12/20 I0 4:32:22 PM


EAST Search History

EAST Search History

EAST Search History (I nterference)

11/12/2010 4 :52 :39 PM


C:\ Documents and Settings\ bailes\ My Documents\ EAST\ Workspaces
\ 09843923.wsp

file:1 Ilel/Documents %20and% 20Settings/baileslMy%20Docume...9843923IEASTSearchHistory.09843923_AccessibleVersion.html1l12/20 I 0 4:52:41 PM


UNITED STAlES PAlENT 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.

09/843,923 04/3012001 Sergey Brin 0026-0002 9916

44989 7590 09/23/2010


EXAMINER
HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP
11350 Random Hills Road AILES, BENJAMIN A
SUIlE 600
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
FAIRFAX, VA 22030
2442

MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE

09/23/2010 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)


UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS


AND INTERFERENCES

Ex parte SERGEY BRIN

Appeal 2009-000777
Application 09/843,923
Technology Center 2400

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, LANCE LEONARD BARRY, and


ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL 1

1The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil


action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.P.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the "MAIL DATE"
(paper delivery mode) or the "NOTIFICATION DATE" (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-000777
Application 09/843,923

STATEMENT OF THE CASE


Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's non-final decision rejecting claims 18-41. Claims 1-17 are
cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We Affirm-In-Part.

BACKGROUND
Appellant's invention relates generally to client/server networks.
More particularly, the invention on appeal is directed to systems and
methods that provide mechanisms for attracting users to a site on a network.
(Spec. 1).
Claim 18 is illustrative:

18. A method for enticing users to access a web page,


compnsmg:

modifying a standard company logo for a special event to


create a special event logo;

associating one or more search terms with the special


event logo, the one or more search terms relating to the special
event;

uploading the special event logo to the web page;

receiving a user selection of the special event logo; and

invoking a search relating to the special event based on


the one or more search terms in response to the user selection.

2
Appeal 2009-000777
Application 09/843,923

The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence


of unpatentability:

Wolff US 6,247,047 B1 Jun. 12,2001

Yahoo! Main page, (1996), available at http://web.


Archive.org/web/199612231506211http://www8.yahoo.com/

Appellant appeals the following rejections:


1. Claims 18, 19,21-29, and 31-41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wolff and Yahoo.
2. Claims 20 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Wolff,
Yahoo and Official Notice.

FACTUAL FINDINGS
We adopt the Examiner's findings in the Answer and Non-final Office
Action as our own, except as to those findings that we expressly overturn or
set aside in the Analysis that follows. Additional findings of fact may
appear in the Analysis that follows.
1. Wolff teaches that after finding and retrieving a record, the host
server sends a dynamically generated form page 108 over the
Internet 16 for display. The page 108 is displayed by opening a
new browser or new window on the user node 14. (Col. 9,11.9-
15).
2. Wolff teaches a banner 102 that includes graphics relating to a
particular product or service being advertised. (Col. 8, 11. 41-
43; Fig. 2).

3
Appeal 2009-000777
Application 09/843,923

3. Wolff teaches that a URL and a unique indicia that identifies


the product or service is embedded within banner 102. (Col. 8,
11. 43-49; Fig. 2).
4. Wolff teaches that the host server 12 receives the unique indicia
embedded within banner 102 and "uses the indicia to search the
on-line product/service database for a record containing
information specific to the advertised product or service." (Col.
9,11.4-7).

ISSUES
We decide the issues raised by Appellant seriatim in the Analysis
below.
ANALYSIS
Claims 18, 19, 21, 23-25, 34 2
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding that the cited combination of
references would have taught or suggested associating one or more search
terms with a special event logo that was created by modifying a standard
company logo for a special event, where the one or more search terms relate
to the special event, within the meaning of representative claim 18? (App.
Br. 7).
Appellant asserts that "Yahoo does not disclose or remotely suggest
... 'associating one or more search terms with the special event logo, let

Based on Appellant's arguments in the Appeal Brief (7 et seq.), we


2

decide the appeal of claims 18, 19, 21, 23-25, and 34 on the basis of
representative claim 18. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(I)(vii).

4
Appeal 2009-000777
Application 09/843,923

alone one or more search terms that relate to the special event, as required by
claim 18'." (App. Br. 8-9). However, we note that the Examiner relied on
Wolff to disclose the association of search terms with a logo, as claimed.
(Ans. 3, 18). The Examiner relied on Yahoo for teaching "a special event
logo." (Ans. 3).
Wolff teaches a banner 102 that includes graphics relating to a
particular product or service being advertised (FF 2), where a URL and a
unique indicia that identifies the product or service is embedded within
banner 102 (FF 3). Regarding the search limitation, Wolff teaches that host
server 12 receives the unique indicia embedded within banner 102 and "uses
the indicia to search the on-line product/service database for a record
containing information specific to the advertised product or service." (FF 4)
(Emphasis added).
As pointed out by the Examiner, we agree that Yahoo teaches a
special event logo. (Ans. 4). Because the Examiner's rejection is based on
the combined teachings of Wolff and Yahoo, we do not find persuasive
Appellant's arguments attacking each reference in isolation regarding
Issue 1.

Issue 2: Did the Examiner err by improperly combining the cited


references under § 103?
Appellant contends that Wolff "teaches away" from associating one or
more search terms with static banners because the static banners involve
only one-way communication and do not take advantage of Interactive
capabilities. (App. Br. 9). However, we find this argument unconvincing
because the portion of Wolff noted by Appellant does not discourage or

5
Appeal 2009-000777
Application 09/843,923

disavow associating one or more search terms with static banners even if
arguendo the static banners involve one-way communication. 3 (See Wolff
col. 2, 11. 30-35)
Appellant further contends that the Examiner provided no motivation
for modifying Wolff's advertisement banner with the prior art seasonal or
one-time use static banner. (App. Br. 13). Appellant asserts that replacing
Wolff's advertisement banner with the prior art seasonal or one-time use
static banner would be directly contrary to the whole purpose of Wolff's
system which provides information regarding an advertised product or
service in response to a selection of a banner advertisement relating to the
product or service. (Id.).
We disagree. As pointed out by the Examiner, we agree that the
Yahoo logo is altered to commemorate the Christmas holiday. (Ans. 18;
Yahoo 1). We also agree with the Examiner's findings that Yahoo
evidences that it was well known in the art to modify an existing logo to one
associated with a special event. (Ans. 4; Yahoo 1). We further agree with
the Examiner that it would have been obvious to an artisan that the search
terms would relate to what is being displayed by the image in some manner.
(Id.).

3 "A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill,
upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path
set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the
path that was taken by the applicant." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977,990 (Fed.
Cir. 2006) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). See also In re
Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (noting that merely disclosing
more than one alternative does not teach away from any of these alternatives
if the disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the
alternatives).

6
Appeal 2009-000777
Application 09/843,923

Moreover, we are of the view that Appellant's purported improvement


over the prior art represents no more than the predictable use of prior art
elements according to their established functions, and thus would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Telejlex Inc.
550 U.S. 398,417 (2007) ("when a patent 'simply arranges old elements
with each performing the same function it had been known to perform' and
yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the
combination is obvious.") (citing Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273,
282 (1976).
Based on the record before us, we find the Examiner did not err in
rejecting representative claim 18. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's
§ 103 rejection of independent claim 18, as well as claims 19, 21, 23-25, and
34 which fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(I)(vii).

Claims 28 and 36
Regarding independent claim 28 and dependent claim 36, Appellant's
arguments are based on essentially the same grounds as previously
submitted for independent claim 18. (App. Br. 24-25). Therefore, we
sustain the Examiner's § 103 rejection of claims 28 and 36 for the same
reasons discussed supra regarding claim 18.

Dependent Claims 40 and 41


Issue 3: Did the Examiner err in finding that the cited references
would have taught or suggested searching the Internet, as recited in claim
40, or invoking a search for web pages related to a special event, as recited
in claim 41?

7
Appeal 2009-000777
Application 09/843,923

Appellant contends that just because Wolff discloses a product/service


database available over the Internet does not mean that searching the
database is equivalent to searching the Internet. (App. Br. 15). We observe
that Appellant essentially restates this same argument regarding claim 41.
(App. Br. 24-25).
Based upon our review of the record, we agree with the Examiner's
findings regarding claims 40 and 41. (Ans. 16, 19, and 20). We agree that
an "Internet" search (claim 40) is a search of databases or other resources
connected to the Internet, as evidenced by the Internet search box in the
Yahoo reference. Moreover, we find that Wolff discloses the use of the
Internet to complete product/service searches and requests. (FF 1). As
discussed above, the Examiner relies on Yahoo for teaching "a special event
logo." (Ans. 3). Thus, we find Yahoo at least suggests invoking a search for
web pages related to a special event, within the meaning of claim 41. On
this record, we find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 40 and
41. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's § 103 rejection of claims 40 and
41.
Independent Claim 26
Issue 4: Did the Examiner err in finding that the cited references
would have taught or suggested "instructions for uploading a special event
logo to a web page." (Emphasis added).4 Appellant contends that the
modified Yahoo logo is merely an end product and does not serve to teach or

4 Appellant's arguments regarding the limitations of claim 26 that were


previously discussed regarding claim 18 are applicable here and will not be
repeated.

8
Appeal 2009-000777
Application 09/843,923

suggest instructions for uploading the special event logo to the web page.
(Reply Br. 5-6).
However, on this record, we agree with the Examiner's finding (which
Appellant has not rebutted) that a logo that is viewable on a webpage must
have been uploaded via computer instructions. (Ans. 7, 20-21). Moreover,
we will not endeavor to read the word "automated" into the claim language
as argued by Appellant on page 5 of the Reply Brief.
On this record, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting
independent claim 26. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of
claim 26.

Dependent claim 29
Issue 5: Did the Examiner err in finding that the cited references
would have taught or suggested instructions for modifying the standard logo
with one or more animated images, as recited in dependent claim 29? (App.
Br. 17).
Based upon our review of the record, we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner has not established that instructions for modifying the standard
logo with one or more animated images is fairly taught or suggested by the
cited combination of references. (App. Br. 18). In particular, we see no
"animated" image in the evidence before us. Therefore, we reverse the
Examiner's § 103 rejection of claim 29.

Dependent Claims 31 and 35


Issue 6: Did the Examiner err in finding that the cited references
would have taught or suggested instructions for modifying the standard

9
Appeal 2009-000777
Application 09/843,923

company logo with information associated with a holiday, as recited in


dependent claim 31. Appellant contends that the Examiner has not provided
any evidence that the Yahoo logo "was modified by executing instructions
for modifying a standard company logo with information associated with a
holiday, as required by claim 31." (App. Br. 18) (Emphasis added).
However, we observe that claim 31 does not recite "executing"
instructions. Instead, claim 31 is directed to instructions that are stored on a
medium that could be executed, but are not positively recited as actually
being executed. See the preamble of claim 26, from which claim 31
depends. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 31
because Appellant argues limitations that are not expressly claimed. (Ans.
22). Because Appellant relies on the same "executing instructions"
argument regarding the rejection of claim 35 ("executing instructions" are
not recited in claim 35), we likewise sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 35. (See App. Br. 19).

Independent Claim 27
Issue 7: Did the Examiner err in finding that the cited references
would have taught or suggested a processor configured to determine a home
page of a web page on a network, or identifying a standard company logo, as
recited in representative claim 27?
Appellant contends that the Examiner's findings have no support in
either the Wolff or Yahoo references. (App. Br. 20 et. seq.). According to
Appellant, the mere fact that Yahoo shows a modified Yahoo logo in no way
means that a processor executed instructions to determine the home page or
identify a standard company logo for the Yahoo web site. (App. Br. 21-22).

10
Appeal 2009-000777
Application 09/843,923

The Examiner contends that Wolff teaches the inherent use of a


computer processor. (Ans.23). The inherent features of Wolff are not
contested by Appellant. Further, we agree with the Examiner that Yahoo
teaches an uploaded image that is an altered version of the company logo on
a home page (www.yahoo.com). (Ans.23). Therefore, we find the cited
combination of references strongly suggestive of a processor that executes
instructions to determine (i.e., display) a home page on a network, and also
instructions to identify a standard company logo by virtue of displaying the
home page. Because we find the weight of the evidence supports the
Examiner's position, we affirm the Examiner's § 103 rejection of
independent claim 27.

Claims 32 and 33
Regarding dependent claims 32 and 33, Appellant's arguments are
based on essentially the same grounds as previously submitted for
independent claims 18 and 27. (App. Br. 23). Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner's § 103 rejection of claims 32 and 33 for the same reasons
discussed supra regarding independent claims 18 and 27.

Claims 37-39
Regarding claims 37-39, Appellant's arguments are based on
essentially the same grounds as previously submitted for independent claims
18 and 41. (App. Br. 26). Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's § 103
rejection of claims 37-39 for the same reasons discussed supra regarding
claims 18 and 41.

11
Appeal 2009-000777
Application 09/843,923

Dependent Claim 22
Regarding claim 22, Appellant's arguments are based on the same
grounds as previously submitted for independent claims 18 and 37. (App.
Br. 26). Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's § 103 rejection of claim 22
for the same reasons discussed supra regarding independent claims 18 and
37.

Dependent Claims 20 and 30 (2 nd § 103 rejection)


Issue 8: Did the Examiner err in finding that the cited references
would have taught or suggested modifying the standard company logo with
at least one of video or audio, as recited in dependent claim 20 and
instructions for modifying the standard company logo with at least one of
video or audio, as recited in dependent claim 30.
Regarding the Examiner's reliance on "Official Notice," Appellant
contends that the Examiner has merely stated a conclusion without providing
any evidence or reasoned explanation as support. (App. Br. 27-28).
Regarding the Examiner's taking of "Official Notice" that it was well
known to use video or audio data to modify a web page, we find no
statement in Appellant's Briefs that it was not well known to use video or
audio data to modify a web page. Instead, Appellant merely states that the
Examiner has not provided evidence. (App. Br. 27-28). Thus, we find
Appellant has not made an express demand for evidence from the Examiner,
as required to challenge the Examiner's finding. (See MPEP § 2144.03).
We note that to adequately traverse the Examiner's finding, Appellant must
specifically point out the supposed errors in the Examiner's action, which
would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common

12
Appeal 2009-000777
Application 09/843,923

knowledge or well-known in the art. See 37 C.F.R. 1.111 (b). See also
MPEP § 2144.03. Accordingly, because Appellant has not met the requisite
burden, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 20 and 30 as being
obvious over the combination of Wolff, Yahoo, and "Official Notice."

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's § 103 rejection of claim 29.
We affirm the Examiner's § 103 rejections of claims 18-28 and 30-41.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with


this appeal may be extended under 37 C.P.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.P.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2009).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

rwk

HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP


11350 Random Hills Road
SUITE 600
FAIRFAX, VA 22030

13
UNITED STAlES PAlENT 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.

09/843,923 04/3012001 Sergey Brin 0026-0002 9916

44989 7590 10/24/2008


EXAMINER
HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP
11350 Random Hills Road AILES, BENJAMIN A
SUIlE 600
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
FAIRFAX, VA 22030
2442

MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE

10/24/2008 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)


Page 1

United States Patent and Trademark Office


Und er Secretary of Comm erce for Intellectual Property an d
Directo r ofthe United States Patent an d Tradem ark Office
P.O. Bo x 1450
Alexandria, Virg in ia 22313-1450
WI/IIIN. us Pto. 9 0 v

HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP


11350 RANDOM HILLS ROAD Appeal No: 2009-0777
SUITE 600 Application: 09/843,923
FAIRFAX, VA 22030 Appellant: Sergey Brin

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences


Docketing Notice
Application 09/843,923 was received from the Technology Center at the Board on September
29,2008 and has been assigned Appeal No: 2009-0777.

A review of the file indicates that the following documents have been filed by appellant:

Appeal Brief filed on: July 09, 2007


Reply Brief filed on: January 14, 2008
Request for Hearing filed on: NONE

In all future communications regarding this appeal, please include both the application number
and the appeal number.

The mailing address for the Board is:

BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES


UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
P.O. BOX 1450
ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22313-1450

The facsimile number of the Board is 571-273-0052. Because of the heightened security in the
Washington D.C. area, facsimile communications are recommended. Telephone inquiries can be
made by calling 571-272-9797 and should be directed to a Program and Resource
Administrator.

By order of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences


Patent
Attorney's Docket No. 0026-0002

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

In re Patent Application of )
)
SergeyBRIN ) Group Art Unit: 2142
)
Application No.: 09/843,923 ) Examiner: AILES, B
)
Filed: April 30, 2001 )
)
For: SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR )
ENTICING USERS TO ACCESS A )
WEBSITE )

STATUS INOUIRY

u.s. Patent and Trademark Office


Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314

Sir:

Please notify the undersigned attorney of the status of the above-identified application. A reply brief was
filed on January 14,2008 and we have not received any PTO communication since.

Respectfully submitted,

HARRITY SNYDER, L.L.P.

By: IPaul A. Harrity, Reg. No. 39,5741


Paul A. Harrity
Reg. No. 39,574

11350 Random Hills Road


Suite 600
Fairfax, Virginia 22030
(571) 432-0800
CUSTOMER NUMBER: 44989

Date: August 1,2008


Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt

EFSID: 3710133

Application Number: 09843923

International Application Number:

Confirmation Number: 9916

Title of Invention: Systems and methods for enticing users to access a web site

First Named Inventor/Applicant Name: Sergey Brin

Customer Number: 44989

Filer: Paul Harrity/Sara Dodge

Filer Authorized By: Paul Harrity

Attorney Docket Number: 0026-0002

Receipt Date: 01-AUG-2008

Filing Date: 30-APR-2001

Time Stamp: 16:38:32

Application Type: Utility under 35 USC 111 (a)

Payment information:
Submitted with Payment I no

File Listing:
Document File Size(Bytes) Multi Pages
Document Description File Name
Number /Message Digest Part /.zip (if appl.)

61496
1 Request for status of Application 07-31-08_status_inquiry.pdf no 1
9cc4dbab578bbff8999c55619c8eOb9da
aOO23ed

Warnings:
Information:
Total Files Size (in bytes): 61496

This Acknowledgement Receipt evidences receipt on the noted date by the USPTO of the indicated documents,
characterized by the applicant, and including page counts, where applicable. It serves as evidence of receipt
similar to a Post Card, as described in MPEP 503.

New Applications Under 35 U.S.C. 111


If a new application is being filed and the application includes the necessary components for a filing date (see
37 CFR 1.53(b)-(d) and MPEP 506), a Filing Receipt (37 CFR 1.54) will be issued in due course and the date
shown on this Acknowledgement Receipt will establish the filing date of the application.

National Stage of an International Application under 35 U.S.C. 371


If a timely submission to enter the national stage of an international application is compliant with the conditions
of 35 U.S.C. 371 and other applicable requirements a Form PCT/DO/EO/903 indicating acceptance of the
application as a national stage submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 will be issued in addition to the Filing Receipt,
in due course.

New International Application Filed with the USPTO as a Receiving Office


If a new international application is being filed and the international application includes the necessary
components for an international filing date (see PCT Article 11 and MPEP 1810), a Notification of the
International Application Number and of the International Filing Date (Form PCT/RO/105) will be issued in due
course, subject to prescriptions concerning national security, and the date shown on this Acknowledgement
Receipt will establish the international filing date of the application.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Ortice
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria. Virgioia 22313-1450
WWW.usplO.gOY

APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMAnON NO.

09/843,923 04/30/2001 Sergey Srin 0026-0002 9916

44989 7590 01/18/2008


EXAMINER
HARRITY SNYDER, LLP
11350 Random Hills Road AILES, BENJAMIN A
SUITE 600
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
FAIRFAX, VA 22030
2142

MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE

01/18/2008 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)


UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF C0:1'RCE
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Ih
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PAlENTS "j
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450

APPLICATION NO.1 . FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR I ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
CONTROL NO. PATENT IN REEXAMINATION
09843923 4/30/01 BRIN, SERGEY 0026-0002

EXAMINER
HARRITY SNYDER, LLP
11350 Random Hills Road Benjamin A. Ailes
SUITE 600
FAIRFAX. VA 22030 ART UNIT I_PA_P_E_R _

2142 20080116

DATE MAILED:

Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or
proceeding. .

Commissioner for Patents

The reply brief filed 16 January 2008 has been entered and,considered. The application has been forwarded to the Board of Patent
Appeals and Interferences for decision on the appeal. No response to this letter is required.

~~ Af\!I)REW CALDWELL '


SU?~RVISCRY P,\T::NT E~_~~!~jER

PTO-90e (Rev.04-03)
PATENT
Docket No. 0026-0002

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE


BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES

In re Patent Application of )
)
Sergey BRIN ) MIS: Appeal Brief - Patents
)
Application No.: 09/843,923 ) Group Art Unit: 2142
)
Filed: April 30, 2001 ) Examiner: B. Ailes
)
For: SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR )
ENTICING USERS TO ACCESS A )
WEB SITE )

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office


Customer Window, Mail Stop Appeal Brief - Patents
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314

REPLY BRIEF UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 41.41

This Reply Brief is submitted in response to the Examiner's Answer, mailed November

16,2007.
REPLY BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

I. STATUS OF CLAIMS

Claims 18-41 are pending in this application.

Claims 18, 19,21-29, and 31-41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.c. § 103(a) as allegedly

unpatentable over Wolff (U.S. Patent No. 6,247,047) in view of Yahoo

(www.archive.org/web/1996l223l5062l/http://www8.yahoo.com, dated December 23, 1996).

Claims 20 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.c. § 103(a) as allegedly unpatentable over

Wolff in view of Yahoo and what was allegedly "well known at the time of the applicant's

invention. "

Claims 1-17 were previously canceled without prejudice or disclaimer.

Claims 18-41 are the subject of the present appeal. These claims were reproduced in the

Claim Appendix of the Appeal Brief.

-2-
REPLY BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

II. GROUNDS OF REJECTION TO BE REVIEWED ON APPEAL

A. Claims 18, 19,21-29, and 31-41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.c. § 103(a) as

unpatentable over Wolff and Yahoo.

B. Claims 20 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.c. § 103(a) as unpatentable over

Wolff, Yahoo, and what was allegedly "well known at the time of applicant's invention."

-3-
REPLY BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

III. RESPONSE TO ARGUMENT SECTION OF EXAMINER'S ANSWER

A. The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Based on Wolff (U.S. Patent No.
6,247,047) in View of Yahoo
(www.archive.orglwebI19961223150621lhttp://www8.yahoo.com. dated
December 23, 1996) Should be Reversed.

1. Claim 40.

Dependent claim 40 recites invoking a search of the Internet. In the Appeal Brief,

Appellant provided substantial reasons why Wolff and Yahoo, whether considered alone or in

any reasonable combination, do not disclose or suggest this feature of claim 40. Appeal Brief,

pages 14-15.

In the Examiner's Answer, the Examiner alleged Wolff discloses searching an online

database, which is considered to be part of the Internet. Examiner's Answer, page 20. The

Examiner also alleged that it is known in the art that search engines do not actually search the

Internet but in fact search an indexed database of the Internet. Examiner's Answer, page 20.

Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the Examiner's second allegation is

accurate, the Examiner has not provided any evidence that the online database described by

Wolff is an indexed database of the Internet or is equivalent to an indexed database of the

Internet. Instead, Wolff discloses on-line and off-line relational databases 36 and 38,

respectively, that include a product or service information database including records for storing

data specific to a plurality of advertising banners or icons, and a transaction database including

records for storing data specific to individual transactions. Figure 1; column 6, lines 60-66.

Wolff does not disclose or suggest that the product/service information relating to advertising

banners or icons or the transaction records are information that is searchable on the Internet, but

-4-
REPLY BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

merely disclose that the databases containing this information are accessible via the Internet.

Thus, searching these databases would not be equivalent to searching the Internet, as recited in

claim 40.

Therefore, the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness with

regard to claim 40.

For at least the foregoing reasons and for those reasons presented in the Appeal Brief,

Appellant submits that the rejection of claim 40 under 35 U.S.c. § 103(a) based on Wolff and

Yahoo is improper. Accordingly, Appellant requests that the rejection of claim 40 be reversed.

2. Claim 26.

Independent claim 26 recites, among other things, instructions for uploading the special

event logo to the web page. In the Appeal Brief, Appellant provided substantial reasons why

Wolff and Yahoo, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, do not disclose or

suggest this feature of claim 26. Appeal Brief, pages 16-17.

In the Examiner's Answer, the Examiner alleged that Appellant failed to accurately

describe how a logo or any image can be viewable on a web page without performing an upload

operation. Examiner's Answer, page 22. Appellant submits that the Examiner is misconstruing

Appellant's claim language. Claim 26 does not simply recite uploading a special event logo to a

web page. Instead, claim 26 explicitly recites instructions for uploading a special event logo to a

web page. The "instructions for" language clearly indicates that this uploading operation is

automated (e.g., performed by "one or more processors" as recited in the preamble of claim 26).

The Examiner has not provided any evidence that either Wolff or Yahoo discloses or suggests

instructions for uploading a special event logo to a web page. Instead, the Examiner has only

-5-
REPLY BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

shown an end product (i.e., the modified Yahoo logo on the Yahoo web page). Thus, the

Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to claim 26.

For at least the foregoing reasons and for those reasons presented in the Appeal Brief,

Appellant submits that the rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.c. § 103(a) based on Wolff and

Yahoo is improper. Accordingly, Appellant requests that the rejection of claim 26 be reversed.

3. Claim 29.

Dependent claim 29 recites instructions for modifying the standard company logo with

one or more animated images. In the Appeal Brief, Appellant provided substantial reasons why

Wolff and Yahoo do not disclose or suggest this feature of claim 29. Appeal Brief, pages 17-18.

In the Examiner's Answer, the Examiner alleged that Yahoo discloses:

the modification of a logo using instructions wherein Yahoo shows a modified Yahoo logo
done by computer means. The computer is required to be fed instructions in order to work
at all and therefore reads on the aspect of executing instructions as required by dependent
claim 29.

Examiner's Answer, page 22. Appellant submits that the Examiner's allegation lacks merit.

Yahoo simply shows an end product (i.e., a modified Yahoo logo). Yahoo does not disclose or

remotely suggest that the Yahoo logo was modified by executing instructions for modifying a

standard company logo with one or more animated images. The "instructions for" language

clearly indicates that this modifying operation is automated (e.g., performed by "one or more

processors" as recited in the preamble of claim 26). The Examiner has not provided any

evidence that either Wolff or Yahoo discloses or suggests instructions for modifying the standard

company logo with one or more animated images. Instead, the Examiner has only shown an end

product (i.e., the modified Yahoo logo). Thus, the Examiner has not established a prima facie

-6-
REPLY BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

case of obviousness with regard to claim 29.

For at least the foregoing reasons and for those reasons presented in the Appeal Brief,

Appellant submits that the rejection of claim 29 under 35 U.S.c. § 103(a) based on Wolff and

Yahoo is improper. Accordingly, Appellant requests that the rejection of claim 29 be reversed.

4. Claim 31.

Dependent claim 31 recites instructions for modifying the standard company logo with

information associated with a holiday. In the Appeal Brief, Appellant provided substantial

reasons why Wolff and Yahoo do not disclose or suggest this feature of claim 31. Appeal Brief,

pages 18-19.

For at least the reasons given above with regard to claim 29 and for those reasons

presented in the Appeal Brief, Appellant submits that the rejection of claim 31 under 35 U.S.c. §

103(a) based on Wolff and Yahoo is improper. Accordingly, Appellant requests that the

rejection of claim 31 be reversed.

5. Claim 35.

Dependent claim 35 recites instructions for replacing the standard company logo with the

special event logo on the web page. In the Appeal Brief, Appellant provided substantial reasons

why Wolff and Yahoo do not disclose or suggest this feature of claim 35. Appeal Brief, pages

19-20.

In the Examiner's Answer, the Examiner alleged that a computer is required to be fed

instructions in order to work properly. Examiner's Answer, page 23. Appellant submits that the

Examiner has provided no evidence that Yahoo discloses feeding a computer with instructions

for replacing a standard company logo with a special event logo on a web page, as recited in

-7-
REPLY BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

claim 35. The "instructions for" language clearly indicates that this replacing operation is

automated (e.g., performed by "one or more processors" as recited in the preamble of claim 26).

The Examiner has not provided any evidence that either Wolff or Yahoo discloses or suggests

instructions for replacing a standard company logo with a special event logo on a web page, as

recited in claim 35. Instead, the Examiner has only shown an end product (i.e., the modified

Yahoo logo). Thus, the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness with

regard to claim 35.

For at least the foregoing reasons and for those reasons presented in the Appeal Brief,

Appellant submits that the rejection of claim 35 under 35 U.S.c. § 103(a) based on Wolff and

Yahoo is improper. Accordingly, Appellant requests that the rejection of claim 35 be reversed.

6. Claim 27.

Independent claim 27 recites, among other things, a processor configured to determine a

home page for a web page on a network. In the Appeal Brief, Appellant provided substantial

reasons why Wolff and Yahoo do not disclose or suggest this feature of claim 27. Appeal Brief,

pages 20-21.

In the Examiner's Answer, the Examiner alleged:

W oUf teaches the inherent use of a computer processor by way of having an image
uploaded to a web site wherein the uploading of an image would not be possible in any
way without the use of a computer processor. Yahoo! teaches the uploading of an image
to a web page, coincidentally to a home page as indicated (www.yahoo.com) and the
altered image is actually being displayed where the standard company logo is customarily
presented. By having the uploading being done to the home page it is therefore taught by
Yahoo the functionality of determining the home page.

Examiner's Answer, pages 23-24. Appellant submits that the Examiner's conclusion regarding

the Yahoo reference finds no support in the Yahoo reference. The mere fact that Yahoo shows a

-8-
REPLY BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

modified Yahoo logo on the www.yahoo.com web page in no way means that a processor

executed instructions to determine the home page for the Yahoo web site. Thus, the Examiner

has provided absolutely no evidence that Yahoo, or Wolff, discloses or suggests a processor that

executes instructions to determine a home page for a web page on a network, as recited in claim

27.

For at least the foregoing reasons and for those reasons presented in the Appeal Brief,

Appellant submits that the rejection of claim 27 under 35 U.S.c. § 103(a) based on Wolff and

Yahoo is improper. Accordingly, Appellant requests that the rejection of claim 27 be reversed.

7. Claim 41.

Dependent claim 41 recites invoking a search for web pages relating to the special event.

In the Appeal Brief, Appellant provided substantial reasons why Wolff and Yahoo do not

disclose or suggest this feature of claim 41. Appeal Brief, pages 24-25.

In the Examiner's Answer, the Examiner alleged that Wolff discloses searching an online

database that is considered part of the Internet. Examiner's Answer, page 26. Appellant submits

that Wolff does not disclose or remotely suggest invoking a search for web pages relating to a

special event, as recited in claim 41.

Wolff discloses on-line and off-line relational databases 36 and 38, respectively, that

include a product or service information database including records for storing data specific to a

plurality of advertising banners or icons, and a transaction database including records for storing

data specific to individual transactions. Figure 1; column 6, lines 60-66. Wolff does not disclose

or suggest that the product/service information relating to advertising banners or icons or the

transaction records are web pages, let alone web pages relating to a special event, as recited in

-9-
REPLY BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

claim 41. Thus, searching these databases would not be equivalent to invoking a search for web

pages relating to a special event, as recited in claim 41.

Therefore, the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness with

regard to claim 41.

For at least the foregoing reasons and for those reasons presented in the Appeal Brief,

Appellant submits that the rejection of claim 41 under 35 U.S.c. § 103(a) based on Wolff and

Yahoo is improper. Accordingly, Appellant requests that the rejection of claim 41 be reversed.

8. Claims 37-39.

Independent claim 37 recites, among other things, invoking a search for web pages

relating to the special event in response to a received selection of a special event logo. In the

Appeal Brief, Appellant provided substantial reasons why Wolff and Yahoo do not disclose or

suggest this feature of claim 37. Appeal Brief, pages 25-26.

For at least the reasons given above with regard to claim 41 and for those reasons

presented in the Appeal Brief, Appellant submits that the rejection of claim 37 under 35 U.S.c. §

103(a) based on Wolff and Yahoo is improper. Accordingly, Appellant requests that the

rejection of claim 37 be reversed.

Claims 38 and 39 depend from claim 37. Appellant submits that the rejection of claims

38 and 39 under 35 U.S.c. § 103(a) based on Wolff and Yahoo is improper for at least the

reasons given with regard to claim 37. Accordingly, Appellant requests that the rejection of

claims 38 and 39 be reversed.

- 10 -
REPLY BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

IV. CONCLUSION

In view of the foregoing arguments and the arguments presented in the Appeal Brief,

Appellant respectfully solicits the Honorable Board to reverse the Examiner's rejections of

claims 18-41 under 35 U.S.c. § 103.

To the extent necessary, a petition for an extension of time under 37 c.F.R. § 1.136 is

hereby made. Please charge any shortage in fees due in connection with the filing of this paper,

including extension of time fees, to Deposit Account No. 50-1070 and please credit any excess

fees to such deposit account.

Respectfully submitted,
HARRITY SNYDER, LLP

IPaul A. Harrity, Reg No 395741


Paul A. Harrity
Reg. No. 39,574
Date: January 14, 2008
11350 Random Hills Road
Suite 600
Fairfax, Virginia 22030
(571) 432-0800

- 11 -
Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt

EFSID: 2709208

Application Number: 09843923

International Application Number:

Confirmation Number: 9916

Title of Invention: Systems and methods for enticing users to access a web site

First Named Inventor/Applicant Name: Sergey Brin

Customer Number: 44989

Filer: Paul Harrity/Melissa Garrison

Filer Authorized By: Paul Harrity

Attorney Docket Number: 0026-0002

Receipt Date: 14-JAN-2008

Filing Date: 30-APR-2001

Time Stamp: 13:13:13

Application Type: Utility under 35 USC 111 (a)

Payment information:
Submitted with Payment I no

File Listing:
Document File Size(Bytes) Multi Pages
Document Description File Name
Number /Message Digest Part /.zip (if appl.)

39309
1 Reply Brief Filed 0026-0002_RepILBrief.pdf no 11
55f7ec1 df6693341 e83b8fa586af1 a83c
Od37910

Warnings:
Information:
Total Files Size (in bytes): 39309

This Acknowledgement Receipt evidences receipt on the noted date by the USPTO of the indicated documents,
characterized by the applicant, and including page counts, where applicable. It serves as evidence of receipt
similar to a Post Card, as described in MPEP 503.

New Applications Under 35 U.S.C. 111


If a new application is being filed and the application includes the necessary components for a filing date (see
37 CFR 1.53(b)-(d) and MPEP 506), a Filing Receipt (37 CFR 1.54) will be issued in due course and the date
shown on this Acknowledgement Receipt will establish the filing date of the application.

National Stage of an International Application under 35 U.S.C. 371


If a timely submission to enter the national stage of an international application is compliant with the conditions
of 35 U.S.C. 371 and other applicable requirements a Form PCT/DO/EO/903 indicating acceptance of the
application as a national stage submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 will be issued in addition to the Filing Receipt,
in due course.

New International Application Filed with the USPTO as a Receiving Office


If a new international application is being filed and the international application includes the necessary
components for an international filing date (see PCT Article 11 and MPEP 1810), a Notification of the
International Application Number and of the International Filing Date (Form PCT/RO/105) will be issued in due
course, subject to prescriptions concerning national security, and the date shown on this Acknowledgement
Receipt will establish the international filing date of the application.
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.

09/843,923 04/30/2001 Sergey Brio 0026-0002 9916

44989 7590 11/16/2007


EXAMINER
HARRITY SNYDER, LLP
11350 Random Hills Road AILES, BENJAMIN A

SUITE 600
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
FAIRFAX, VA 22030
2142

MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE

11/16/2007 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)


I 1

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Commissioner for Patents


United States Patent and Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov

MAILED
NOV 16 2007

TeChnology Center 2100

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS


AND INTERFERENCES

Application Number: 09/843,923


Filing Date: April 30, 2001
Appellant(s): BRIN, SERGEY

Paul A. Harrity
For Appellant

EXAMINER'S ANSWER

This is in response to the appeal brief filed 09 July 2007 appealing from the

Office action mailed 07 February 2007


I
-
l'

Application/Control Number: Page 2


09/843,923
Art Unit: 2142

(1) Real Party in Interest

A statement identifying by name the real party in interest is contained in the brief.

(2) Related Appeals and Interferences

The examiner is not aware of any related appeals, interferences, or judicial

proceedings which will directly affect or be directly affected by or have a bearing on the

Board's decision in the pending appeal.

(3) Status of Claims

The statement of the status of claims contained in the brief is correct.

(4) Status of Amendments After Final

The appellant's statement of the status of amendments after final rejection

contained in the brief is correct. .

(5) Summary of Claimed Subject Matter

The summary of claimed subject matter contained in the brief is correct.

(6) Grounds of Rejection to be Reviewed on Appeal

The appellant's statement of the grounds of rejection to be reviewed on appeal is

correct.

(7) Claims Appendix

The copy of the appealed claims contained in the Appendix to the brief is correct.

(8) Evidence Relied Upon

6,247,047 WOLFF 6-2001


-
, ~ I ...

Application/Control Number: Page 3


09/843,923
Art Unit: 2142

Yahoo! Main page, December 23,1996;

http://web.archive.org/web/19961223150621/http://www8.yahoO.com; accessed 07 May

2006.

(9) Grounds of Rejection

The following ground(s) of rejection are applicable to the appealed claims:

Claim Rejections· 35 USC § 103

1. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 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 skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.

2. Claims 18, 19,21-28,29,31-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being

unpatentable over Wolff (US 6,247,047 81) in view of Yahoo! (Yahoo!,

http://www.archive.org/web/19961223150621/http:/Iwww8.yahoo.com/).

3. Regarding claim 18, Wolff teaches a method for enticing users to access a web

page comprising the use of a graphical icon image (i.e. an advertisement banner)

wherein the icon image is uploaded for display to a user on a web page. A keyword

(search term) (indicia) is associated with the icon image wherein when the user selects

the icon image a search is invoked to search an online database and then the search

results are presented to the user on a web page (see Wolff, column 8, Iirie 56 - column

9, line 15). Wolff does not explicitly teach that the graphical icon image is a standard

company logo that can be modified to become a special event logo. However, in related

art, Yahoo! teaches wherein a company logo can be modified to commemorate a


... .,
Application/Control Number: Page 4
09/843,923
Art Unit: 2142

special event (see Yahoo!). Wolff provides an environment wherein different icon

images can be displayed to a user on a web page and therefore it is deemed an

obvious variation to present to a user an altered image. Yahoo! demonstrates this

functionality wherein Yahoo! has altered their own company logo to celebrate the

Christmas season. Wolff teaches that is known in the prior art to use different types of
I

images for seasonal and one time use (column 2, II. 27-28). It would have been obvious

to one of ordinary skill in the art to enable the teachings of Wolff wherein the ability to

display c1ickable images to a user on a web page in combination with the functionalities

of Yahoo! wherein it is taught that one of ordinary skill can alter an image and upload it

for display to a user on a web page. Further, it would have been obvious to associate

the "search term" to relate to the graphical icon image as taught by Wolff because the

keyword associated with the icon image is supposed to directly identify the product or

service being represented by use of the icon image and when a use interacts (clicks) on

the icon image (see Wolff, col. 8, II. 43-49), it is deemed obvious that search results

should be directly related to whatever the icon rep~esents instead of erroneous data.

One of ordinary skill would not find it desirable to provide search results that are totally

unrelated to what is being displayed by the icon image. Therefore, in view of Yahoo!, if

an image is altered in some sort of way, the keyword associated with the image should

be changed accordingly so that the keyword corresponds to the image in some sort of

way. One or ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant's invention would have

found it obvious to combine the teachings of Yahoo! with what is taught by Wolff as

outlined above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such
· .~

Application/Control Number: Page 5


09/843,923 .
Art Unit: 2142

a combination due to being from the same field of endeavor (client-server network

systems) and for the reasons stated above, particularly teaching the use of displaying

images to user that are deemed c1ickable by Wolff and Yahoo! for teaching the use of

altered images which may commemorate a special event and the use of different

images to be displayed to a user is deemed an obvious variation in the art. In view of

Wolff, the use of different images is clearly taught as a motivation in the prior'art

wherein one of ordinary skill in the art may find it useful to use different image types for

seasonal use (col. 2. II. 27-28).

4. Regarding claim 19, Wolff and Yahoo! teach the method wherein the modifying a

standard company logo includes creating the special event logo by modifying the
,
standard company logo with one or more animated images (Yahoo!).

5. Regarding claims 21, Wolff and Yahoo! teach the method wherein the special

event includes a holiday (Yahoo!).

6. Regarding claim 22, Wolff and Yahoo! teach the processor further configured to:

associating one or more search terms relating to the special event with the

special event logo (Wolff, col. 8, II. 42-46, it is deemed obvious that search results

should be directly related to whatever the icon represents instead of erroneous data.

One of ordinary skill would not find it desirable to provide search results that are totally

unrelated to what is being displayed by the icon image. Therefore, in view of Yahoo!" if

an image is altered in some sort of way, the keyword associated with the image should

be changed accordingly so that the keyword corresponds to the image in some sort of

way.); and
I" ' '.

Application/Control Number: Page 6


09/843,923
Art Unit: 2142

wherein invoking a search includes:

performing the search based on the one or more search terms (Wolff, col. 8, II.

43-47).

7. Regarding claim 23, Wolff and Yahoo! teach the method wherein the uploading

the special event includes displaying the special event logo bn the web page during the

special event (Yahoo! displayed the altered logo during the holiday season.).

8. Regarding claim 24, Wolff and Yahoo! teach the method wherein the invoking a

search includes:

generating a search query using the one or more search terms (Wolff, col. 9, II.

3-13);

using the search query to search at least one of a network, an index, or a

directory (Wolff, col. 9, II. 3-13); and

obtaining search results based on the search (Wolff, col. 9, II. 9-13).

9. Regarding claim 25, Wolff and Yahoo! teach the method wherein the modifying a

standard company logo includes:

determining a home page for the web page on a network (Yahoo!,

http://www.yahoo.com);

identifying the standard company logo on the home page (Yahoo!, standard

Yahoo! logo); and

modifying the standard company logo with special event information to create the

special event logo (Yahoo!, the addition of the reindeer to the standard logo creates a

modified logo).
•• • <~

Application/Control Number: Page 7


09/843,923
Art Unit: 2142

10. Regarding claim 26, Wolff teaches a method for enticing users to access a web

page comprising the use of a graphical icon image (Le. an advertisement banner)

wherein the icon image is uploaded for display to a user on a web page. A keyword

(search term) (indicia) is associated with the icon image wherein when the user selects

the icon image a search is invoked to search an online database and then the search

results are presented to the user on a web page (see Wolff, column 8, line 56 - column

9, line 15). The search results are then returned to the user in the form of a web page

(col. 9, II. 9-13). Wolff does not explicitly teach that the graphical icon image is a

standard company logo that can be modified to become a special event logo. However,

in related art, Yahoo! teaches wherein a company logo can be modified to

commemorate a special event (see Yahoo!). Wolff provides an environment wherein

different icon images can be displayed to a user on a web page and therefore it is

deemed an obvious variation to present to a user an altered image. Yahoo!

demonstrates this functionality wherein Yahoo! has altered their own company logo to

celebrate the Christmas season. Wolff teaches that is known in the prior art to use

different types of images for seasonal and one time use (column 2, II. 27-28). It would

have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to enable the teachings of Wolff

wherein the ability to display c1ickable images to a user on a web page in combination

with the functionalities of Yahoo! wherein it is taught that one of ordinary skill can alter

an image and upload it for display to a user on a web page. Further, it would have been

obvious to associate the "search term" to relate to the graphical icon image as taught by

Wolff because the keyword associated with the icon image is supposed to directly

Application/Control Number: Page 8


09/843,923
Art Unit: 2142

identify the product or service being represented by use of the icon image and when a

use interacts (clicks) on the icon image (see Wolff, col. 8, II. 43-49), it is deemed

obvious that search results should be directly related to whatever the icon represents

instead of erroneous data. One of ordinary skill would not find it desirable to provide

search results that are totally unrelated to what is being displayed by the icon image.

Therefore, in view of Yahoo!, if an image is altered in some sort of way, the keyword

associated with the image should be changed accordingly so that the keyword

corresponds to the image in some sort of way. One or ordinary skill in the art at the time

of the applicant's invention would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of

Yahoo! with what is taught by Wolff as outlined above. One of ordinary skill in the art

would have been motivated to make such a combination due to being from the same

field of endeavor (client-server network systems) and for the reasons stated above,

particularly teaching the use of displaying images to user that are deemed clickable by

Wolff and Yahoo! for teaching the'use of altered images which may commemorate a

special event and the use of different images to be displayed to a user is deemed an

obvious variation in the art. In view of Wolff, the use of different images is clearly taught

as a motivation in the prior art wherein one of ordinary skill in the art may find it useful to

use different image types for seasonal use (col. 2, II. 27-28).

11. Regarding claim 27, Wolff teaches a method for enticing users to access a web

page comprising the use of a graphical icon image (i.e. an advertisement banner)

wherein the icon image is uploaded for display to a user on a web page. A keyword

(search term) (indicia) is associated with the icon image wherein when the user selects
, '.

Application/Control Number: Page 9


09/843,923
Art Unit: 2142

the icon image a search is invoked to search an online database and then the search

results are presented to the user on a web page (see Wolff, column 8, line 56 - column

9, line 15). Wolff does not explicitly teach that the graphical icon image is a standard

company logo that can be modified to become a special event logo. However, in related

art, Yahoo! teaches wherein a company logo can be modified to commemorate a

special event (see Yahoo!). Wolff provides an environment wherein different icon

images can be displayed to a user on a web page and therefore it is deemed an

obvious variation to present to a user an altered image. Yahoo! demonstrates this

functionality wherein Yahoo! has altered their own company logo to celebrate the

Christmas season. Wolff teaches that is known in the prior art to use different types of

images for seasonal and one time use (column 2, II. 27-28). It would have been obvious

to one of ordinary skill in the art to enable the teachings of Wolff wherein the ability to

display c1ickable images to a user on a web page in combination with the functionalities

of Yahoo! wherein it is taught that one of ordinary skill can alter an image and upload it

for display to a user on a web page.. Further, it would have been obvious to associate

the "search term" to relate to the graphical icon image as taught by Wolff because the

keyword associated with the icon image is supposed to directly identify the product or

service being represented by use of the icon image and when a use interacts (clicks) on

the icon image (see Wolff, col. 8, II. 43-49), it is deemed obvious that search results

should be directly related to whatever the icon represents instead of erroneous data.

One of ordinary skill would not find it desirable to provide search results that are totally

unrelated to what is being displayed by the icon image. Therefore, in view of Yahoo!, if
\

Application/Control Number: Page 10


09/843,923
Art Unit: 2142

an image is altered in some sort of way, the keyword associated with the image should

be changed accordingly so that the keyword corresponds to the image in some sort of

way. Yahoo! clearly teaches the uploading of an image to a web page in this case the

uploading has been done to the home page as indicated (www.yahoo.com) and the

altered image ~s act.ually being displayed where the standard company logo is

customarily presented. By way of actually uploading the image to the home page by

Yahoo! then it is taught by Yahoo! the functionality of home page determination. One or

ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant's invention would have found it

obvious to combine the teachings of Yahoo! with what is taught by Wolff as outlined

above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a

combination due to being from the same field of endeavor (client-server network

systems) and for the reasons stated above, particularly teaching the use of displaying

images to user that are deemed c1ickable by Wolff and Yahoo! for teaching the use of

altered images which may commemorate a special event and the use of different

images to be displayed to a user is deemed an obvious variation in the art. In view of

Wolff, the use of different images is clearly taught as a motivation in the prior art

wherein one of ordinary skill in the art may find it useful to use different image types for

seasonal use (col. 2, II. 27-28).

12. Regarding claim 28, Wolff teaches a method for enticing users to access a web

page comprising the use of a graphical icon image (i.e. an advertisement banner)

wherein the icon image is uploaded for display to a user on a web page. A keyword

(search term) (indicia) is associated with the icon image wherein when the user selects
Application/Control Number: Page 11
09/843,923
Art Unit: 2142

the icon image a search is invoked to search an online database and then the search

results are presented to the user on a web page (see Wolff, column 8, line 56 - column

9, line 15). Wolff does not explicitly teach that the graphical icon image is a standard

company logo that can be modified to become a special event logo. However, in related

art, Yahoo! teaches wherein a company logo can be modified to commemorate a

special event (see Yahoo!). Wolff provides an environment wherein different icon

images can be displayed to a user on a web page and therefore it is deemed an

obvious variation to present to a user an altered image. Yahoo! demonstrates this

functionality wherein Yahoo! has altered their own company logo to celebrate the

Christmas season. Wolff teaches that is known in the prior art to use different types of

images for seasonal and one time use (column 2, II. 27-28). It would have been obvious

to one of ordinary skill in the art to enable the teachings 9f Wolff wherein the ability to

display c1ickable images to a user on a web page in combination with the functionalities

of Yahoo! wherein it is taught that one of ordinary skill can alter an image and upload it

for display to a user on a web page. Further, it would have been obvious to associate

the "search term" to relate to the graphical icon image as taught by Wolff because the

keyword associated with the icon image is supposed to directly identify the product or

service being represented by use of the icon image and when a use interacts (clicks) on

the icon image (see Wolff, col. 8, II. 43-49), it is deemed obvious that search results

should be directly related to whatever the icon represents instead of erroneous data.

One of ordinary skill would not find it desirable to provide search results that are totally

unrelated to what is being displayed by the icon image. Therefore, in view of Yahoo!, if

Application/Control Number: Page 12


09/843,923
Art Unit: 2142

an image is altered in some sort of way, the keyword associated with the image should

be changed accordingly so that the keyword corresponds to the image in some sort of

way. One or ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant's invention would have

found it obvious to combine the teachings of Yahoo! with what is taught by Wolff as

outlined above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such

a combination due to being from the same field of endeavor (client-server network

systems) and for the reasons stated above, particularly teaching the use of displaying

images to user that are deemed c1ickable by Wolff and Yahoo! for teaching the use of

altered images which may commemorate a special event and the use of different

images to be displayed to a user is deemed an obvious variation in the art. In view of

Wolff, the use of different images is clearly taught as a motivation in the prior art

wherein one of ordinary skill in the art may find it useful to use different image types for

seasonal use (col. 2, II. 27-28).

13. Regarding claim 29, Wolff and Yahoo! teach the method wherein the modifying a

standard company logo includes creating the special event logo by modifying the

standard company logo with one or more animated images (Yahoo!).

14. Regarding claim 31, Wolff and Yahoo! teach the medium includes instructions for

modifying the standard company logo with information associated with a holiday

(Yahoo!).

15. Regarding claim 32, Wolff and Yahoo! teach the processor further configured to:

associate one or more search terms relating to the special event with the special

event logo (Wolff, col. 8, II. 42-46, it is deemed obvious that search results should be
...

Application/Control Number: Page 13


09/843,923
Art Unit: 2142

directly related to whatever the icon represents instead of erroneous data. One of

ordinary skill would not find it desirable to provide search results that are totally

unrelated to what is being displayed by the icon image. Therefore, in view of Yahoo!, if
.
an image is altered in some sort of way, the keyword associated with the image should

be changed accordingly so that the keyword corresponds to the image in some sort of

way.).

16. Regarding claim 33, Wolff and Yahoo! teach wherein the processor is further

configured to:

detect a selection associated with the special event logo (Wolff, col. 9, II. 3-13);

generate a search query based on the one or more search terms (Wolff, col. 9, II.

3-13);

perform a search based on the search query (Wolff, col. 9, II. 3-13); and

provide a result ofthe search (Wolff, col. 9, II. 3-13).

17. Regarding claim 34, Wolff and Yahoo! teach the method wherein uploading the

special event logo includes replacing the standard company logo with the special event

logo on the web page (Yahoo!, page is from 12/23/1996).

18. Regarding claim 35; Wolff and Yahoo! teach the medium wherein the instructions

for uploading the special event logo include:

instructions for replacing the standard company logo with the special event logo

on the web page (Yahoo!, page is from 12/23/1996).

19. Regarding claim 36, Wolff and Yahoo! teach the method further comprising:
Application/Control Number: Page 14
09/843,923
Art Unit: 2142

replacing the standard company logo with the special event logo (Yahoo!, page is

from 12/23/1996).

20. Regarding claim 37, Wolff teaches a method for enticing users to access a web

page comprising the use of a graphical icon image (i.e. an advertisement banner)

wherein the icon image is uploaded for display to a user on a web page. A keyword

(search term) (indicia) is associated with the icon image wherein when the user selects

the icon image a search is invoked to search an online database and then the search

results are presented to the user on a web page (see Wolff, column 8, line 56 - column

9, line 15). Wolff does not explicitly teach that the graphical icon image is a standard

company logo that can be modified to become a special event logo. However, in related

art, Yahoo! teaches wherein a company logo can be modified to commemorate a

special event (see Yahoo!). Wolff provides an environment wherein different icon

images can be displayed to a user on a web page and therefore it is deemed an

obvious variation to present to a user an altered image. Yahoo! demonstrates this

functionality wherein Yahoo! has altered their own company logo to celebrate the

Christmas season. Wolff teaches that is known in the prior art to use different types of

images for seasonal and one time use (column 2, II. 27-28). It would have been obvious

to one of ordinary skill in the art to enable the teachings of Wolff wherein the ability to

display c1ickable images to a user on a web page in combination with the functionalities

of Yahoo! wherein it is taught that one of ordinary skill can alter an image and upload it

for display to a user on a web page. Further, it would have been obvious to associate

the "search term" to relate to the graphical icon image as taught by Wolff because the
• >

Application/Control Number: Page 15


09/843,923
Art Unit: 2142

keyword associated with the icon image is supposed to directly identify the product or

service being represented by use of the icon image and when a use interacts (clicks) on

the icon image (see Wolff, col. 8, II. 43-49), it is deemed obvious that search results

should be directly related to whatever the icon represents instead of erroneous data.

One of ordinary skill would not find it desirable to provide search results that are totally

unrelated to what is being displayed by the icon image. Therefore, in view of Yahoo!, if

an image is altered in some sort of way, the keyword associated with the image should

be changed accordingly so that the keyword corresponds to the image in some sort of

way. One or ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant's invention would have

found it obvious to combine the teachings of Yahoo! with what is taught by Wolff as

outlined above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such

a combination due to being from the same field of endeavor (client-server network

systems) and for the reasons stated above, particularly teaching the use of displaying

images to user that are deemed clickable by Wolff and Yahoo! for teaching the use of

altered images which may commemorate a special event and the use of different

images to be displayed to a user is deemed an obvious variation in the art. In view of

Wolff, the use of different images is Clearly taught as a motivation in the prior art

wherein one of ordinary skill in the art may find it useful to use different image types for

seasonal use (col. 2, II. 27-28).

21. Regarding claim 38, Wolff and Yahoo! teach the method wherein one or more

search terms are associated with the special event logo (Wolff, col. 8, II. 42-46, it is

deemed obvious that search results should be directly related to whatever the icon
Application/Control Number: Page 16
09/843,923
Art Unit: 2142

represents instead of erroneous data. One of ordinary skill would not find it desirable to

provide search results that are totally unrelated to what is being displayed by the icon

image. Therefore, in view of Yahoo!, if an image is altered in some sort of way, the

keyword associated with the image should be changed accordingly so that the keyword

corresponds to the image in some sort of way.); and

wherein the invoking a search relating to the special event includes:

causing a search to be performed based on the one or more search terms (Wolff,

col. 9, II. 3-13).

22. Regarding claim 39, Wolff and Yahoo! teach the method wherein the presenting

a special event logo includes:

displaying the special event logo on the web page during the special event

(Yahoo! image was displayed over the holiday season).

23. Regarding claim 40, Wolff and Yahoo! teach the method wherein invoking a

search includes:

invoking a search of the Internet (col. 9, II. 3-7).

24. Regarding claim 41, Wolff and Yahoo! teach the method wherein invoking a

search includes:

invoking a search for web pages relating to the special event (Wolff, col. 9, II. 3-7,

a search is invoked of online content.).

25. Claims 20 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable

over Wolff, Yahoo! and what was well known at the time of the applicant's invention.
Application/Control Number: Page 17
09/843,923
Art Unit: 2142

26. Regarding claim 20, official notice is taken that the use of video or audio data to

be displayed to a user on a web page was old and well known in the art. It would have

been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant's invention to

include video or audio data in the special event logo because one of ordinary skill would

have recognized the advancement of using different types of media to catch the interest

of the user viewing a page.

27. Regarding claim 30, official notice is taken that the use of video or audio data to

be displayed to a user on a web page was ol~ and well known in the art. It would have

been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant's invention to

include video or audio data in the special event logo because one of ordinary skill would

have recognized the advancement of using different types of media to catch the interest

of the user viewing a page.

(10) Response to Argument

A. Rejection under 35 USC 103(a) based on Wolff (US 6,247,047) in view of

Yahoo!

1. Appellant argues with respect to independent claim 18 that neither Wolff nor

Yahoo, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, discloses or suggests

the combination of features recited in claim 18 because Wolff and Yahoo do not

disclose or suggest associating one or more search terms with a special event logo that

was created by modifying a standard company logo for a special event, where the one

or more search terms relate to the special event. Examiner submits that it is best

understood in the broadest sense that the "standard company logo" and the "special
· .
Application/Control Number: Page 18
09/843,923
Art Unit: 2142

event logo" in the field of the invention are images that are displayed on a web page

that are viewable by a user using a web browser application. The image can have a

search term associated with it and the image can be "clickable" wherein when a user

"clicks" on the image a search is invoked utilizing the search term. Examiner submits

that Wolff is relied upon for teaching this aspect in the art wherein Wolff teaches the

displaying of an image to a user (figure 2, part 102, banner icon), the association of a

search term associated with the icon based on what the icon represents through

imaging means (column 8, lines 43-46, unique indicia) and the invocation of a search

related to the search term (column 8, line 65 - col. 9, line 7, invoking a search based on

a selection of the icon by a user utilizing the unique indicia). Examiner submits that

Wolff does not explicitly teach the image being a company logo that is altered to

become a special event logo and submits that in view of Yahoo, it is well known in the

art that company logos can be displayed as images on web pages and the image can

be altered to commemorate a special event wherein Yahoo has altered their logo to

commemorate the Christmas. holiday season on December 23, 1996. In view of the

combination the search term would always relate to what is being displayed by the

image to the user because it would not make reasonable sense to one of ordinary skill

for the search term to be totally unrelated to what the image represents and therefore

the obvious variant of imaging use wherein the image could be a special event company

logo would be related to the topic of what the special event company logo image is

portraying to a user through graphical means.


Appl ication/Control Number: Page 19
09/843,923
Art Unit: 2142

Appellant argues further with respect to independent claim 18 that it would not

have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellant's invention

to replace Wolff's advertisement banner with the prior art seasonal or C?ne-time use

static banner because it would be directly contrary to the whole purpose of the system

of Wolff to provide information regarding an advertised product or service in response to

selection of a banner advertisement relating to the product or service.. Examiner

submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to enable the

teachings of Wolff wherein the ability to display c1ickable images to a user on a web

page in combination with the functionalities of Yahoo! wherein it is taught that one of

ordinary skill can alter an image and upload it for display to users on a web page.

Appellant argues further that the examiner's allegations are unfounded and

based solely on impermissible hindsight because one of ordinary skill would not have

been motivated, contrary to the examiner's hindsight reasoning, to associate a search

term relating to a special event with the Yahoo logo shown in the Yahoo document. The

examiner submits that In view of the combination the search term would always relate to

what is being displayed by the image to the user because it would not make reasonable

sense to one of ordinary skill for the search term to be totally unrelated to what the

image represents and therefore the obvious variant of imaging use wherein the image

could be a special event company logo would be related to the topic of what the special

event company logo image is portraying to a user through graphical means.

2. Appellant argues with respect to dependent claim 40 that Wolff and Yahoo,

whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, do not disclose or suggest the
..

Application/Control Number: Page 20


09/843,923
Art Unit: 2142

combination of features recited in claim 40 which recites invoking a search of the

Internet. Examiner submits and maintains that Wolff teaches in column 9, lines 3-15 the

searching of an online database which is considered to be a part of the Internet and is

therefore within the scope of the appellant's claim 40. As is known in the art, search

engines do not actually search the Internet but in fact search an indexed database of

the Internet. Therefore, Wolff's searching of an online database is deemed equivalent

to the searching conducted by the appellant's dependent claim 40.

3. Appellant argues with respect to independent claim 26 that Wolff and Yahoo

do not disclose or suggest instructions for creating a special event logo by modifying a

standard company logo for a special event. Examiner submits that Wolff does not

explicitly teach the image being a company logo that is altered to become a special

event logo and submits that in view of Yahoo, it is well known in the art that company

logos can be displayed as images on web pages and the image can'be altered to

commemorate a special event wherein Yahoo has altered their logo to commemorate

the Christmas holiday season on December 23, 1996. It is submitted by the examiner

that the Yahoo's logo had to be modified utilizing a computer because it is a computer

generated image and it is inherent that a computer must contain instructions in order to

function at all. Therefore the combination of Wolff and Yahoo does teach the creating of

a special event logo by modifying a standard company logo for a special event.

Appellant argues further with respect to independent claim 26 that Wolff and

Yahoo do not disclose or suggest instructions for associating a link or search results

with a special event logo created by modifying a standard company logo for a special
Application/Control Number: Page 21
09/843,923
Art Unit: 2142

event logo. the link identifying a document relating to the special event, and the search

results relating to the special event for at least reasons 'similar to reasons given with

regard to claim 18. Examiner submits that it is best understood in the broadest sense

that the "standard company logo" and the "special event logo" in the field of the

invention are images that are displayed on a web page that are viewable by a user

using a web browser application. The image can have a search term associated with it

and the image can be "c1ickable" wherein when a user "clicks" on the image a search is

invoked utilizing the search term. Examiner submits that Wolff is relied upon for

teaching this aspect in the art wherein Wolff teaches the displaying of an image to a

user (figure 2, part 102, banner icon), the association of a search term associated with

the icon based on what the icon represents through imaging means (column 8, lines 43-

46, unique indicia) and the invocation of a search related to the search term (column 8,

line 65 - col. 9, line 7, invoking a search based on a selection of the icon by a user

utilizing the unique indicia). Examiner submits that Wolff does not explicitly teach the

image being a company logo that is altered to become a special event logo and submits

that in view of Yahoo, it is well known in the art that company logos can be displayed as

images on web pages and the image can be altered to commemorate a special event

wherein Yahoo has altered their logo to commemorate the Christmas holiday season on

December 23, 1996. In view of the combination the search term would always relate to

what is being displayed by the image to the user because it would· not make reasonable

sense to one of ordinary skill for the search term to be totally unrelated to what the

image represents and therefore the obvious variant of imaging use wherein the image
Application/Control Number: Page 22
09/843,923
Art Unit: 2142

could be a special event company logo would be related to the topic of what the special

event company logo image is portraying to a user through graphical means.

Appellant argues further that Wolff and Yahoo do not disclose or suggest

instructions for uploading the special event logo to the web page. The examiner

submits that the appellant has failed to accurately describe how a logo or any image for

that matter can be viewable on a web page without performing an upload operation.

The examiner submits that at least Yahoo teaches on this aspect of the appellant's

invention wherein Yahoo clearly illustrates the display of an altered company logo to a

user.

4. Appellant argues with respect to dependent claim 29 that Wolff and Yahoo,

whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, do not disclose or suggest the

combination of features recited in claim 29. Claim 29 recites instructions for modifying

the standard company logo with one or more animated images. Examiner submits that

Yahoo teaches the modification of a logo using instructions wherein Yahoo shows a

modified Yahoo logo done by computer means. The computer is required to be fed

instructions in order to work at all and therefore reads on the aspect of executing

instructions as required by dependent claim 29.

5. Appellant argues with respect to dependent claim 31 that Wolff and Yahoo,

whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, do not disclose or suggest the

combination of features recited in claim 31. Dependent claim 31 recites instructions for

modifying the standard company logo with information associated with a holiday.

Examiner submits that the modified Yahoo company logo taught by the Yahoo
Application/Control Number: Page 23
09/843,923
Art Unit: 2142

reference is a clear commemoration of the Christmas holiday and is therefore within the

scope of being associated with a holiday.

6. Appellant argues with respect to dependent claim 35 that Wolff and Yahoo,

whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, do not disclose or suggest the

combination of features recited in claim 35. Dependent claim 35 recites instructions for

replacing the standard company logo with the special event logo on the web page.

Examiner submits, as mentioned previously, that a computer is required to be fed

instructions in order to work properly. Examiner maintains that the Yahoo reference

teaches the utilization of a temporary logo, a Christmas holiday logo, in place of the

regular Yahoo logo and therefore teaches the replacing of a standard logo with a

special event logo.

7. Appellant argues with respect to independent claim 27 that neither Wolff nor

Yahoo, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, discloses or suggests

the combination of features recited fn claim 27 because Wolff and Yahoo do not

disclose or suggest a processor configured to determine a ~ome page for a web page

on a network. Examiner submits that Wolff teaches the inherent use of a computer

processor by way of having an image uploaded to a web site wherein the uploading of

an image would not be possible in any way without the use of a computer processor.

Yahoo! teaches the uploading of an image to a web page, coincidentally to a home

page, wherein the uploading has been done to the home page as indicated

(www.yahoo.com) and the altered image is actually being displayed where the standard

company logo is customarily presented. By having the uploading being done to the
Application/Control Number: Page 24
09/843,923
Art Unit: 2142

home page it is therefore taught by Yahoo the functionality of determining the home

page.

8. Appellant argues with respect to dependent claims 32 and 33 that Wolff and

Yahoo, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, do not disclose or

suggest the combination of features recited in claim 32. Dependent claim 32 recites a

processor configured to associate one or more search terms reiating to the special

event with the special event logo. Examiner submits that Wolff is relied upon for

teaching this aspect in the art wherein Wolff teaches the displaying of an image to a

user (figure 2, part 102, banner icon), the association of a search term associated with

the icon based on what the icon represents through imaging means (column 8, lines 43-

46, unique indicia) and the invocation of a search related to the search term (column 8,

line 65 - col. 9, line 7, invoking a search based on a selection of the icon by a user

utilizing ~he unique indicia). Examiner submits that Wolff does not explicitly teach the

image being a company logo that is altered to become a special event logo and submits

that in view of Yahoo, it is well known in the art that company logos can be displayed as

images on web pages and the image can be altered to commemorate a special event

wherein Yahoo has altered their logo to commemorate the Christmas holiday season on

December 23, 1996. In view of the combination the search term would always relate to

what is being displayed by the image to' the user because it would not make reasonable

sense to one of ordinary skill for the search term to be totally unrelated to what the

image represents and therefore the obvious variant of imaging use wherein the image
Application/Control Number: Page 25
09/843,923
Art Unit: 2142

could be a special event company logo would be related to the topic of what the special

event company logo image is portraying to a user through graphical means.

9. Appellant argues with respect to claims 28 and 36 that neither Wolff nor

Yahoo, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, discloses or suggests

the combination of features recited in claim 28 because Wolff and Yahoo do not

disclose or suggest associating one or more search terms relating to a special event

with a special event logo created by modifying a standard company logo with at least

one or image, video, or audio data relating to the special event for at least reasons

similar to reasons given with regard to claim 18. Examiner submits that Wolff is relied

upon for teaching this aspect in the art wherein Wolff teaches the displaying of an image

to a user (figure 2, part 102, banner icon), the association of a search term associated

with the icon based on what the icon represents through imaging means (column 8,

lines 43-46, unique indicia) and the invocation of a search related to the search term

(column 8, line 65 - col. 9, line 7, invoking a search based on a selection of the icon by

a user utilizing the unique indicia). Examiner submits that Wolff does not explicitly teach

the image beil")g a company logo that is altered to become a special event logo and

submits that in view of Yahoo, it is well known in the art that company logos can be

displayed as images on web pages and the image can be altered to commemorate a

special ev~nt wherein Yahoo has altered their logo to commemorate the Christmas

holiday season on December 23, 1996. In view of the combination the search term

would always relate to what is being displayed by the image to the user because it

would not make reasonable sense to one of ordinary skill for the search term to be
Application/Control Number: Page 26
09/843,923
Art Unit: 2142

totally unrelated to what the image represents and therefore the obvious variant of

imaging use wherein the image could be a special event company logo would be related

to the topic of what the special event company logo image is portraying to a u~er

through graphical means.

10. Appellant argues with respect to dependent claim 41 that Wolff and Yahoo,

whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, do not disclose or suggest the

combination of features recited in claim 41. Claim 41 recites invoking a search for web

pages relating to the special event. Examiner submits and maintains that Wolff teaches

in column 9, lines 3-15 the searching of an online database which is considered to be a

part of the Internet and is therefore within the scope of the appellant's claim 40. As is

known in the art, search engines do not actually search the Internet but in fact search

an indexed database of the Internet. Therefore, Wolff's searching of an online database

is deemed equivalent to the searching conducted by the appellant's dependent claim

41.

11. Appellant argues with respect to claims 37-39 that neither Wolff nor Yahoo,

whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, discloses or suggests the

combination of features recited in claim 37 because Wolff and Yahoo do not disclose or

suggest invoking a search for web pages relating to the special event in response to a

received selection of a special event logo. Examiner submits and maintains that Wolff

teaches in column 9, lines 3-15 the searching of an online database which is considered

to be a part of the Internet and is therefore within the scope of the appellant's claim 40.

As is known in the art, search engines do not actually search the Internet but in fact
Application/Control Number: Page 27
09/843,923
Art Unit: 2142

search an indexed database of the Internet. Therefore, Wolff's searching of an online

database is deemed equivalent to the searching conducted by the appellant's claims.

12. Appellant argues with respect to dependent claim 22 that Wolff and Yahoo,

whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, do not disclose or suggest the

combination of features recited in claim 22. Dependent claim 22 recites associating one

or more search terms relating to the special event, and performing the search based on

the one or more search terms. Examiner submits that Wolff is relied upon for teaching

this aspect in the art wherein Wolff teaches the displaying of an image to a user (figure

2, part 102, banner icon), the association of a search term associated with the icon

based on what the icon represents through imaging means (column 8, lines 43-46,

unique indicia) and the invocation of a search related to the search term (column 8, line

65 - col. 9, line 7, invoking a search based on a selection of the icon by a user utilizing

the unique indicia). Examiner submits that Wolff does not explicitly teach the image

being a company logo that is altered to become a special event logo and submits that in

view of Yahoo, it is well known in the art that company logos can be displayed as

images on web pages and the image can be altered to commemorate a special event

wherein Yahoo has altered their logo to commemorate the Christmas holiday season on

December 23, 1996. In view of the combination the search term would always ,relate to

what is being displayed by the image to the user because it would not make reasonable

sense to one of ordinary skill for the search term to be totally unrelated to what the

image represents and therefore the obvious variant of imaging use wherein the image
,

Application/Control Number: Page 28


09/843,923
Art Unit: 2142

could be a special event company logo would be related to the topic of what the special

event company logo image is portraying to a user through graphical means.

B. Rejection under 35 USC '103(a) based on Wolff (US 6,247,047) in view of

Yahoo! and what was well known at the time of the applicant's invention.

1. Appellant argues with respect to dependent claim 20 that Wolff and Yahoo do

not disclose or suggest the combination of features recited in claim 20. Dependent

claim 20 recites creating the special event logo by modifying the standard company logo

with at least one of video or audio data. The examiner had taken official notice with

respect to use of video or audio data on a web page. The examiner submits that it

would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant's

invention to include video or audio data in the special event logo because one of

ordinary skill would have recognized the advancement of using different types of media

to catch the interest of the user viewing a page.

2. Appellant argues with respect to dependent claim 30 that Wolff, Yahoo and

what was well known at the time of the appellant's invention do not disclose or suggest

the combination of features recited in claim 30. Dependent claim 30 recites instructions

fro modifying the standard company logo with at least one of video or audio data. The

examiner had taken official notice with respect to use of video or audio data on a web

page. The examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in

the art at the time of the applicant's invention to include video or audio data in the

special event logo because one of ordinary skill would have recognized the
Application/Control Number: Page 29
09/843,923
Art Unit: 2142

advancement of using different types of media to catch the interest of the user viewing a

page.

(11) Related Proceeding(s) Appendix

No decision rendered by a court or the Board is identified by the examiner in the

Related Appeals and Interferences section of this examiner's answer.

For the above reasons, it is believed that the rejections should be sustained.

Respectfully submitted,

Benjamin A. Ailes ~~

Conferees:

Andrew Caldwell

QrnMuJC~
ANDREW CALDWELL
SUPERVISORY PATENT EXAMINER

~-
~~ARDONE
SUPERVISORY PATENT EXAMINER
, ..~

Application/Control No. Applicant(s)/Patent Under


Reexamination
Index of Claims 09843923 BRIN, SERGEY

Examiner Art Unit


I I II II I I I Ailes, Benjamin A 2142

Rejected Cancelled N Non-Elected A Appeal

= Allowed Restricted Interference o Objected

0 Claims renumbered in the same order as presented by applicant D CPA D T.D. D R.1.47
CLAIM DATE
Final Original 11/07/2007
1 -
2 -
3 -
4 -
5 -
6 -
7 -
8 -
9 -
10 -
11 -
12 -
13 -
14 -
15 -
16 -
17 -
18 A
19 A
20 A
21 A
22 A
23 A
24 A
25 A
26 A
27 A
28 A
29 A
30 A
31 A
32 A
33 A
34 A
35 A
36 A
u.s. Patent and Trademark Office Part of Paper No.: 20071107
Application/Control No. Applicant(s)/Patent Under
Reexamination
Index of Claims 09843923 BRIN, SERGEY

II
Examiner Art Unit

11111 I II III II Ailes, Benjamin A 2142

Rejected Cancelled N Non-Elected A Appeal

= Allowed Restricted Interference o Objected

D Claims renumbered in the same order as presented by applicant D CPA D T.D. D R.1.47

CLAIM DATE
Final Original 11/07/2007
37 A
38 A
39 A
40 A
41 A

U.S. Palent and Trademark Office Part of Paper No.: 20071107


PATENT
Docket No. 0026-0002

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE


BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES

In re Patent Application of )
)
SergeyBRIN ) ATTN: APPEAL BRIEF - PATENTS
)
Application No.: 09/843,923 ) Group Art Unit: 2142
)
Filed: April 30, 2001 ) Examiner: B. Ailes
)
For: SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR )
ENTICING USERS TO ACCESS A )
WEB SITE )

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office


Customer Window, Mail Stop Appeal Brief - Patents
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314

APPEAL BRIEF

This Appeal Brief is submitted in response to the non-final Office Action, dated February

7,2007, and in support of the Notice of Appeal, filed May 8, 2007.

1. REAL PARTY IN INTEREST

The real party in interest in this appeal is Google Inc.

II. RELATED APPEALS, INTERFERENCES, AND WDICIAL PROCEEDINGS

Appellant is unaware of any related appeals, interferences, or judicial proceedings.


APPEAL BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

III. STATUS OF CLAIMS

Claims 18-41 are pending in this application.

Claims 18, 19,21-29, and 31-41 stand rejected under 35 US.C. § 103(a) as allegedly

unpatentable over Wolff (US. Patent No. 6,247,047) in view of Yahoo

(www.archive.org/web/19961223150621/http://www8.Yahoo.com. dated December 23, 1996).

Claims 20 and 30 stand rejected under 35 US.c. § 103(a) as allegedly unpatentable over

Wolff in view of Yahoo and what was allegedly "well known at the time of the applicant's

invention. "

Claims 1-17 were previously canceled without prejudice or disclaimer.

Claims 18-41 are the subject of the present appeal. These claims are reproduced in the

Claim Appendix of this Appeal Brief.

IV. STATUS OF AMENDMENTS

No claim amendments were filed subsequent to the non-final Office Action, dated

February 7,2007.

V. SUMMARY OF CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER

In the paragraphs that follow, a concise explanation of the independent claims and the

claims reciting means-pIus-function or step-pIus-function language that are involved in this

appeal will be provided by referring, in parenthesis, to examples of where support can be found

in the specification and drawings.

Claim 18 recites a method for enticing users to access a web page (Fig. 10). The method

-2-
APPEAL BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

comprises modifying a standard company logo for a special event to create a special event logo

(Fig. 10, 1010; page 11, line 19 - page 12, line 5; page 13, lines 9-20); associating one or more

search terms with the special event logo (Fig. 10, 1020; page 12, lines 9-14; page 14, lines 1-5),

the one or more search terms relating to the special event (page 12, lines 9-14); uploading the

special event logo to the web page (Fig. 10, 1030; page 14, lines 6-10); receiving a user selection

of the special event logo (Fig. 10, 1040; page 14, lines 11-13); and invoking a search relating to

the special event based on the one or more search terms in response to the user selection (Fig. 10,

1050; page 14, lines 13-15).

Claim 20 recites creating the special event logo by modifying the standard company logo

with at least one of video or audio data (page 11, line 20 - page 12, line 5).

Claim 22 recites associating one or more search terms relating to the special event (page

12, lines 9-14; page 14, lines 1-5); and wherein invoking a search includes performing the search

based on the one or more search terms (page 14, lines 11-15).

Claim 26 recites a computer-readable medium (Fig. 2, 230-250) that stores instructions

executable by one or more processors (Fig. 2, 220) to perform a method for attracting users to a

web page (Fig. 10; page 15, lines 1-2). The computer-readable medium comprises instructions

for creating a special event logo by modifying a standard company logo for a special event (Fig.

10, 1010; page 11, line 19 - page 12, line 5; page 13, lines 9-20); instructions for associating a

link or search results with the special event logo (Fig. 10, 1020; page 12, lines 9-14; page 14,

lines 1-5), the link identifying a document relating to the special event (page 12, lines 9-14), the

search results relating to the special event (page 12, lines 9-14); instructions for uploading the

special event logo to the web page (Fig. 10, 1030; page 14, lines 6-10); instructions for receiving

-3-
APPEAL BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

a user selection of the special event logo (Fig. 10, 1040; page 14, lines 11-13); and instructions

for providing the document relating to the special event or the search results relating to the

special event based on the user selection (Fig. 10, 1050; page 12, lines 15-18; page 14, lines 13-

19).

Claim 27 recites a server (Fig. 1, 120) connected to a network (Fig. 1, 130). The server

comprises a memory (Fig. 2, 230-250) configured to store instructions (page 7, lines 13-18); and

a processor (Fig. 2, 220) configured to execute the instructions (page 7, lines 12-18) to determine

a home page for a web page on the network (page 13, lines 17-18), identify a standard company

logo on the home page (page 13, lines 18-19), modify the standard company logo with special

event information corresponding to a special event to create a special event logo (page 11, line

19 - page 12, line 8; page 13, lines 19-20), and replace the standard company logo with the

special event logo during the special event (page 12, lines 6-8; page 14, lines 6-10).

Claim 28 recites a method comprising identifying a standard company logo associated

with a web site (page 13, lines 17-19); modifying the standard company logo with at least one of

image, video, or audio data relating to a special event to create a special event logo (page 12,

lines 1-5; page 13, lines 9-12; page 13, lines 19-20); associating one or more search terms

relating to the special event with the special event logo (page 12, lines 9-14; page 14, lines 1-5);

detecting a selection associated with the special event logo (page 14, lines 11-13); and invoking

a search relating to the special event based on the one or more search terms in response to the

detected selection (page 14, lines 13-15).

Claim 29 recites that the instructions for creating a special event logo include instructions

for modifying the standard company logo with one or more animated images (page 8, lines 7-11;

-4-
APPEAL BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

page 13, lines 9-16).

Claim 30 recites that the instructions for creating a special event logo include instructions

for modifying the standard company logo with at least one of video or audio data (page 8, lines

7-11; page 11, line 20 - page 12, line 5).

Claim 31 recites that the instructions for creating a special event logo include instructions

for modifying the standard company logo with information associated with a holiday (page 8,

lines 7-11; page 12, lines 6-8; page 12, line 19 - page 13, line 5).

Claim 32 recites that the processor is further configured to associate one or more search

terms relating to the special event with the special event logo (page 12, lines 9-14; page 14, lines

1-5).

Claim 35 recites that the instructions for uploading the special event logo include

instructions for replacing the standard company logo with the special event logo on the web page

(Figure 9; page 14, lines 6-10).

Claim 37 recites a method may include presenting a special event logo on a web page

(page 14, lines 6-10), the special event logo being associated with a standard company logo that

has been modified or replaced for a special event (page 12, lines 1-5; page 13, lines 9-12);

receiving selection of the special event logo (page 14, lines 11-13); invoking a search for web

pages relating to the special event in response to the received selection (page 14, lines 13-15);

and presenting results based on the invoked search (page 12, lines 15-18; page 14, lines 14-15).

Claim 40 recites that invoking a search includes invoking a search of the Internet (page

14, lines 13-14).

Claim 41 recites that invoking a search includes invoking a search for web pages relating

-5-
APPEAL BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

to the special event (Figure 8; page 12, lines 9-18).

VI. GROUNDS OF REJECTION TO BE REVIEWED ON APPEAL

A. Claims 18, 19,21-29, and 31-41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.c. § 103(a) as

unpatentable over Wolff and Yahoo.

B. Claims 20 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.c. § 103(a) as unpatentable over

Wolff, Yahoo, and what was allegedly "well known at the time of applicant's invention."

VII. ARGUMENT

A. The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Based on Wolff (U.S. Patent No.
6,247,047) in View of Yahoo
(www.archive.org/web/19961223150621/http://www8.Yahoo.com. dated
December 23, 1996) Should be Reversed.

The initial burden of establishing a prima facie basis to deny patentability to a claimed

invention is always upon the Examiner. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed.

Cir. 1992). In rejecting a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner must provide a factual

basis to support the conclusion of obviousness. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 154 USPQ 173

(CCPA 1967). Based upon the objective evidence of record, the Examiner is required to make

the factual inquiries mandated by Graham v. John Deere Co., 86 S.Ct. 684, 383 U.S. 1, 148

USPQ 459 (1966). KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. (April 30, 2007).

The Examiner is also required to explain how and why one having ordinary skill in the art would

have been led to modify an applied reference and/or combine applied references to arrive at the

claimed invention. Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044,5 USPQ2d 1434 (Fed.

-6-
APPEAL BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

Cir. 1988).

1. Claims 18, 19,21,23-25, and 34.


Independent claim 18 is directed to a method for enticing users to access a web page.

The method comprises modifying a standard company logo for a special event to create a special

event logo; associating one or more search terms with the special event logo, the one or more

search terms relating to the special event; uploading the special event logo to the web page;

receiving a user selection of the special event logo; and invoking a search relating to the special

event based on the one or more search terms in response to the user selection.

Neither Wolff nor Yahoo, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination,

discloses or suggests the combination of features recited in claim 18. For example, Wolff and

Yahoo do not disclose or suggest associating one or more search terms with a special event logo

that was created by modifying a standard company logo for a special event, where the one or

more search terms relate to the special event.

The Examiner alleged that Wolff discloses this feature and cited column 8, line 56 -

column 9, line 15, of Wolff for support. Office Action, paragraph 12. Appellant submits that

this section of Wolff provides absolutely no support for the Examiner's allegation.

At column 8, line 56 - column 9, line 15, Wolff discloses:

At step 202, a user uninterested in the advertised product or service may continue
browsing without selecting banner 102. However, if the user wants to make a transaction
or wants more information about the advertised product or service, the user selects banner
102 using an input device such as mouse 22 by clicking in geographic area 104. In
response, at step 204, user node 14 makes an TCP/IP request using the URL
(..www.bannerbuy.com..) embedded within banner 102 to contact host server 12 over
Internet 16.

At step 206, host server 12 generates a unique transaction identification number


("transaction ID"), and creates a new record in the transaction record database which can
be indexed by the transaction ID. This record will be used to store any input data entered

-7-
APPEAL BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

by the user for this transaction. At step 208, host server 12 receives the unique indicia
(e.g., "12345") embedded within banner 102 and uses the indicia to search the on-line
product/service database for a record containing information specific to the advertised
product or service. This record was previously defined by the merchant, at which time its
unique identification indicia was assigned. After finding and retrieving the record, at step
210, host server 12 dynamically generates a presentation/input form page 108 based at
least in part on data stored within the retrieved record, and sends page 108 over Internet
16 for display on display 18 of user node 14 at step 212. Page 108 is displayed by
opening a new browser or new window on user node 14.

In this section, Wolff discloses that if a user wants more information about an advertised product

or service, the user selects banner 102, which causes host server 12 to perform a search based on

unique indicia embedded within the banner to identify a record containing information specific

to the advertised product or service. In other words, Wolff discloses a banner relating to an

advertised product or service and in response to a user selecting the banner, presenting the user

with information relating to the advertised product or service. Nowhere does Wolff disclose or

suggest a special event logo (created by modifying a standard company logo for a special event)

and, therefore, cannot disclose or suggest associating one or more search terms with the special

event logo, where the one or more search terms relate to the special event, as required by claim

18.

The Examiner admitted that Wolff does not disclose a special event logo that is created

by modifying a standard company logo for a special event. Office Action, paragraph 12. The

Examiner relied upon Yahoo for allegedly disclosing a special event logo that is created by

modifying a standard company logo for a special event. Office Action, paragraph 12. While

Yahoo appears to show the Yahoo logo with a reindeer for the Christmas season, Yahoo does not

disclose or remotely suggest, however, associating one or more search terms with the special

event logo, let alone one or more search terms that relate to the special event, as required by

-8-
APPEAL BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

claim 18. In fact, there is absolutely nothing in the Yahoo document that remotely suggests that

any search terms are associated with the Yahoo logo.

The Examiner alleged that Wolff discloses the use of a graphical icon, as an

advertisement banner, that can be quickly set up for seasonal and one-time use and cited column

2, lines 27-28, of Wolff for support. Office Action, paragraph 12. Appellant submits that the

Examiner has totally misconstrued the disclosure of Wolff.

At column 2, lines 27-28, Wolff discloses "Also, the banner can be quickly set up for

seasonal or one-time use." In this section, Wolff is describing a feature of a prior art technique

for providing a static graphical banner that includes a static image relating to the product or

service being advertised. Column 2, lines 14-35. Wolff specifically discloses that static banners

"involve only one-way communication, and do not take advantage of the Internet's interactive

capabilities." Column 2, lines 30-35. Thus, Wolff teaches away from associating one or more

search terms with these static banners, and clearly does not disclose or suggest associating one or

more search terms that relate to a special event, as would be required by claim 18. Therefore, at

best, this section of Wolff merely discloses putting a seasonal or one-time use static banner on a

web site.

Further, the Examiner provided no motivation for modifying Wolffs advertisement

banner with the prior art seasonal or one-time use static banner. Thus, the Examiner has not

established a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to claim 18. In fact, Appellant submits

that it would not have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellant's

invention to replace Wolffs advertisement banner with the prior art seasonal or one-time use

static banner because it would be directly contrary to the whole purpose of the system of Wolff --

-9-
APPEAL BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

to provide information regarding an advertised product or service in response to selection of a

banner advertisement relating to the product or service.

The Examiner appears to allege that combining an advertisement banner, as allegedly

disclosed by Wolff, with the Yahoo logo (modified for the Christmas season), as allegedly

disclosed by Yahoo, and putting a static banner on a web site for seasonal or one-time use, as

allegedly disclosed by Wolff, would somehow correspond to associating one or more search

terms with a special event logo that was created by modifying a standard company logo for a

special event, where the one or more search terms relate to the special event, as required by

claim 18. Appellant submits that even if these disparate pieces could be combined (a point that

Appellant does not concede for the reasons given herein), the combination would not remotely

correspond to associating one or more search terms with a special event logo, where the one or

more search terms relate to the special event, as required by claim 18. Instead, at best, the

combination might motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to associate a search term relating to

the company Yahoo with the Yahoo logo.

The Examiner alleged that:

It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to enable the teachings of
Wolff wherein the ability to display clickable images to a user on a web page in
combination with the functionalities of Yahoo! wherein it is taught that one of ordinary
skill can alter an image and upload it for display to a user on a web page.

Office Action, paragraph 12. Appellant submits that the Examiner's allegation is merely an

unfounded conclusion. The Examiner has provided absolutely no motivation for combining

these alleged features of Wolff and Yahoo.

The Examiner further alleged that:

Further, it would have been obvious to associate the "search term" to relate to the

- 10 -
APPEAL BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

graphical icon image as taught by Wolff because the keyword associated with the icon
image is supposed to directly identify the product or service being represented by use of
the icon image and when a use interacts (clicks) on the icon image (see Wolff, col. 8,11.
43-49), it is deemed obvious that search results should be directly related to whatever the
icon represents instead of erroneous data. One of ordinary skill would not find it desirable
to provide search results that are totally unrelated to what is being displayed by the icon
image. Therefore, in view of Yahoo!, ifan image is altered in some sort of way, the
keyword associated with the image should be changed accordingly so that the keyword
corresponds to the image in some sort of way.

Office Action, paragraph 12. Appellant submits that the Examiner's allegations are unfounded

and based solely on impermissible hindsight. In light of the Examiner's reasoning, one of

ordinary skill in the art might, at best, be motivated to associate a search term relating to the

company Yahoo with the Yahoo logo. The Yahoo logo, shown in the Yahoo document, is still

the Yahoo logo even though it includes a reindeer image with the reindeer's head sticking

through the "0." One of ordinary skill would not have been motivated, contrary to the

Examiner's hindsight reasoning, to associate a search term relating to a special event with the

Yahoo logo shown in the Yahoo document. The Examiner has provided absolutely no evidence

to the contrary.

The Examiner further alleged:

One or ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant's invention would have found
it obvious to combine the teachings of Yahoo! with what is taught by Wolff as outlined
above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a
combination due to being from the same field of endeavor (client-server network
systems) and for the reasons stated above, particularly teaching the use of displaying
images to user that are deemed clickable by Wolff and Yahoo! for teaching the use of
altered images which may commemorate a special event and the use of different images
to be displayed to a user is deemed an obvious variation in the art. In view of Wolff, the
use of different images is clearly taught as a motivation in the prior art wherein one of
ordinary skill in the art may find it useful to use different image types for seasonal use
(col. 2, 11. 27-28).

Office Action, paragraph 12. Appellant submits that the Examiner's motivation statements fall

short of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to claim 18. For example, the

- 11 -
APPEAL BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

Examiner has provided absolutely no explanation of why one of ordinary skill in the art at the

time of Appellant's invention would have been motivated to associate one or more search terms

relating to a special event with the Yahoo logo. Instead, as explained above, the Examiner has

only provided an allegation as to why one of ordinary skill might have been motivated to

associate a search term that is "directly related to whatever the icon represents" (Office Action,

paragraph 12) -- in other words, the Yahoo company.

The Examiner further alleged:

Taking broadest reasonable interpretation of what is claimed, it is best understood in the


broadest sense that the "standard company logo" and the "special event logo" in the field
of the invention are images that are displayed on a web page that are viewable by a user
using a web browser program.

Office Action, paragraph 4. Appellant strenuously objects to the Examiner's attempt to

unreasonably broaden the definition of" company logo." It is apparent that the Examiner

understands the definition of company logo since the Examiner properly pointed to the Yahoo

company logo in the Yahoo document. Appellant uses the term "company logo" consistent with

its well understood definition of a name, symbol, or trademark designed for easy recognition.

The American Heritage College Dictionary, Third Edition, 1997, page 797. Thus, the

Examiner's attempt to broaden the definition of "company logo" to any image displayed on a

web page is unreasonable.

The Examiner also alleged:

Wolff is not relied upon for teaching in the art the image being a company logo that is
altered to become a special event logo. The image being a company logo is deemed an
obvious variation in the art.

Office Action, paragraph 4. Appellant submits that the Examiner's allegation that substituting a

company logo for the banner advertisement in Wolff would be an "obvious variation in the art"

- 12 -
APPEAL BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

is simply a conclusory statement that is unsupported by the disclosures of Wolff and Yahoo. The

Examiner has provided absolutely no evidence to show that substituting a company logo for a

banner advertisement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of

Appellant's invention and, like the rest of the Examiner's allegations, falls short of establishing a

prima facie case of obviousness. In fact, Appellant submits that substituting a company logo for

a banner advertisement in Wolff would be directly contrary to the whole purpose of the system

of Wolff -- to provide information regarding an advertised product or service in response to

selection of a banner advertisement relating to the product or service.

The Examiner further alleged:

It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the combination
that the search term would always relate to what is being displayed by the image to the
user because it would not make reasonable sense to one of ordinary skill for the search
term to be totally unrelated to what the image represents and therefore the obvious variant
of imaging use wherein the image could be a special event company logo as taught by
Yahoo! the search term associated with the special event company logo would be related
to the topic of what the special event company logo image is portraying to a user through
graphical means.

Office Action, paragraph 4. These allegations by the Examiner, at best, only attempt to explain

why one of ordinary skill might have been motivated to associate the search term of "Yahoo"

with the Yahoo logo because, as the Examiner states "the search term would always relate to

what is being displayed by the image to the user because it would not make reasonable sense to

one of ordinary skill for the search term to be totally unrelated to what the image represents."

Office Action, paragraph 4. The Yahoo logo in the Yahoo document clearly relates to the Yahoo

company. Thus, contrary to the Examiner's allegations, the combination of Wolff and Yahoo

would not disclose or suggest associating one or more search terms with a special event logo that

was created by modifying a standard company logo for a special event, where the one or more

- 13 -
APPEAL BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

search terms relate to the special event, as required by claim 18.

Because Wolff and Yahoo do not disclose or suggest associating one or more search

terms with the special event logo, the one or more search terms relating to the special event,

Wolff and Yahoo cannot disclose or suggest invoking a search relating to the special event based

on the one or more search terms in response to a user selection, as further recited in claim 18.

For at least these reasons, it is respectfully submitted that claims 18, 19,21,23-25, and

34 are patentable over Wolff and Yahoo, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination,

under 35 U.S.c. § 103. Reversal of the rejection of claims 18, 19,21,23-25, and 34 is

respectfully requested.

2. Claim 40.

Dependent claim 40 recites invoking a search of the Internet.

Initially, claim 40 depends from claim 18. Claim 40 is, therefore, patentable over Wolff

and Yahoo, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, for at least the reasons given

with regard to claim 18.

Further, Wolff and Yahoo, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, do not

disclose or suggest the combination of features recited in claim 40.

The Examiner alleged that Wolff discloses invoking a search of the Internet and cited

column 9, lines 3-7, of Wolff for support. Office Action, paragraph 33. Appellant submits that

this section of Wolff provides absolutely no support for the Examiner's allegation.

At column 9, lines 3-15, Wolff discloses:

At step 208, host server 12 receives the unique indicia (e.g., "12345") embedded within
banner 102 and uses the indicia to search the on-line product/service database for a record
containing information specific to the advertised product or service. This record was
previously defined by the merchant, at which time its unique identification indicia was

- 14 -
APPEAL BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

assigned. After finding and retrieving the record, at step 210, host server 12 dynamically
generates a presentation/input form page 108 based at least in part on data stored within
the retrieved record, and sends page 108 over Internet 16 for display on display 18 of
user node 14 at step 212. Page 108 is displayed by opening a new browser or new
window on user node 14.

In this section, Wolff discloses searching an on-line product/service database, which is

accessible via the Internet. See, e.g., Figure 1. The Examiner appears to be alleging that

invoking a search of a product/service database connected via the Internet is equivalent to

invoking a search of the Internet. These two searches are very different. The product/service

database search would retrieve only records from the set of records in the product/service

database. Just because Wolff discloses that the product/service database is available via the

Internet, does not mean that searching the database is equivalent to searching the Internet.

Accordingly, Appellant submits that the Examiner's allegation lacks merit.

For at least these reasons, it is respectfully submitted that claim 40 is patentable over

Wolff and Yahoo, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, under 35 U.S.c. § 103.

Reversal of the rejection of claim 40 is respectfully requested.

3. Claim 26.

Independent claim 26 is directed to a computer-readable medium that stores instructions

executable by one or more processors to perform a method for attracting users to a web page.

The computer-readable medium comprises instructions for creating a special event logo by

modifying a standard company logo for a special event; instructions for associating a link or

search results with the special event logo, the link identifying a document relating to the special

event, the search results relating to the special event; instructions for uploading the special event

logo to the web page; instructions for receiving a user selection of the special event logo; and

- 15 -
APPEAL BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

instructions for providing the document relating to the special event or the search results relating

to the special event based on the user selection.

Neither Wolff nor Yahoo, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination,

discloses or suggests the combination of features recited in claim 26. For example, Wolff and

Yahoo do not disclose or suggest instructions for creating a special event logo by modifying a

standard company logo for a special event.

The Examiner admitted that Wolff does not disclose this feature, but alleged that Yahoo

discloses that a company logo can be modified to commemorate a special event. Office Action,

paragraph 20. Regardless of the accuracy of the Examiner's allegation regarding the Yahoo

document, Appellant submits that the Examiner has not provided any evidence that the Yahoo

logo was modified by executing instructions for creating a special event logo by modifying a

standard company logo for a special event, as required by claim 26. Instead, the Examiner

merely showed an end product (i.e., the modified Yahoo logo), which might have been manually

modified by a web site operator. Thus, the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of

obviousness with regard to claim 26.

Also, Wolff and Yahoo do not disclose or suggest instructions for associating a link or

search results with a special event logo created by modifying a standard company logo for a

special event, the link identifying a document relating to the special event, and the search results

relating to the special event, as further recited in claim 26, for at least reasons similar to reasons

given with regard to claim 18.

Also, Wolff and Yahoo do not disclose or suggest instructions for uploading the special

event logo to the web page, as further recited in claim 26. The Examiner alleged that Yahoo

- 16 -
APPEAL BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

discloses a company logo that can be modified to commemorate a special event and uploaded for

display to a user on a web page. Office Action, paragraph 20. Regardless of the accuracy of the

Examiner's allegation regarding the Yahoo document, Appellant submits that the Examiner has

not provided any evidence that the modified Yahoo logo was uploaded on the Yahoo web page

by executing instructions for uploading a special event logo to a web page, as required by claim

26. Instead, the Examiner merely showed an end product (i.e., the modified Yahoo logo on the

Yahoo web page), which might have been manually uploaded by a web site operator. Thus, the

Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to claim 26.

For at least these reasons, it is respectfully submitted that claim 26 is patentable over

Wolff and Yahoo, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, under 35 U.S.c. § 103.

Reversal of the rejection of claim 26 is respectfully requested.

4. Claim 29.

Dependent claim 29 recites instructions for modifying the standard company logo with

one or more animated images.

Initially, claim 29 depends from claim 26. Claim 29 is, therefore, patentable over Wolff

and Yahoo, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, for at least the reasons given

with regard to claim 26.

Further, Wolff and Yahoo, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, do not

disclose or suggest the combination of features recited in claim 29.

The Examiner alleged that Yahoo discloses modifying a standard company logo with one

or more animated images. Office Action, paragraph 23. Regardless of the accuracy of the

Examiner's allegation regarding the Yahoo document, Appellant submits that the Examiner has

- 17 -
APPEAL BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

not provided any evidence that the Yahoo logo was modified by executing instructions for

modifying the standard company logo with one or more animated images, as required by claim

29. Instead, the Examiner merely showed an end product (i.e., the modified Yahoo logo), which

might have been manually modified by a web site operator. Thus, the Examiner has not

established a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to claim 29.

For at least these reasons, it is respectfully submitted that claim 29 is patentable over

Wolff and Yahoo, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, under 35 U.S.c. § 103.

Reversal of the rejection of claim 29 is respectfully requested.

5. Claim 31.

Dependent claim 31 recites instructions for modifying the standard company logo with

information associated with a holiday.

Initially, claim 31 depends from claim 26. Claim 31 is, therefore, patentable over Wolff

and Yahoo, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, for at least the reasons given

with regard to claim 26.

Further, Wolff and Yahoo, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, do not

disclose or suggest the combination of features recited in claim 31.

The Examiner alleged that Yahoo discloses modifying a standard company logo with

information associated with a holiday. Office Action, paragraph 24. Regardless of the accuracy

of the Examiner's allegation regarding the Yahoo document, Appellant submits that the

Examiner has not provided any evidence that the Yahoo logo was modified by executing

instructions for modifying a standard company logo with information associated with a holiday,

as required by claim 31. Instead, the Examiner merely showed an end product (i.e., the modified

- 18 -
APPEAL BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

Yahoo logo), which might have been manually modified by a web site operator. Thus, the

Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to claim 31.

For at least these reasons, it is respectfully submitted that claim 31 is patentable over

Wolff and Yahoo, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, under 35 U.S.c. § 103.

Reversal of the rej ection of claim 31 is respectfully requested.

6. Claim 35.

Dependent claim 35 recites instructions for replacing the standard company logo with the

special event logo on the web page.

Initially, claim 35 depends from claim 26. Claim 35 is, therefore, patentable over Wolff

and Yahoo, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, for at least the reasons given

with regard to claim 26.

Further, Wolff and Yahoo, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, do not

disclose or suggest the combination of features recited in claim 35.

The Examiner alleged that Yahoo discloses replacing a standard company logo with a

special event logo. Office Action, paragraph 28. Regardless of the accuracy of the Examiner's

allegation regarding the Yahoo document, Appellant submits that the Examiner has not provided

any evidence that the Yahoo logo was replaced by executing instructions for replacing a standard

company logo with a special event logo on a web page, as required by claim 35. Instead, the

Examiner merely showed an end product (i.e., the modified Yahoo logo), which might have been

manually replaced by a web site operator. Thus, the Examiner has not established a prima facie

case of obviousness with regard to claim 35.

- 19 -
APPEAL BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

For at least these reasons, it is respectfully submitted that claim 35 is patentable over

Wolff and Yahoo, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, under 35 U.S.c. § 103.

Reversal of the rejection of claim 35 is respectfully requested.

7. Claim 27.

Independent claim 27 is directed to a server connected to a network. The server

comprises a memory configured to store instructions; and a processor configured to execute the

instructions to determine a home page for a web page on the network, identify a standard

company logo on the home page, modify the standard company logo with special event

information corresponding to a special event to create a special event logo, and replace the

standard company logo with the special event logo during the special event.

Neither Wolff nor Yahoo, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination,

discloses or suggests the combination of features recited in claim 27. For example, Wolff and

Yahoo do not disclose or suggest a processor configured to determine a home page for a web

page on a network.

The Examiner alleged:

Yahoo! clearly teaches the uploading of an image to a web page in this case the
uploading has been done to the home page as indicated (www.Yahoo.com) and the
altered image is actually being displayed where the standard company logo is customarily
presented. By way of actually uploading the image to the home page by Yahoo! then it is
taught by Yahoo! the functionality of home page determination.

Office Action, paragraph 21. Appellant submits that the Examiner's allegations are merely

conclusory and fall short of establishing prima facie case of obviousness with regard to claim 27

by failing to show a processor configured to determine a home page for a web page on a

network, as required by claim 27. Instead, the Examiner has merely pointed to what the

- 20-
APPEAL BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

Examiner alleged is the home page for Yahoo.com and appears to reason that this necessarily

means that a processor determined the home page. Appellant submits that the Examiner has

provided absolutely no evidence to support the Examiner's conclusion. In fact, it is much more

likely that an operator of the Yahoo web site uploaded the Yahoo logo on the Yahoo web page.

Therefore, there would be no need in Yahoo for a processor to be configured to determine a

home page for a web page on a network, as required by claim 27.

The Examiner further alleged:

Wolff teaches the use of computer processors for example in figure 1, item 14 and
Yahoo! teaches the inherent use of a computer processor by way of having an image
uploaded to a web site wherein the uploading of an image would not be possible in any
way without the use of a computer processor.

Office Action, paragraph 7. Thus, the Examiner alleged that Wolff discloses a processor and

Yahoo inherently uses a processor to upload an image to a web site. Regardless of the accuracy

of the Examiner's allegations concerning Wolff and Yahoo, the Examiner still has not provided

any evidence that either the Wolff processor or the inherent Yahoo processor is configured to

determine a home page for a web page on a network, as required by claim 27. Thus, the

Examiner still has not established a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to claim 27.

Also, Wolff and Yahoo do not disclose or suggest a processor configured to identify a

standard company logo on the home page.

The Examiner alleged:

Yahoo! clearly teaches the uploading of an image to a web page in this case the
uploading has been done to the home page as indicated (www.Yahoo.com) and the
altered image is actually being displayed where the standard company logo is customarily
presented. By way of actually uploading the image to the home page by Yahoo! then it is
taught by Yahoo! the functionality of home page determination.

Office Action, paragraph 21. Appellant submits that the Examiner's allegations are merely

- 21 -
APPEAL BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

conclusory and fall short of establishing prima facie case of obviousness with regard to claim 27

by failing to show a processor configured to identify a standard company logo on the home page,

as required by claim 27. Instead, the Examiner has merely pointed to what the Examiner alleged

is the home page for Yahoo.com and appears to reason that this necessarily means that a

processor identified a standard company logo on the home page. Appellant submits that the

Examiner has provided absolutely no evidence to support the Examiner's conclusion. In fact, it

is much more likely that an operator of the Yahoo web site uploaded the modified Yahoo logo on

the Yahoo web page. Therefore, there would be no need in Yahoo for a processor to be

configured to identify a standard company logo on a home page, as required by claim 27.

The Examiner further alleged:

Wolff teaches the use of computer processors for example in figure 1, item 14 and
Yahoo! teaches the inherent use of a computer processor by way of having an image
uploaded to a web site wherein the uploading of an image would not be possible in any
way without the use of a computer processor.

Office Action, paragraph 7. Thus, the Examiner alleged that Wolff discloses a processor and

Yahoo inherently uses a processor to upload an image to a web site. Regardless of the accuracy

of the Examiner's allegations concerning Wolff and Yahoo, the Examiner still has not provided

any evidence that either the Wolff processor or the inherent Yahoo processor is configured to

identify a standard company logo on the home page, as required by claim 27. Thus, the

Examiner still has not established a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to claim 27.

Because Wolff and Yahoo do not disclose or suggest a processor configured to determine

a home page for a web page on the network or identify a standard company logo on the home

page, Wolff and Yahoo cannot disclose or suggest a processor that is also configured to modify

the standard company logo with special event information corresponding to a special event to

- 22-
APPEAL BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

create a special event logo, and replace the standard company logo with the special event logo

during the special event, as further recited in claim 27.

For at least these reasons, it is respectfully submitted that claim 27 is patentable over

Wolff and Yahoo, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, under 35 U.S.c. § 103.

Reversal of the rejection of claim 27 is respectfully requested.

8. Claims 32 and 33.

Dependent claim 32 recites a processor configured to associate one or more search terms

relating to the special event with the special event logo.

Initially, claim 32 depends from claim 27. Claim 32 is, therefore, patentable over Wolff

and Yahoo, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, for at least the reasons given

with regard to claim 27.

Further, Wolff and Yahoo, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, do not

disclose or suggest the combination of features recited in claim 32.

The Examiner alleged that the combination of Wolff and Yahoo discloses a processor

configured to associate one or more search terms relating to a special event with a special event

logo. Office Action, paragraph 25. Appellant disagrees for at least reasons similar to reasons

given with regard to claim 18.

For at least these reasons, it is respectfully submitted that claims 32 and 33 are patentable

over Wolff and Yahoo, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, under 35 U.S.C. §

103. Reversal of the rejection of claims 32 and 33 is respectfully requested.

9. Claims 28 and 36.


Independent claim 28 is directed to a method comprising identifying a standard company

- 23 -
APPEAL BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

logo associated with a web site; modifying the standard company logo with at least one of image,

video, or audio data relating to a special event to create a special event logo; associating one or

more search terms relating to the special event with the special event logo; detecting a selection

associated with the special event logo; and invoking a search relating to the special event based

on the one or more search terms in response to the detected selection.

Neither Wolff nor Yahoo, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination,

discloses or suggests the combination of features recited in claim 28. For example, Wolff and

Yahoo do not disclose or suggest associating one or more search terms relating to a special event

with a special event logo created by modifying a standard company logo with at least one of

image, video, or audio data relating to the special event for at least reasons similar to reasons

given with regard to claim 18.

For at least these reasons, it is respectfully submitted that claims 28 and 36 are patentable

over Wolff and Yahoo, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, under 35 U.S.C. §

103. Reversal of the rejection of claims 28 and 36 is respectfully requested.

10. Claim 41.

Dependent claim 41 recites invoking a search for web pages relating to the special event.

Initially, claim 41 depends from claim 28. Claim 41 is, therefore, patentable over Wolff

and Yahoo, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, for at least the reasons given

with regard to claim 28.

Further, Wolff and Yahoo, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, do not

disclose or suggest the combination of features recited in claim 41.

The Examiner alleged that Wolff discloses invoking a search fore web pages relating to a

- 24-
APPEAL BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

special event and cited column 9, lines 3-7, of Wolff for support. Office Action, paragraph 34.

Appellant submits that this section of Wolff provides absolutely no support for the Examiner's

allegation.

Column 9, lines 3-7, of Wolff is reproduced above. In this section, Wolff discloses

searching an on-line product/service database, which is accessible via the Internet. See, e.g.,

Figure 1. The Examiner appears to be alleging that invoking a search of a database connected

via the Internet is equivalent to invoking a search for web pages relating to a special event.

These two searches are very different. The product/service database search would retrieve only

product/service records from the set of records in the product/service database. Just because

Wolff discloses that the product/service database is available via the Internet, does not mean that

searching the database is equivalent to searching for web pages relating to a special event.

Accordingly, Appellant submits that the Examiner's allegation lacks merit.

For at least these reasons, it is respectfully submitted that claim 41 is patentable over

Wolff and Yahoo, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, under 35 U.S.c. § 103.

Reversal of the rejection of claim 41 is respectfully requested.

11. Claims 37-39.


Independent claim 37 is directed to a method comprising presenting a special event logo

on a web page, the special event logo being associated with a standard company logo that has

been modified or replaced for a special event; receiving selection of the special event logo;

invoking a search for web pages relating to the special event in response to the received

selection; and presenting results based on the invoked search.

Neither Wolff nor Yahoo, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination,

- 25 -
APPEAL BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

discloses or suggests the combination of features recited in claim 37. For example, Wolff and

Yahoo do not disclose or suggest invoking a search for web pages relating to the special event in

response to a received selection of a special event logo for at least reasons similar to reasons

given with regard to claims 18 and 41.

For at least these reasons, it is respectfully submitted that claims 37-39 are patentable

over Wolff and Yahoo, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, under 35 U.S.C. §

103. Reversal of the rejection of claims 37-39 is respectfully requested.

12. Claim 22.

Dependent claim 22 recites associating one or more search terms relating to the special

event, and performing the search based on the one or more search terms.

Initially, claim 22 depends from claim 37. Claim 22 is, therefore, patentable over Wolff

and Yahoo, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, for at least the reasons given

with regard to claim 37.

Further, Wolff and Yahoo, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, do not

disclose or suggest the combination of features recited in claim 22 for at least reasons similar to

reasons given with regard to claim 18.

For at least these reasons, it is respectfully submitted that claim 22 is patentable over

Wolff and Yahoo, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, under 35 U.S.c. § 103.

Reversal of the rejection of claim 22 is respectfully requested.

B. The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Based on Wolff (U.S. Patent No.
6,247,047) in View of Yahoo
(www.archive.org/web/19961223150621/http://www8.Yahoo.com. dated

- 26-
APPEAL BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

December 23,1996) and What was Allegedly "Well Known at the Time of
the Applicant's Invention" Should be Reversed.

1. Claim 20.
Dependent claim 20 recites creating the special event logo by modifying the standard

company logo with at least one of video or audio data.

Initially, claim 20 depends from claim 18. Claim 20 is, therefore, patentable over Wolff,

Yahoo, and what was allegedly "well known at the time of the applicant's invention," whether

taken alone or in any reasonable combination, for at least the reasons given with regard to claim

18.

Further, Wolff, Yahoo, and what was allegedly "well known at the time of the applicant's

invention," whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, do not disclose or suggest the

combination of features recited in claim 20.

The Examiner took official notice that "the use of video or audio data to be displayed to a

user on a web page was old and well known in the art." Office Action, paragraph 36. The

Examiner's official notice fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to

claim 20 because the official notice does not establish that it was "old and well known in the art"

to modify a standard company logo with at least one of video or audio data, as required by claim

20.

For at least these reasons, it is respectfully submitted that claim 20 is patentable over

Wolff and Yahoo, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, under 35 U.S.c. § 103.

Reversal of the rejection of claim 20 is respectfully requested.

2. Claim 30.
Dependent claim 30 recites instructions for modifying the standard company logo with at

- 27 -
APPEAL BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

least one of video or audio data.

Initially, claim 30 depends from claim 26. Claim 30 is, therefore, patentable over Wolff,

Yahoo, and what was allegedly "well known at the time of the applicant's invention," whether

taken alone or in any reasonable combination, for at least the reasons given with regard to claim

26.

Further, Wolff, Yahoo, and what was allegedly "well known at the time of the applicant's

invention," whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, do not disclose or suggest the

combination of features recited in claim 30.

The Examiner took official notice that "the use of video or audio data to be displayed to a

user on a web page was old and well known in the art." Office Action, paragraph 37. The

Examiner's official notice fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to

claim 30 because the official notice does not establish that it was "old and well known in the art"

to modify a standard company logo with at least one of video or audio data, as required by claim

30.

For at least these reasons, it is respectfully submitted that claim 30 is patentable over

Wolff and Yahoo, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, under 35 U.S.c. § 103.

Reversal of the rejection of claim 30 is respectfully requested.

VIII. CONCLUSION

In view of the foregoing arguments, Appellant respectfully solicits the Honorable Board

to reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 18-41 under 35 U.S.c. § 103.

To the extent necessary, a petition for an extension of time under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136 is

- 28 -
APPEAL BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

hereby made. Please charge any shortage in fees due in connection with the filing of this paper,

including extension of time fees, to Deposit Account No. 50-1070 and please credit any excess

fees to such deposit account.

Respectfully submitted,

HARRITY SNYDER, L.L.P.

IPaul A. Harrityl
Paul A. Harrity
Reg. No. 39,574
Date: July 9, 2007
11350 Random Hills Road
Suite 600
Fairfax, Virginia 22030
(571) 432-0800

- 29-
APPEAL BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

IX. CLAIM APPENDIX

18. A method for enticing users to access a web page, comprising:

modifying a standard company logo for a special event to create a special event logo;

associating one or more search terms with the special event logo, the one or more search

terms relating to the special event;

uploading the special event logo to the web page;

receiving a user selection of the special event logo; and

invoking a search relating to the special event based on the one or more search terms in

response to the user selection.

19. The method of claim 18, wherein the modifying a standard company logo

includes:

creating the special event logo by modifying the standard company logo with one or

more animated images.

20. The method of claim 18, wherein the modifying a standard company logo

includes:

creating the special event logo by modifying the standard company logo with at least one

of video or audio data.

21. The method of claim 18, wherein the special event includes a holiday.

- 30 -
APPEAL BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

22. The method of claim 37, further comprising:

associating one or more search terms relating to the special event; and

wherein invoking a search includes:

performing the search based on the one or more search terms.

23. The method of claim 18, wherein the uploading the special event logo includes:

displaying the special event logo on the web page during the special event.

24. The method of claim 18, wherein the invoking a search includes:

generating a search query using the one or more search terms,

using the search query to search at least one of a network, an index, or a directory, and

obtaining search results based on the search.

25. The method of claim 18, wherein the modifying a standard company logo

includes:

determining a home page for the web page on a network,

identifying the standard company logo on the home page, and

modifying the standard company logo with special event information to create the special

event logo.

26. A computer-readable medium that stores instructions executable by one or more

processors to perform a method for attracting users to a web page, comprising:

- 31 -
APPEAL BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

instructions for creating a special event logo by modifying a standard company logo for a

special event;

instructions for associating a link or search results with the special event logo, the link

identifying a document relating to the special event, the search results relating to the special

event;

instructions for uploading the special event logo to the web page;

instructions for receiving a user selection of the special event logo; and

instructions for providing the document relating to the special event or the search results

relating to the special event based on the user selection.

27. A server connected to a network, comprising:

a memory configured to store instructions; and

a processor configured to execute the instructions to:

determine a home page for a web page on the network,

identify a standard company logo on the home page,

modify the standard company logo with special event information corresponding

to a special event to create a special event logo, and

replace the standard company logo with the special event logo during the special

event.

28. A method, comprising:

identifying a standard company logo associated with a web site;

- 32 -
APPEAL BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

modifying the standard company logo with at least one of image, video, or audio data

relating to a special event to create a special event logo;

associating one or more search terms relating to the special event with the special event

logo;

detecting a selection associated with the special event logo; and

invoking a search relating to the special event based on the one or more search terms in

response to the detected selection.

29. The computer-readable medium of claim 26, wherein the instructions for creating

a special event logo include:

instructions for modifying the standard company logo with one or more animated images.

30. The computer-readable medium of claim 26, wherein the instructions for creating

a special event logo include:

instructions for modifying the standard company logo with at least one of video or audio

data.

31. The computer-readable medium of claim 26, wherein the instructions for creating

a special event logo include:

instructions for modifying the standard company logo with information associated with a

holiday.

- 33 -
APPEAL BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

32. The server of claim 27, wherein the processor is further configured to:

associate one or more search terms relating to the special event with the special event

logo.

33. The server of claim 32, wherein the processor is further configured to:

detect a selection associated with the special event logo,

generate a search query based on the one or more search terms,

perform a search based on the search query, and

provide a result of the search.

34. The method of claim 18, wherein uploading the special event logo includes:

replacing the standard company logo with the special event logo on the web page.

35. The computer-readable medium of claim 26, wherein the instructions for

uploading the special event logo include:

instructions for replacing the standard company logo with the special event logo on the

web page.

36. The method of claim 28, further comprising:

replacing the standard company logo with the special event logo.

37. A method, comprising:

- 34 -
APPEAL BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

presenting a special event logo on a web page, the special event logo being associated

with a standard company logo that has been modified or replaced for a special event;

receiving selection of the special event logo;

invoking a search for web pages relating to the special event in response to the received

selection; and

presenting results based on the invoked search.

38. The method of claim 37, wherein one or more search terms are associated with

the special event logo; and

wherein the invoking a search relating to the special event includes:

causing a search to be performed based on the one or more search terms.

39. The method of claim 37, wherein the presenting a special event logo includes:

displaying the special event logo on the web page during the special event.

40. The method of claim 18, wherein invoking a search includes:

invoking a search of the Internet.

41. The method of claim 28, wherein invoking a search includes:

invoking a search for web pages relating to the special event.

- 35 -
APPEAL BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

X. EVIDENCE APPENDIX

None

- 36 -
APPEAL BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

XI. RELATED PROCEEDINGS APPENDIX

None

- 37 -
Electronic Patent Application Fee Transmittal
Application Number: 09843923

Filing Date: 30-Apr-2001

Title of Invention: Systems and methods for enticing users to access a web site

First Named Inventor/Applicant Name: Sergey Brin

Filer: Paul Harrity/Julia Cummings

Attorney Docket Number: 0026-0002

Filed as Large Entity

Utility Filing Fees

Sub-Total in
Description Fee Code Quantity Amount
USD($)

Basic Filing:

Pages:

Claims:

Miscellaneous-Fi Ii ng:

Petition:

Patent-Appeals-and-l nterference:

Filing a brief in support of an appeal 1402 1 500 500

Post -Allowance-and -Post -Issu ance:

Extension-of-Time:
Sub-Total in
Description Fee Code Quantity Amount
USD($)

Miscellaneous:

Total in USD ($) 500


Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt

EFSID: 1952104

Application Number: 09843923

International Application Number:

Confirmation Number: 9916

Title of Invention: Systems and methods for enticing users to access a web site

First Named Inventor/Applicant Name: Sergey Brin

Customer Number: 44989

Filer: Paul Harrity/Julia Cummings

Filer Authorized By: Paul Harrity

Attorney Docket Number: 0026-0002

Receipt Date: 09-JUL-2007

Filing Date: 30-APR-2001

Time Stamp: 18:08:39

Application Type: Utility under 35 USC 111 (a)

Payment information:
Submitted with Payment yes

Payment was successfully received in RAM $500


RAM confirmation Number 2883

Deposit Account

File Listing:
Document File Size(Bytes)
Document Description File Name
Number /Message Digest
166843
1 Appeal Brief Filed 0026-0002_AppeaIBrief.pdf no 37
e9d9aed3f286dc5996b0111142dd33a2
bc175b62

Warnings:
Information:

8154
2 Fee Worksheet (PTO-06) fee-info.pdf no 2
4a184d5caafb6fb11 a2442535d97cccb2
f954cdc

Warnings:
Information:
Total Files Size (in bytes): 174997

This Acknowledgement Receipt evidences receipt on the noted date by the USPTO of the indicated documents,
characterized by the applicant, and including page counts, where applicable. It serves as evidence of receipt
similar to a Post Card, as described in MPEP 503.

New Applications Under 35 U.S.C. 111


If a new application is being filed and the application includes the necessary components for a filing date (see
37 CFR 1.53(b)-(d) and MPEP 506), a Filing Receipt (37 CFR 1.54) will be issued in due course and the date
shown on this Acknowledgement Receipt will establish the filing date of the application.

National Stage of an International Application under 35 U.S.C. 371


If a timely submission to enter the national stage of an international application is compliant with the conditions
of 35 U.S.C. 371 and other applicable requirements a Form PCT/DO/EO/903 indicating acceptance of the
application as a national stage submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 will be issued in addition to the Filing Receipt,
in due course.

New International Application Filed with the USPTO as a Receiving Office


If a new international application is being filed and the international application includes the necessary
components for an international filing date (see PCT Article 11 and MPEP 1810), a Notification of the
International Application Number and of the International Filing Date (Form PCT/RO/105) will be issued in due
course, subject to prescriptions concerning national security, and the date shown on this Acknowledgement
Receipt will establish the international filing date of the application.
Patent
Attorney's Docket No. 0026-0002

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

In re Patent Application of )
)
Sergey Brin ) Group Art Unit: 2142
)
Application No.: 09/843,923 ) Examiner: B. Ailes
)
Filed: April 30, 2001 )
)
For: SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR )
ENTICING USERS TO ACCESS A )
WEBSITE )

NOTICE OF APPEAL

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office


Customer Service Window, Mail Stop AF
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314

Sir:
All rejected claims in the decision of the Primary Examiner dated Februarv 7, 2007 are hereby appealed to
the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.
D The Appeal fee was previously paid on _.
Therefore, no Appeal fee is now required.
Enclosed is the Appeal fee of D $250.00 D $500.00
Please charge the Appeal fee of D $250.00 [8J $500.00 to Credit Card.
The Commissioner is hereby authorized to charge any other appropriate fees that may be required by this
paper that are not accounted for above, and to credit any overpayment, to Deposit Account No. 50-1070.

Respectfully submitted,

HARRITY SNYDER, L.L.P.

By: IPaul A. Harritvl


Paul A. Harrity
Reg. No. 39,574
11350 Random Hills Road
Suite 600
Fairfax, Virginia 22030
(571) 432-0800
CUSTOMER NUMBER: 44989
Date: May 8, 2007
Patent
Attorney's Docket No. 0026-0002

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

In re Patent Application of )
)
Sergey Brin ) Group Art Unit: 2142
)
Application No.: 09/843,923 ) Examiner: B. Ailes
)
Filed: April 30, 2001 )
)
For: SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR )
ENTICING USERS TO ACCESS )
A WEB SITE )

PETITION FOR ONE MONTH EXTENSION OF TIME

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office


Customer Service Window, Mail Stop Amendment
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314

Sir:

The following extension of time is requested to the Office Action dated February 7,2007:

One month to June 7, 2007; the extension fee is:

D $ 60.00 ~ $ 120.00

D An extension fee in the amount of $ is enclosed.

~ Charge $ 120.00 to Credit Card.


Petition for Extension of Time
Attorney's Docket No.: 0026-0002
U.S. Serial No.: 09/843,923

The Commissioner is hereby authorized to charge any other appropriate fees that may be
required by this paper that are not accounted for above, and to credit any overpayment, to
Deposit Account No. 50-1070.

Respectfully submitted,

HARRITY SNYDER, L.L.P.

By: IPaul A. Harrity!


Paul A. Harrity
Reg. No. 39,574

11350 Random Hills Road


Suite 600
Fairfax, Virginia 22030
(571) 432-0800
CUSTOMER NUMBER: 44989
Date: May 8, 2007
Electronic Patent Application Fee Transmittal
Application Number: 09843923

Filing Date: 30-Apr-2001

Title of Invention: Systems and methods for enticing users to access a web site

First Named Inventor/Applicant Name: Sergey Brin

Filer: Paul Harrity/Julia Cummings

Attorney Docket Number: 0026-0002

Filed as Large Entity

Utility Filing Fees

Sub-Total in
Description Fee Code Quantity Amount
USD($)

Basic Filing:

Pages:

Claims:

Miscellaneous-Fi Ii ng:

Petition:

Patent-Appeals-and-l nterference:

Notice of appeal 1401 1 500 500

Post -Allowance-and -Post -Issu ance:

Extension-of-Time:
Sub-Total in
Description Fee Code Quantity Amount
USD($)

Extension - 1 month with $0 paid 1251 1 120 120

Miscellaneous:

Total in USD ($) 620


Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt

EFSID: 1754046

Application Number: 09843923

International Application Number:

Confirmation Number: 9916

Title of Invention: Systems and methods for enticing users to access a web site

First Named Inventor/Applicant Name: Sergey Brin

Customer Number: 44989

Filer: Paul Harrity/Julia Cummings

Filer Authorized By: Paul Harrity

Attorney Docket Number: 0026-0002

Receipt Date: 08-MAY-2007

Filing Date: 30-APR-2001

Time Stamp: 16:11:38

Application Type: Utility

Payment information:
Submitted with Payment yes

Payment was successfully received in RAM $620


RAM confirmation Number 442

Deposit Account

File Listing:
Document
Document Description File Name File Size(Bytes)
Number
0026-0002_NoticeofAppeal.p
1 Notice of Appeal Filed 73292 no 1
df

Warnings:
Information:

0026-0002 ExtensionofTime
2 Extension of Time 73512 no 2
.pdf

Warnings:
Information:

3 Fee Worksheet (PTO-06) fee-info.pdf 8306 no 2

Warnings:
Information:
Total Files Size (in bytes): 155110

This Acknowledgement Receipt evidences receipt on the noted date by the USPTO of the indicated documents,
characterized by the applicant, and including page counts, where applicable. It serves as evidence of receipt
similar to a Post Card, as described in MPEP 503.

New Applications Under 35 U.S.C. 111


If a new application is being filed and the application includes the necessary components for a filing date (see
37 CFR 1.53(b)-(d) and MPEP 506), a Filing Receipt (37 CFR 1.54) will be issued in due course and the date
shown on this Acknowledgement Receipt will establish the filing date of the application.

National Stage of an International Application under 35 U.S.C. 371


If a timely submission to enter the national stage of an international application is compliant with the conditions
of 35 U.S.C. 371 and other applicable requirements a Form PCT/DO/EO/903 indicating acceptance of the
application as a national stage submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 will be issued in addition to the Filing Receipt,
in due course.

New International Application Filed with the USPTO as a Receiving Office


If a new international application is being filed and the international application includes the necessary
components for an international filing date (see PCT Article 11 and MPEP 1810), a Notification of the
International Application Number and of the International Filing Date (Form PCT/RO/105) will be issued in due
course, subject to prescriptions concerning national security, and the date shown on this Acknowledgement
Receipt will establish the international filing date of the application.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Add=s: 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.

09/843,923 04130/2001 Sergey Brin 0026·0002 9916

44989 7590 0210712007


EXAMINER
HARRITY SNYDER, LLP
11350 Random Hills Road AILES, BENJAMIN A
SUITE 600
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
FAIRFAX, VA 22030
2142

SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD OF RESPONSE MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE

3 MONTHS 02/07/2007 PAPER

Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.

If NO period for reply is specified above, the' maximum statutory period will apply and will expire 6 MONTHS
from the mailing date of this communication.

PTOL·90A (Rev. 10/06) I


Application No. Applicant(s)

09/843,923 BRIN, SERGEY


Office Action Summary Examiner Art Unit
Benjamin A. Ailes 2142
.- 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 ~ MONTH(S) OR THIRTY (30) DAYS,
WHICHEVER IS LONGER, FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
- Extensions of time mey be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, maya reply be timely filed
after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
If NO period for reply is 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 timely filed, may reduce any
earned patentterm adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).

Status
1)121 Responsive to communication(s) filed on 22 November 2006.
2a)0· This action is FINAL. 2b)12I This action is non-final.
3)0 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 C.D. 11,453 O.G. 213.

Disposition of Claims
4)121 Claim(s) 18-41 is/are pending in the application.
4a) Of the above claim(s) _ _ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
5)0 Claim(s) _ _ is/are allowed.
6)121 Claim(s) 18-41 is/are rejected.
7)0 Claim(s) _ _ is/are objected to.
8)0 Claim(s) _ _ are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.

Application Papers
9)0 The specification is objected to by the Examiner,
10)0 The drawing(s) filed on _ _ is/are: a)O accepted or b)O objected to by the Examiner,
Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s)be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
11)0 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)0 Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (t).
a)O All b)O Some * c)O None of:
1.0 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
2.0 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No. _ _.
3.0 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».
* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.

Attachment(s)
1) 121 Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) 4) 0 Interview Summary (PT0-413)
2) 0 Notice of Draftsperson's Patent Drawing Review (PTO-948) Paper No(s)/Mail Date. _ _ .
3) 0 Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08) 5) 0 Notice of Informal Patent Application
Paper No(s)/Mail Date _ _. 6) 0 Other: _ _'

U.s. Patent and Trademar1< Office


PTOL-326 (Rev. 08-06) Office Action Summary Part of Paper No.lMail Date 20070202
'-

Application/Control Number: 09/843,923 Page"2


Art Unit: 2142

DETAILED ACTION

1. This action is in response to correspondence filed 22 November 2006. New

ground(s) of rejection have been set forth and therefore this rejection is NON-FINAL.

2. Claims 18-41 remain pending.

Response to Arguments

3. Applicant's arguments filed 22 November 2006 have been fully considered but

they are not persuasive.

Claim 18

4. Applicant argues that neither Wolff nor Yahoo taken alone or in any reasonable

combination discloses or suggests the combination of features in claim 18 and that

Wolff and Yahoo do not disclose or suggest associating one or more search terms with

the special event logo, the one or more search terms relating to the special event. The

examiner respectfully disagrees in view of the reasons set forth in the rejection below

and in response to arguments presented by applicant outlined below. Applicant argues

on page 10 of the REMARKS that "nowhere does Wolff disclose or suggest a special

event logo (created by modifying a standard company logo for a special event) and,

therefore, cannot disclose or suggest associated one or more search terms with the

special event logo, the one or more search terms relating to the special event, as

required by claim 18." Taking broadest reasonable interpretation of what is claimed, it is

best understood in the broadest sense that the "standard company logo" and the

"special event logo" in the field of the invention are images that are displayed on a web

page that are viewable by a user using a web browser program. The image can have a
r ! ..

Application/~ontrol Number: 09/843,923 Page 3


Art Unit: 2142

search term associated with it and the image can be "c1ickable" wherein when a user

"clicks" on the image a search is invoked utilizing the search term. In view of the

rejection, Wolff is relied upon for teaching this in the art wherein Wolff teaches the

displaying of an image to a user (fig. 2, part 102, banner icon), the association of a

search term associated with the icon and based on what the icon represents through

imaging (col. 8, II. 43-46, unique indicia) and the invocation of a search related to the

search term (col. 8, line 65 - col. 9, line 7, invoking a search based on a selection of the

icon by a user utilizing the unique indicia). Wolff is not relied upon for teaching in the art

the image being a company logo that is altered to become a special event logo. The

image being a company logo is deemed an obvious variation in the art. It is deemed

well known in the art that company logos can be displayed as images on web pages (for

example, Yahoo!). It is also deemed well known in the art that a company would want

to alter their own logo to commemorate a special event (for example, Yahoo! altering

their logo to commemorate the Christmas holiday season on December 23, 1996).

Applicant argued further on page 11 of REMARKS that Yahoo! does not disclose or

remotely suggest "associating one or more search terms with the special event logo

where the one or more search terms relate to the special ev~nt. Examiner did not· rely

on Yahoo! for teaching this aspect of applicant's invention. Yahoo! is merely relied

upon for teaching the display of a special event company logo being displayed on a web

page and viewable by a user using a web browser program. Wolff is relied upon for the

use of a search term that is associated with an image that can be displayed on a web

page as outline above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in
Application/Control Number: 09/843,923 Page 4
Art Unit: 2142

view of the combination that the search term would always relate to what is being

displayed by the image to the user because it would not make reasonable sense to one

of ordinary skill for the search term to be totally unrelated to what the image represents

and therefore the obvious variant of imaging use wherein the image could be a special

event company logo as taught by Yahoo! the search term associated with the special

event company logo would be related to the topic of what the special event company

logo image is portraying to a user through graphical means. Examiner maintains that

one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Wolff,

particularly the ability to display images to users that are clickable, and Yahoo!,

particularly teaching the use of altered images which may commemorate a special

event because the use of different types of images is deemed an obvious variation. In

view of Wolff the use of different images is clearly taught as a motivation in the prior art

wherein one of ordinary skill in the art may find it useful to use different image types for

seasonal use (col. 2, II. 27-28). For at least these reasons, claim 18 as written is not

deemed patentable over the prior art of record.

Claim 20

5. Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 20 have been consi.dered but are

moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.

Claim 26

6. Applicant argues with respect to claim 26 that Wolff and Yahoo! do not disclose

or suggest "instructions for associating a link or search results with a special event logo

created by modifying a standard company logo for a special event, the link identifying a
Application/Control Numbet: 09/843,923 Page 5
Art Unit: 2142

document relating to the special event, and the search results relating to the special

event." The examiner respectfully disagrees. Based on what is reql:Jired by the claim,

only "a link" or "search results" in the prior art would meet the scope of the claim. Wolff

teaches the association of a search term associated with the icon and based on what
the icon represents through imaging (col. 8, II. 43-46, unique indicia) and the invocation

of a search related to the search term (col. 8, line 65 - col. 9, line 7, invoking a search

based on a selection of the icon by a user utilizing the unique indicia) and returning the

results to the requesting user (Wolff, column 9, lines 9-13). It would have been obvious

to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the combination that the search term would

always relate to what is being displayed by the image to the user because it would not

make reasonable sense to one of ordinary skill for the search term to be totally

unrelated to what the image represents and therefore the obvious variant of imaging

use wherein the image could be a special event company logo as taught by Yahoo! the

search term associated with the special event company logo would be related to the

topic of what the special event company logo image is portraying to a user through

graphical means. For at least these reasons, claim 26 as written is not deemed

patentable over the prior art of record.

Claim 27

7. With respect to claim 27, applicant argues that claim 27 is patentable over Wolff

and Yahoo!, for similar reasons with regard to claim 18. Further, applicant argues that

Wolff and Yahoo! do not disclose or suggest a processor configured to determine a

home page for a web page on a network or identify a standard company logo on the
Application/Control Number: 09/843,923 Page 6
Art Unit: 2142

home page. Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant in view of what is taught

by Wolff and Yahoo!. Wolff teaches the use of computer processors for example in

figure 1, item 14 and Yahoo! teaches the inherent use of a computer processor by way

of having an image uploaded to a web site wherein the uploading of an image would not

be possible in any way without the use of a computer processor. Yahoo! clearly

teaches the uploading of an image to a web page in this case the uploading has been

done to the home page as indicated (www.yahoo.com) and the altered image is actually

being displayed where the standard company logo is customarily presented. By way of

actually uploading the image to the home page by Yahoo! then it is taught by Yahoo!

the functionality of home page determination. Therefore claim 27 is not deemed

patentable over the prior art of record.

Claim 28

8. With respect to claim 28, applicant argues that claim 28 is patentable over Wolff

and Yahoo!, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, for at least reasons

similar to reasons given with regard to claim 18. Examiner respectfully disagrees for the

same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 18.

Claim 37

9. With respect to claim 37, applicant argues that claim 37 is patentable over Wolff

-and Yahoo!, for similar reasons given with regard to claim 18. Examiner respectfully

disagrees for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 18. Applicant

arguE;!s further that Wolff and Yahoo! do not disclose or suggest invoking a search for

web pages relating to the special event in response to a received selection of a special
Application/Control Number: 09/843,923 Page 7
Art Unit: 2142

event logo. Examiner respectfully disagrees. It would have been obvious to one of

ordinary skill in the art in view of the combination that the search term would always

relate to what is being displayed by the image to the user because it would not make

reasonable sense to one of ordinary skill for the search term to be totally unrelated to

what the image represents and therefore the obvious variant of imaging use wherein the

image could be a special event company logo as taught by Yahoo! the search term

associated with the special event company logo would be related to the topic of what

the special event company logo image is portraying to a user through graphical means.

Wolff teaches in column 9, lines 3-13 the searching of on-line producUservice databases

and returning the results to the user. It is deemed that the online content being sought

after by Wolff falls within the scope of the web pages being claimed and therefore the

search and retrieval system taught by Wolff meets the scope of the claim. Therefore

claim 37 is not deemed patentable over the prior art of record.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103

10. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 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 skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.

11. Claims 18, 19, 21-28, 29, 31-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being

unpatentable over Wolff (US 6,247,047 81) in view of Yahoo! (Yahoo!,

http://www.archive.org!web/19961223150621 /http://www8.yahoo.coml).
Application/Control Number: 09/843,923 Page 8
Art Unit: 2142

12. Regarding claim 18, Wolff teaches a method for enticing users to access a web

page comprising the use of a graphical icon image (i.e. an advertisement banner)

wherein the icon image is uploaded for display to a user on a web page. A .keyword

(search term) (indicia) is associated with the icon image wherein when the user selects

the icon image a search is invoked to search an online database and then the search

results are presented to the user on a web page (see Wolff, column 8, line 56 - column

9, line 15). Wolff does not explicitly teach that the graphical icon image is a standard

company logo that can be modified to become a special event logo. However, in related

art, Yahoo! teaches wherein a company logo can be modified to commemorate a

special event (see Yahoo!). Wolff provides an environment wherein different icon

images can be displayed to a user on a web page and therefore it is deemed an


obvious variation to present to a user an altered image. Yahoo! demonstrates this

functionality wherein Yahoo! has altered their own company logo to celebrate the

Christmas season. Wolff teaches that is known in the prior art to use different types of

images for seasonal and one time use (column 2, II. 27-28). It would have been obvious.

to one of ordinary skill in the art to enable the teachings of Wolff wherein the ability to

display c1ickable images to a user on a web page in combination with the functionalities

of Yahoo! wherein it is taught that one of ordinary skill can alter an image and upload it

for display to a user on a web page. Further, it would have been obvious to associate

the "search term" to relate to the graphical icon image as taught by Wolff because the

keyword associated with the icon image is supposed to directly identify the product or

service being represented by use of the icon image and when a use interacts (clicks) on
Application/Control Number: 09/843,923 Page 9
Art Unit: 2142

the icon image (see Wolff, col. 8, II. 43-49), it is deemed obvious that search results

should be directly related to whatever the icon represents instead of erroneous data.

One of ordinary skill would not find it desirable to provide search results that are totally

unrelated to what is being displayed by the icon image. Therefore, in view of Yahoo!, if

an image is altered in some sort of way, the keyword associated with the image should

be changed accordingly so that the keyword corresponds to the image in some sort of

way. One or ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant's invention would have

found it obvious to combine the teachings of Yahoo! with what is taught by Wolff as

outlined above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such

a combination due to being from the same field of endeavor (client-server network

systems) and for the reasons stated above, particularly teaching the use of displaying

images to user-that are deemed clickable by Wolff and Yahoo! for teaching the use of

altered images which may commemorate a special event and the use of different

images to be displayed to a user is deemed an obvious variation in the art. In view of

Wolff, the use of different images is clearly taught as a motivation in the prior art

wherein one of ordinary skill in the art may find it useful to use different image types for

seasonal use (col. 2, II. 27-28).

. 13. Regarding claim 19, Wolff and Yahoo! teach the method wherein the modifying a

standard company logo includes creating the special event logo by modifying the

standard company logo with one or more animated images (Yahoo!).

14. Regarding claims 21, Wolff and Yahoo! teach the method wherein the special

event includes a holiday (Yahoo!).


Application/Control Number: 09/843,923 Page 10
Art Unit: 2142

15. Regarding claim 22', Wolff and Yahoo! teach the processor further configured to:

associating one or more search terms relating to the special event with the

special event logo (Wolff, col. 8, II. 42-46, it is deemed obvious that search results

should be directly related to whatever the icon represents instead of erroneous data.

One of ordinary skill would not find it desirable to provide search results that are totally

unrelated to what is being displayed by the icon image. Therefore, in view of Yahoo!, if

an image is altered in some sort of way, the keyword associated with the image should

be changed accordingly so that the keyword corresponds to the image in some sort of

way.); and

wherein invoking a search includes:

performing the search based on the one·or more search terms (Wolff, col. 8, II.

43-47).

16.

17. Regarding claim 23, Wolff and Yahoo! teach the method wherein the uploading

the special event includes displaying the special event logo on the web page during the

special event (Yahoo! displayed the altered logo during the holiday season.).

18. Regarding claim 24, Wolff and Yahoo! teach the method wherein the invoking a

search includes:

generating a search query using the one or more search terms (Wolff, col. 9, II.

3-13);

using the search query to search at least one of a network, an index, or a

directory (Wolff, col. 9, II. 3-13); and


Application/Control Number: 09/843,923 Page 11
Art Unit: 2142

obtaining search results based on the search (Wolff, col. 9, II. 9-13).

19. Regarding claim 25, Wolff and Yahoo! teach the method wherein the modifying a

standard company logo includes:

determining a home page for the web page on a network (Yahoo!,

http://www.yahoo.com);

identifying the standard company logo on the home page (Yahoo!, standard

Yahoo! logo); and

modifying the standard company logo with special event information to create the

special event logo (Yahoo!, the addition of the reindeer to the standard logo creates a

modified logo).

20. Regarding claim 26, Wolff teaches a method for enticing users to access a web

page comprising the use of a graphical icon image (i.e. an advertisement banner)

wherein the icon image is uploaded for oisplay to a user on a web page. A keyword

(search term) (indicia) is associated with the icon image wherein when the user selects

the icon image a search is invoked to search an online database and then the search

results are presented to the user on a web page (see Wolff, column 8, line 56 - column

9, line 15). The search results are then returned to the user in the form of a web page,

(col. 9, II. 9-13). Wolff does not explicitly teach that the graphical icon image is a

standard company logo that can be modified to become a special event logo. However,

in related art, Yahoo! teaches wherein a company logo can be modified to

commemorate a special event (see Yahoo!). Wolff provides an environment wherein

different icon images can be displayed to a use~ on a web page and therefore it is
Application/Control Number: 09/843,923 Page 12
Art Unit: 2142

deemed an obvious variatio~ to present to a user an altered image. Yahoo!

demonstrates this functionality wherein Yahoo! has altered their own company logo to

celebrate the Christmas season. Wolff teaches that is known in the prior art to use

different types of images for seasonal and one time use (column 2, II. 27-28). It would

have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to enable the teachings of Wolff

wherein the ability to display c1ickable images to a user on a web page in combination

with the functionalities of Yahoo! wherein it is taught that one of ordinary skill can alter

an image and upload it for display to a user on a web page. Further, it would have been

obvious to associate the "search term" to relate to the graphical icon image as taught by-

Wolff because the keyword associated with the icon image is supposed to directly

identify the product or service being represented by use of the icon image and when a

use interacts (clicks) on the icon image (see Wolff, col. 8, II. 43-49), it is deemed

obvious that search results should be directly related to whatever the icon represents

instead of erroneous data. One of ordinary skill would not find it desirable to provide

search results that are totally unrelated to what is being displayed by the icon image. '

Therefore, in view of Yahoo!, if an image is altered in some sort of way, the keyword

associated with the image should be changed accordingly so that the keyword

corresponds to the image in some sort of way. One or ordinary skill in the art at the time

of the applicant's invention would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of

Yahoo! with what is taught by Wolff as outlined above. One of ordinary skill in the art
,

would have been motivated to make such a combination due t6 being from the same

field of endeavor (client-server network systems) and for the reasons stated above,
Application/Control Number: 09/843,923 Page 13
Art Unit: 2142

particularly teaching the use of displaying images to user that are deemed clickable by

Wolff and Yahoo! for teaching the use of altered images which.may commemorate a

special event and the use of different images to be displayed to a user is deemed an

obvious variation in the art. In view of Wolff, the use of different images is clearly taught

as a motivation in the prior art wherein one of ordinary skill in the art may find it useful to

use different image types for seasonal use (col. 2, II. 27-28).

21. Regarding claim 27, Wolff teaches a method for enticing users to access a web.

page comprising the use of a graphical icon image (i .e. an advertisement banner)

wherein the icon image is uploaded for display to a user on a web page. A keyword

(search term) (indicia) is associated with the icon image wherein when the user selects

the icon image a search is invoked to search an online database and then the search

results are presented to the user on a web page (see Wolff, column 8, line 56 - column

9, line 15). Wolff does not explicitly teach that the graphical icon image is a standard

company logo that can be modified to become a special event logo. However, in related

art, Yahoo! teaches wherein a company logo can be modified to commemorate a

special event (see Yahoo!). Wolff provides an environment wherein different icon

images can be displayed to a user on a web page and therefore it is deemed an

obvious variation to present to a user an altered image. Yahoo! demonstrates this

functionality wherein Yahoo! has altered their own company logo to celebrate the

Christmas season. Wolff teaches that is known in the prior art to use different types of

images for seasonal and one time use (column 2, II. 27-28). It would have been obvious

to one of ordinary skill in the art to enable the teachings of Wolff wherein the ability to
Application/Control Number: 09/843,923 Page 14
Art Unit: 2142

display c1ickable images to a user on a web page in combination with the functionalities

of Yahoo! wherein it is taught that one of ordinary skill can alter an image and upload it

for display to a user on a web page. Further, it would have been obvious to associate

the "search term" -to relate to the graphical icon image as taught by Wolff because the

keyword associated with the icon image is supposed to directly identify the product or

service being represented by use of the icon image and when a use interacts (clicks) on

the icon image (see Wolff, col. 8, II. 43-49), it is deemed obvious that search results

should be directly related to whatever the icon represents instead of erroneous data.

One of ordinary skill would not find it desirable to provide search results that are totally.

unrelated to what is being displayed by the icon image. Therefore, in view of Yahoo!, if

an image is altered in some sort of way, the keyword associated with the image should

be changed accordingly so that the keyword corresponds to the image in some sort of

way. Yahoo! clearly teaches the uploading of an image to a web page in this case the

uploading has been done to the home page as indicated (www.yahoo.com) and the

altered image is actually being displayed where the standard company logo is

customarily presented. By way of actually uploading the image to the home page by

Yahoo! then it is taught by Yahoo! the functionality of home page determination. One or

ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant's invention would have found it

obvious to combine the teachings of Yahoo! with what is taught by Wolff as outlined

above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a

combination due to being from the same field of endeavor (client-server network

systems) and for the reasons stated above, particularly teaching the use of displaying
Application/Control Number: 09/843,923 Page 15
Art Unit: 2142

images to user that are deemed clickable by Wolff and Yahoo! for teaching the use of

altered images which may commemorate a special event and the use of different

images to be displayed to a user is deemed an obvious variation in the art. In view of

Wolff, the use of different images is clearly taught as a motivation in the prior art

wherein one of ordinary skill in the art may find it useful to use different image types for

seasonal use (co/. 2, I/. 27-28).

22. Regarding claim 28, Wolff teaches a method for enticing users to access a web

page comprising the use of a graphical icon image (i.e. an advertisement banner)

wherein the icon image is uploaded for display to a user on a web page. A keyword

(search term) (indicia) is associated with the icon image wherein when the user selects

the icon image a search is invoked to search an online database and then the search

results are presented to the user on a web page (see Wolff, column 8, line 56 - column

9, line 15). Wolff does not explicitly teach that the graphical icon image is a standard

company logo that can be lTiodified to become a special event logo. However, in related

art, Yahoo! teaches wherein a company logo can be modified to commemorate a

special event (see Yahoo!). Wolff provides an environment wherein different icon

images can be displayed to a user on a web page and therefore it is deemed an

obvious variation to present to a user an altered image. Yahoo! demonstrates this

functionality wherein Yahoo! has altered their own company logo to celebrate the

Christmas season. Wolff teaches that is known in the prior art to use different types of

images for seasonal and one time use (column 2, I/. 27-28). It would have been obvious

to one of ordinary skill in the art to enable the teachings of Wolff wherein the ability to
Application/Control Number: 09/843,923 Page 16
Art Unit: 2142

display c1ickable images to a user on a web page in combination with the functionalities

of Yahoo! wherein it is taught that one of ordinary skill can alter an image and upload it

for display to a user on a web page. Further, it would have been obvious to associate

the "search term" to relate to the graphical icon image as taught by Wolff because the

keyword associated with the icon image is supposed to directly identify the product or

service being represented by use of the icon image anq when a use interacts (clicks) on

the icon image (see Wolff, col. 8, II. 43-49), it is deemed obvious that search results

should be directly related to whatever the icon represents instead of erroneous data.

One of ordinary skill would not find it desirable to provide search results that are totally

unrelated to what is being displayed by the icon image. Therefore, in view of Yahoo!, if

an image is altered in some sort of way,· the keyword associated with the image should

be changed accordingly so that the keyword corresponds to the image in some sort of

way. One or ordinary skill in the a.rt at the time of the applicant's invention would have

found it obvious to combine the teachings of Yahoo! with what is taught by Wolff as

outlined above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such

a combination due to being from the same field of endeavor (client-server network

systems) and for the reasons stated above, particularly teaching the use of displaying

images to user that are deemed c1ickable by Wolff and Yahoo! for teaching the use of

altered images which may commemorate a special event and the use of different

images to be displayed to a user is deemed an obvious variation in the art. In view of

Wolff, the use of different images is clearly taught as a motivation in the prior art
Application/Control Number: 09/843,923 Page 17
Art Unit: 2142

wherein one of ordinary skill in the art may find it useful to use different image types for

seasonal use (col. 2, 11.27-28).

23. Regarding claim 29, Wolff and Yahoo! teach the method wherein the modifying a

standard company logo includes creating the special event logo by modifying the

standard company logo with one or more animated images (Yahoo!).

24. Regarding claim 31, Wolff and Yahoo! teach the medium includes instructions for

modifying the standard company logo with information associated with a holiday

(Yahoo!).

25. Regarding claim 32, WOlf! and Yahoo! teach the processor further configured to:

associate one or more search terms relating to the special event with the special

event logo (Wolff, col. 8, II. 42-46, it is deemed obvious that search results should be

directly related to whatever the icon represents instead of erroneous data. One of

ordinary skill would not find it desirable to provide search results that are totally

unrelated to what is being displayed by the icon image. Therefore, in view of Yahoo!, if

an image is altered in some sort of way, the keyword associated with the image should

be changed accordingly so that the keyword corresponds to the image in some sort of

way.).

26. Regarding claim 33, Wolff and Yahoo! teach wherein the processor is further

configured to:

detect a selection associated with the special event logo (Wolff, col. 9, II. 3-13);

generate a search query based on the one or more search terms (Wolff, col. 9, II.

3-13);
Application/Control Number: 09/843,923 Page 18
Art Unit: 2142

perform a search based on the search query (Wolff, col. 9, II. 3-13); and

provide a result of the search (Wolff, col. 9, II. 3-13).

27. Regarding claim 34, Wolff and Yahoo! teach the method wherein uploading the

special event logo includes replacing the standard company logo with the special event

logo on the web page (Yahoo!, page is from 12/23/1996).

28. Regarding claim 35, Wolff and Yahoo! teach the medium wherein the instructions

for uploading the special event logo include:

instructions for replacing the standard company logo with the special event logo

on the web page (Yahoo!, page is from 12/23/1996).

29. Regarding claim 36, Wolff and Yahoo! teach the method further comprising:

replacing the standard company logo with the" special event logo (Yahoo!, page is

from 12/23/1996).

30. Regarding claim 37, Wolff teaches a method for enticing users to access a web

page comprising the use of a graphical icon image (i.e. an advertisement banner)

wherein the icon image is uploaded for display to a user on a web page. A keyword

(search term) (indicia) is associated with the icon image wherein when the user selects

the icon image a search is invoked to search an online database and then the search

results are presented to the user on a web page (see Wolff, column 8, line 56 - column

9, line 15). Wolff does not explicitly teach that the graphical icon image is a standard

company logo that can be modified to become a special event logo. However, in related

art, Yahoo! teaches wherein a company logo can be modified to commemorate a

special event (see Yahoo!). Wolff provides an environment wherein different icon
Application/Control Number: 09/843,923 Page 19
Art Unit: 2142

images can be displayed to a user on a web page and therefore it is deemed an

obvious variation to present to a user an altered image. Yahoo! demonstrates this

functionality wherein Yahoo! has altered their own company logo to celebrate the

Christmas season. Wolff teaches that is known in the prior art to use different types of

images for seasonal and one time use (column 2, II. 27-28). It would have been obvious

to one of ordinary skill in the art to enable the'teachings of Wolff wherein the ability to

display c1ickable images to a user on a web page in combination with the functionalities

of Yahoo! wherein it is taught that one of ordinary skill can alter an image and upload it

for display to a user on a web page. Further, it would have been obvious to associate

the "search term" to relate to the graphical icon image as taught by Wolff because the

keyword associated with the icon image is supposed to directly identify the product or

service being represented by use of the icon image and when a use interacts (clicks) on

the icon image (see Wolff, col. 8, II. 43-49), it is deemed obvious that search results

should be directly related to whatever the icon represents instead of erroneous data.

One of ordinary skill would not find it desirable to provide search results that are totally

unrelated to what is being displayed by the icon image. Therefore, in view of Yahoo!, if

an image is altered in some sort of way, the keyword associated with the image should

be changed accordingly so that the keyword corresponds to the image in some sort of

way. One or ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant's invention would have

found it obvious to combine the teachings of Yahoo! with what is taught by Wolff as

outlined above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such

a combination due to being from the same field of endeavor (client-server network
Application/Control Number: 09/843,923 Page 20
Art Unit: 2142

systems) and for the reasons stated above, particularly teaching the use of displaying

images to user that are deemed clickable by Wolff and Yahoo! for teaching the use of

altered images which may commemorate a special event and the use of different

images to be displayed to a user is deemed an obvious variation in the art. In view of

Wolff, the use of different images is clearly taught as a motivation in the prior art

wherein one of ordinary skill in the art may find it useful to use different image types for

seasonal use (col. 2, II. 27-28).

31. Regarding claim 38, Wolff and Yahoo! teach the method wherein one or more

search terms are associated with the special event logo (Wolff, col. 8, II. 42-46, it is

deemed obvious tha~ search results should be directly related to whatever the icon

represents instead of erroneous data. One of ordinary skill would not find it desirable to

provide search results that are totally unrelated to what is being displayed by the icon

image. Therefore, in view of Yahoo!, if an image is altered in some sort of way,the

keyword associated with the image should be changed accordingly so that the keyword

corresponds to the image in some sort of way.); and

wherein the invoking a search relating to the special event includes:

causing a search -to be performed based on the one or more search terms (Wolff,

col. 9, 11.3-13).

32. Regarding claim 39, Wolff and Yahoo! teach the method wherein the presenting

a special event logo includes:

displaying the special event logo on the web page during the special event

(Yahoo! image was displayed over the holiday season).


Application/Control Number: 09/843,923 Page 21
Art Unit: 2142

33. Regarding claim 40, Wolff and Yahoo! teach the method wherein invoking a

search includes:

invoking a search of the Internet (col. 9, II. 3-7).

34. Regarding claim 41, Wolff and Yahoo! teach the method wherein invoking a

search includes:

invoking a search for web pages relating to the special event (Wolff, col. 9, II. 3-7,

a search is invoked of online content.).

35. Claims 20 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable

over Wolff, Yahoo! and what was well known at the time of the applicant's invention.

36. Regarding claim 20, official notice is taken that the use of video or audio data to

be displayed to a user on a web page was old and well known in the art. It would have

been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant's invention to

include video or audio data in the special event logo because one of ordinary skill would

have recognized the advancement of using different types of media to catch the interest

of the user viewing a page.

37. Regarding claim 30, official notice is taken that the use of video or audio data to

be displayed to a user on a web page was old and well known in the art. It would have

been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant's invention to

include video or audio data in the special event logo because one of ordinary skill would

have recognized the advancement of using different types of media to catch the interest

of the user viewing a page.


Application/Control Number: 09/843,923 Page 22
Art Unit: 2142

Conclusion

38. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to

applicant's disclosure.

Lawrence et al. (US 6,999,959 B1) teach a meta search engine.

Miloslavsky et al. (US 6,879,586 B2) teach internet' protocol call-in centers and

establishing remote agents.

Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the

examiner should be directed to Benjamin A. Ailes whose telephone number is (571 )272- .

3899. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 6:30-4, IFP Work Schedule.

If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's

supervisor, Andrew Caldwell can be reached on (571 )272-3868. 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 may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.

Status information for unpublished applications is -available through Private PAIR only.

For more information about 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 (EBC) 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.

baa
Application/Control No. Applicant(s)/Patent Under
Reexamination
09/843,923 BRIN, SERGEY
Notice of References Cited
Examiner Art Unit
Page 1 of 1
Benjamin A. Ailes 2142

U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS


Document Number Date
* Country Code-Number-Kind Code MM-YYYY Name Classification

* A US-6,879,586 B2 04-2005 Miloslavskyet al. 370/356

* B US-6,999,959 B1 02-2006 Lawrence et al. 707/5

C US-

D US-

E US-

F US-

G US-

H US-

I US-

J US-

K US-

L US-

M US-

FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS


Document Number Date
* Country Code-Number-Kind Code MM-YVYY Country Name Classification

0
P

S
T
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 acllon. (See MPEP § 707.05(a).)
Dales in MM-YVYV format are pUblication dates. Classifications may be US or foreign.
u.s. Patent and Tmdemark Office
PTO-892 (Rev. 01-2001) Notice of References Cited Part of Paper No. 20070202
Application/Control No. Applicant(s)/Patent under
Search Notes Reexamination
09/843,923 BRIN, SERGEY

I 1/11111/ IIIII1 I Examiner

Beniamin A. Ailes
Art Unit

2142

SEARCH NOTES
SEARCHED
(INCLUDING SEARCH STRATEGY)

Class Subclass Date Examiner DATE EXMR

709 204,216 214/2007 BAA EAST - updated class/subclass,


inventor name and assignee search of 214/2007 BAA
USPAT and USPGPub
705 26 214/2007 BAA

345 473, 730 214/2007 BAA

345 738 214/2007 BAA

INTERFERENCE SEARCHED

Class Subclass Date Examiner

u.S. Patent and Trademark Office Part of Paper No. 20070202


Application/Control No. Applicant(s)/Patent under
Index of Claims Reexamination
09/843,923 BRIN, SERGEY
Examiner Art Unit
II 11/111 I III II Beniamin A. Ailes 2142

(Through numeral)
...f Rejected - Cancelled N
Non-Elected A Appeal

= Allowed + Restricted I Interference 0 Objected

Claim Date Claim Date Claim Date


lij lij
lij
lij
c .... lij c lij c
c '6> e c '6> c '6>
u::: (5 ~ u::: (5 u::: (5
1 51 101
2 52 102
3 53 103
4 54 104
5 55 105
6 56 106
7 57 107
8 58 108
9 59 109
10 60 110
11 61 111
12 62 112
13 63 113
14 64 114
15 65 115
16 66 116
..17 67 117
1\.18 ..J 68 118
1"§" 69 119
20 70 -120
21 71 121
22 72 122
23 73 123
24 74 124
25 75 125
~i\ 76 126
.~ 77 127
1i:2 78 128
29 79 129
30 80 130
31 81 131
32 82 132
33 83 133
34 84 134
35 85 135
36 86 136
1\Th 87 137
38 88 138
39 89 139
40 90 140

- 41
4;'!
43
44
91
92
93
94
141
142
143
144
45 95 145
46 96 146
47 97 147
48 98 148
49 99 149
50 100 150

U,S, Patent and Trademark Office Part of Paper No, 20070202


'p

. EAST Search History


Ref Hits 5earch Query DBs Default Plurals Time 5tamp
# Operator
563 0 345/730.cels. and U5-PGPUB OR ON 2007/02/02 14:53
(@ad< 1 20000501" or
@rlad< 1 20000501") and
@pd>"20060821" not 555 not 556
not 557 not 558 not 559 not 560
not 561 not 562
558 0 709/216.cels. and U5-PGPUB OR ON 2007/02/0214:53
(@ad< 1 20000501" or
@rlad< 1 20000501") and
@pd> 1 20060821" not 555 not 556
566 0 345/738.cels. and U5-PGPUB OR ON 2007/02/02 14:54
(@ad< 1 20000501" or
@rlad< 1 20000s01") and
@pd>"20060821" not 555 not 556
not 557 not 558 not 559 not 560
not 561 not 562
565 0 345/738.cels. and U5PAT OR ON 2007/02/02 14:54
(@ad<"20000s01" or
@rlad< 1 20000501") and
@pd> 1 20060821" not 555 not 556
not 557 not 558 not 5s9 not 560
not 561 not 562
564 0 345/730.cels. and U5PAT OR ON 2007/02/02 14:54
(@ad<120000501" or
@rlad<120000s01") and
@pd> 1 20060821" not 555 not 556
not 557 not 558 not 559 not 560
not 561 not 562
556 21 709/204.cels. and U5PAT OR ON 2007/02/0215:12
(@ad< 1 20000s01" or
@rlad< 1 20000501") and
@pd>"20060821"
555 3 709/204.cels. and U5-PGPUB OR ON 2007/02/02 15:12
(@ad<120000s01" or
@rlad<"20000s01") and
@pd> 1 200G0821"
559 45 705/2G.cels. and U5-PGPUB OR ON 2007/02/0215:13
(@ad< 1 20000501" or
@rlad< 1 20000s01") and
@pd>"20060821" not 555 not 5sG
not 557 not 558
557 1 709/21G.cels. and U5PAT OR ON 2007/02/02 15:13
(@ad<"20000501" or
@rlad< 1 20000s01") and
@pd>1200G0821" not 555 not 5sG

2/5/07 12:39:55 AM Page 1


C:\Documents and Settings\bailes\My Documents\EAST\Workspaces\09843923.wsp
·
.....

EAST Search History


560 81 705/26.ccI5. and U5PAT OR ON 2007/02/02 15:14
(@ad<120000501" or
@rlad<120000501") and
@pd>120060821" not 555 not 556
not 557 not 558
561 9 345/473.ccl5. and U5PAT OR ON 2007/02/0215:16
(@ad<120000501" or
@rlad<120000501") and
@pd>120060821" not 555 not 556
not 557 not 558 not 559 not 560
569 105 567 and (@ad<120000501" or . U5-PGPU8; OR ON 2007/02/02 15:18
@rlad<120000501") U5PAT
568 3 567 and (@ad<120000501" or . U5-PGPUB; OR ON 2007/02/02 15:18
@rlad<120000501") and U5PAT
@pd>120060821" not 555 not 556
not 557 not 558 not 559 not 560
567 288 clickable with image U5-PGPUB; OR ON 2007/02/0215:18
U5PAT
562 1 345/473.ccI5. and U5-PGPUB OR ON 2007/02/02 15:18
(@ad<120000501" or
@rlad<120000501") and
@pd>120060821" not 555 not 556
not 557 not 558 not 559 not 560

2/5/07 12:39:55 AM Page 2


C:\Documents and Settings\bailes\My Documents\EAST\Workspaces\99843923.wsp
PATENT
Docket No. 0026-0002

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

In re Patent Application of )
)
Sergey Brin ) Group Art Unit: 2142
)
Application No.: 09/843,923 ) Examiner: B. Ailes
)
Filed: April 30, 2001 )
)
For: SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR )
ENTICING USERS TO ACCESS A )
WEB SITE )

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office


Customer Service Window, Mail Stop Amendment
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314

AMENDMENT

In response to the non-final Office Action, dated August 23,2006, please amend the

above-identified application as follows:

Amendments to the Claims begin on page 2 of this paper.

Remarks begin on page 9 of this paper.


PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

Amendments to the Claims:

This listing of claims will replace all prior versions, and listings, of claims in the application:

Listing of Claims:

1-17. (canceled)

18. (previously presented) A method for enticing users to access a web page,

compnsmg:

modifying a standard company logo for a special event to create a special event logo;

associating one or more search terms with the special event logo, the one or more search

terms relating to the special event;

uploading the special event logo to the web page;

receiving a user selection of the special event logo; and

invoking a search relating to the special event based on the one or more search terms in

response to the user selection.

19. (original) The method of claim 18, wherein the modifying a standard company

logo includes:

creating the special event logo by modifying the standard company logo with one or

more animated images.

20. (previously presented) The method of claim 18, wherein the modifying a

standard company logo includes:

2
PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

creating the special event logo by modifying the standard company logo with at least one

of video or audio data.

21. (original) The method of claim 18, wherein the special event includes a holiday.

22. (previously presented) The method of claim 37, further comprising:

associating one or more search terms relating to the special event; and

wherein invoking a search includes:

performing the search based on the one or more search terms.

23. (original) The method of claim 18, wherein the uploading the special event logo

includes:

displaying the special event logo on the web page during the special event.

24. (previously presented) The method of claim 18, wherein the invoking a search

includes:

generating a search query using the one or more search terms,

using the search query to search at least one of a network, an index, or a directory, and

obtaining search results based on the search.

25. (original) The method of claim 18, wherein the modifying a standard company

logo includes:

3
PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

determining a home page for the web page on a network,

identifying the standard company logo on the home page, and

modifying the standard company logo with special event information to create the special

event logo.

26. (currently amended) A computer-readable medium that stores instructions

executable by one or more processors to perform a method for attracting users to a web page,

compnsmg:

instructions for creating a special event logo by modifying a standard company logo for a

special event;

instructions for associating at least one of a link or search results with the special event

logo, the link identifying a document relating to the special event, [[or]] the search results

relating to the special event;

instructions for uploading the special event logo to the web page;

instructions for receiving a user selection of the special event logo; and

instructions for providing the [[link]] document relating to the special event or the search

results associated "'lith relating to the special event [[logo]] based on the user selection.

27. (original) A server connected to a network, comprising:

a memory configured to store instructions; and

a processor configured to execute the instructions to:

determine a home page for a web page on the network,

4
PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

identify a standard company logo on the home page,

modify the standard company logo with special event information corresponding

to a special event to create a special event logo, and

replace the standard company logo with the special event logo during the special

event.

28. (previously presented) A method, comprising:

identifying a standard company logo associated with a web site;

modifying the standard company logo with at least one of image, video, or audio data

relating to a special event to create a special event logo;

associating one or more search terms relating to the special event with the special event

logo;

detecting a selection associated with the special event logo; and

invoking a search relating to the special event based on the one or more search terms in

response to the detected selection.

29. (previously presented) The computer-readable medium of claim 26, wherein the

instructions for creating a special event logo include:

instructions for modifying the standard company logo with one or more animated images.

30. (previously presented) The computer-readable medium of claim 26, wherein the

instructions for creating a special event logo include:

5
PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

instructions for modifying the standard company logo with at least one of video or audio

data.

31. (previously presented) The computer-readable medium of claim 26, wherein the

instructions for creating a special event logo include:

instructions for modifying the standard company logo with information associated with a

holiday.

32. (previously presented) The server of claim 27, wherein the processor is further

configured to:

associate one or more search terms relating to the special event with the special event

logo.

33. (previously presented) The server of claim 32, wherein the processor is further

configured to:

detect a selection associated with the special event logo,

generate a search query based on the one or more search terms,

perform a search based on the search query, and

provide a result of the search.

34. (previously presented) The method of claim 18, wherein uploading the special

event logo includes:

6
PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

replacing the standard company logo with the special event logo on the web page.

35. (previously presented) The computer-readable medium of claim 26, wherein the

instructions for uploading the special event logo include:

instructions for replacing the standard company logo with the special event logo on the

web page.

36. (previously presented) The method of claim 28, further comprising:

replacing the standard company logo with the special event logo.

37. (currently amended) A method, comprising:

presenting a special event logo on a web page, the special event logo being associated

with a standard company logo that has been modified or replaced for a special event;

receiving selection of the special event logo;

invoking a search for web pages relating to the special event in response to the received

selection; and

presenting results based on the invoked search.

38. (previously presented) The method of claim 37, wherein one or more search

terms are associated with the special event logo; and

wherein the invoking a search relating to the special event includes:

causing a search to be performed based on the one or more search terms.

7
PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

39. (previously presented) The method of claim 37, wherein the presenting a special

event logo includes:

displaying the special event logo on the web page during the special event.

40. (new) The method of claim 18, wherein invoking a search includes:

invoking a search of the Internet.

41. (new) The method of claim 28, wherein invoking a search includes:

invoking a search for web pages relating to the special event.

8
PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

REMARKS

In the non-final Office Action, the Examiner rejected claims 18-39 under 35 U.S.c. §

103(a) as unpatentable over Wolff (D.S. Patent No. 6,247,047) in view of Yahoo

(www.archive.org/web/19961223150621/http://www8.yahoo.com. dated December 23,1996).

By this Amendment, Applicant amends claims 26 and 37 to improve form and adds new

claims 40 and 41. Applicant respectfully traverses the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.c. §

103. Claims 18-41 are pending.

In paragraphs 5-15 of the Office Action, the Examiner rejected claims 18-39 as allegedly

unpatentable over Wolff in view of Yahoo. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.

Independent claim 18, for example, is directed to a method for enticing users to access a

web page. The method comprises modifying a standard company logo for a special event to

create a special event logo; associating one or more search terms with the special event logo, the

one or more search terms relating to the special event; uploading the special event logo to the

web page; receiving a user selection of the special event logo; and invoking a search relating to

the special event based on the one or more search terms in response to the user selection.

Neither Wolff nor Yahoo, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination,

discloses or suggests the combination of features recited in claim 18. For example, Wolff and

Yahoo do not disclose or suggest associating one or more search terms with the special event

logo, the one or more search terms relating to the special event.

The Examiner alleged that Wolff discloses this feature and cited column 8, line 56 -

column 9, line 15, of Wolff for support (Office Action, paragraph 6). Applicant respectfully

disagrees.

9
PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

At column 8, line 56 - column 9, line 15, Wolff discloses:

At step 202, a user uninterested in the advertised product or service may continue
browsing without selecting banner 102. However, if the user wants to make a transaction
or wants more information about the advertised product or service, the user selects banner
102 using an input device such as mouse 22 by clicking in geographic area 104. In
response, at step 204, user node 14 makes an TCP/IP request using the URL
(..www.bannerbuy.com..) embedded within banner 102 to contact host server 12 over
Internet 16.

At step 206, host server 12 generates a unique transaction identification number


("transaction ID"), and creates a new record in the transaction record database which can
be indexed by the transaction ID. This record will be used to store any input data entered
by the user for this transaction. At step 208, host server 12 receives the unique indicia
(e.g., "12345") embedded within banner 102 and uses the indicia to search the on-line
product/service database for a record containing information specific to the advertised
product or service. This record was previously defined by the merchant, at which time its
unique identification indicia was assigned. After finding and retrieving the record, at step
210, host server 12 dynamically generates a presentation/input form page 108 based at
least in part on data stored within the retrieved record, and sends page 108 over Internet
16 for display on display 18 of user node 14 at step 212. Page 108 is displayed by
opening a new browser or new window on user node 14.

In this section, Wolff discloses that if a user wants more information about the advertised

product or service, the user selects banner 102, which causes host server 12 to perform a search

based on unique indicia embedded within the banner to identify a record containing information

specific to the advertised product or service. In other words, Wolff discloses a banner relating to

an advertised product or service and in response to a user selecting the banner, presenting the

user with information relating to the advertised product or service. Nowhere does Wolff disclose

or suggest a special event logo (created by modifying a standard company logo for a special

event) and, therefore, cannot disclose or suggest associating one or more search terms with the

special event logo, the one or more search terms relating to the special event, as required by

claim 18.

The Examiner admitted that Wolff does not disclose a special event logo that is created

by modifying a standard company logo for a special event (Office Action, paragraph 6). The

10
PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

Examiner alleged, however, that Wolff discloses the use of a graphical icon, as an advertisement

banner, that can be quickly set up for seasonal and one-time use and cited column 2, lines 27-28,

of Wolff for support (Office Action, paragraph 6). Applicant respectfully submits that the

Examiner has misconstrued the disclosure of Wolff.

At column 2, lines 27-28, Wolff discloses "Also, the banner can be quickly set up for

seasonal or one-time use." In this section, Wolff is describing a feature of a prior art technique

for providing a static graphical banner that includes an image relating to the product or service

being advertised (col. 2, lines 14-35). The Examiner provided no motivation for combining this

prior art disclosure with the system of Wolff that the Examiner relied upon for allegedly

disclosing other features of Applicant's claims. Therefore, the Examiner has not established a

prima facie case of obviousness with regard to claim 1.

The Examiner relied upon Yahoo for allegedly disclosing a special event logo that is

created by modifying a standard company logo for a special event (Office Action, paragraph 6).

Yahoo does not disclose or remotely suggest, however, associating one or more search terms

with the special event logo, where the one or more search terms relate to the special event, as

required by claim 18.

The Examiner alleged that:

Therefore, since it is suggested by Wolff to provide a mechanism to easily set up and


utilize an icon for seasonal or one-time use, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to provide a logo as demonstrated by Yahoo to be a logo which is
deemed seasonal because the logo has been altered in order to celebrate a special event,
in this case Christmas.

(Office Action, paragraph 6). Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner's allegation lacks

merit. First, as explained above, Wolff disclosed that a banner can be set up for seasonal or one-

time use in connection with a prior art static graphical banner, not the banner disclosed by Wolff

11
PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

and relied upon by the Examiner. Further, Applicant submits that the only motivation to replace

the banner of Wolff with the Yahoo logo is found in Applicant's own disclosure, which, of

course, cannot be relied upon for establishing a prima facie case.

An important concept that should be noted is that in order to reach a proper determination

under 35 U.S.c. § 103, the Examiner must step backward in time and into the shoes of a

hypothetical "person of ordinary skill in the art" at a time when Applicant's invention was

unknown and just before it was made. With this concept in mind, it appears that the Examiner

believes that it is conceivable that, having the Wolff document which is drawn to a system for

facilitating computer network transactions via an advertising banner, one skilled in the art at the

time Applicant's invention was made, having no knowledge of Applicant's invention, would have

replaced the advertising banner in the Wolff document with the Yahoo logo from the Yahoo

document to come up with Applicant's claimed invention. Irrespective of the fact that these

documents are non-analogous (i.e., a system for facilitating computer network transactions and

the home page of a search engine), Applicant finds the Examiner's combination of documents

highly improbable.

The Examiner further alleged that:

it would have been obvious to associate the "search term" to relate the graphical icon as
taught by Wolff because the keyword associated with the icon is supposed to directly
identify the product or service being represented by use of the icon and when a use
interacts (clicks) on the icon (see Wolff, col. 8, 11. 43-49), it is deemed obvious that
search results should be directly related to whatever the icon represents instead of
erroneous data. Therefore, in view of Yahoo, if a logo is altered in some sort of way, the
keyword associated with the logo should be altered accordingly.

(Office Action, paragraph 6). Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner's conclusion is

based solely on Applicant's own disclosure, which, of course, cannot be relied upon for

establishing a prima facie case. The Examiner has provided no objective motivation for

12
PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

associating one or more search terms relating to a special event with the Yahoo Christmas logo.

The Examiner also alleged that:

One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination
due to being from the same field of endeavor (client-server network systems) and for the
reasons stated above, specifically the advantages of providing a banner which is attractive
to a user which would cause a user to want to click on the banner and the ability to
provide a banner which can be used one-time or seasonal.

(Office Action, paragraph 6). The Examiner's motivation of "providing a banner which is

attractive to a user which would cause a user to want to click on the banner" falls short of

establishing an objective reason why one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant's

invention would have been motivated to replace the banner in Wolff with the Yahoo Christmas

logo, or to associate one or more search terms relating to a special event with a special event

logo, as required by claim 18.

Because Wolff and Yahoo do not disclose or suggest associating one or more search

terms with the special event logo, the one or more search terms relating to the special event,

Wolff and Yahoo cannot disclose or suggest invoking a search relating to the special event based

on the one or more search terms in response to a user selection, as further recited in claim 18.

For at least these reasons, Applicant submits that claim 18 is patentable over Wolff and

Yahoo, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination. Claims 19-21,23-25, and 34

depend from claim 18 and are, therefore, patentable over Wolff and Yahoo for at least the

reasons given with regard to claim 18. Claims 19-21,23-25, and 34 are also patentable over

Wolff and Yahoo for reasons of their own.

For example, claim 20 recites creating the special event logo by modifying the standard

company logo with at least one of video or audio data. Neither Wolff nor Yahoo discloses or

suggests this combination of features.

13
PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

The Examiner alleged that both Wolff and Yahoo disclose the ability to modify a logo

with video and/or audio data and cited column 3, lines 39-43, of Wolff for support (Office

Action, paragraph 8). Applicant respectfully disagrees.

At column 3, lines 38-43, Wolff discloses:

Another advantage of the present invention is to provide a banner advertising transaction


enabling system which automatically sends messages to merchants in response to the
selection of the merchant's banner by a user, either bye-mail or facsimile. The message
may be a simple notification or a complete purchase order.

In this section, Wolff discloses that the banner advertising system automatically sends messages

to merchants in response to selection of the merchant's banner. Nowhere in this section, or

elsewhere, does Wolff disclose or suggest creating the special event logo by modifying the

standard company logo with at least one of video or audio data, as required by claim 20.

Yahoo discloses a Yahoo Christmas logo. Nowhere does Yahoo disclose or remotely

suggest that the Yahoo Christmas logo includes video and/or audio data, as required by claim 20.

For at least these additional reasons, Applicant submits that claim 20 is patentable over

Wolff and Yahoo.

Independent claim 26 is directed to a computer-readable medium that stores instructions

executable by one or more processors to perform a method for attracting users to a web page.

The computer-readable medium comprises instructions for creating a special event logo by

modifying a standard company logo for a special event; instructions for associating a link or

search results with the special event logo, the link identifying a document relating to the special

event, the search results relating to the special event; instructions for uploading the special event

logo to the web page; instructions for receiving a user selection of the special event logo; and

instructions for providing the document relating to the special event or the search results relating

14
PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

to the special event based on the user selection.

Neither Wolff nor Yahoo, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination,

discloses or suggests the combination of features recited in claim 26. For example, Wolff and

Yahoo do not disclose or suggest instructions for associating a link or search results with a

special event logo created by modifying a standard company logo for a special event, the link

identifying a document relating to the special event, and the search results relating to the special

event.

The Examiner did not specifically address this feature and, therefore, did not establish a

prima facie case of obviousness with regard to claim 26. Applicant respectfully submits that

neither Wolff nor Yahoo discloses or suggests this feature for at least reasons similar to reasons

given with regard to claim 18.

Because Wolff and Yahoo do not disclose or suggest instructions for associating a link or

search results with a special event logo created by modifying a standard company logo for a

special event, where the link identifies a document relating to the special event, and the search

results relate to the special event, Wolff and Yahoo cannot disclose or suggest instructions for

providing the document relating to the special event or the search results relating to the special

event based on the user selection, as further recited in claim 26.

For at least these reasons, Applicant submits that claim 26 is patentable over Wolff and

Yahoo, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination. Claims 29-31 and 35 depend

from claim 26 and are, therefore, patentable over Wolff and Yahoo for at least the reasons given

with regard to claim 26.

Independent claim 27 is directed to a server connected to a network. The server

15
PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

comprises a memory configured to store instructions and a processor configured to execute the

instructions to determine a home page for a web page on the network, identify a standard

company logo on the home page, modify the standard company logo with special event

information corresponding to a special event to create a special event logo, and replace the

standard company logo with the special event logo during the special event.

Neither Wolff nor Yahoo, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination,

discloses or suggests the combination of features recited in claim 27. For example, Wolff and

Yahoo do not disclose or suggest a processor configured to determine a home page for a web

page on a network or identify a standard company logo on the home page.

The Examiner did not address these features of claim 27 and, therefore, did not establish

a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to claim 27. Wolff discloses nothing remotely

similar to these features. Yahoo discloses a Yahoo Christmas logo, but does not disclose or

remotely suggest a processor configured to determine a home page for a web page on a network

or identify a standard company logo on the home page, as required by claim 27.

For at least these reasons, Applicant submits that claim 27 is patentable over Wolff and

Yahoo, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination. Claims 32 and 33 depend from

claim 27 and are, therefore, patentable over Wolff and Yahoo for at least the reasons given with

regard to claim 27.

Independent claim 28 recites features similar to, but possibly different in scope from,

features recited in claim 18. Claim 28 is, therefore, patentable over Wolff and Yahoo, whether

taken alone or in any reasonable combination, for at least reasons similar to reasons given with

regard to claim 18. Claim 36 depends from claim 28. Claim 36 is, therefore, patentable over

16
PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

Wolff and Yahoo for at least the reasons given with regard to claim 28.

Independent claim 37 is directed to a method comprising presenting a special event logo

on a web page, the special event logo being associated with a standard company logo that has

been modified or replaced for a special event; receiving selection of the special event logo;

invoking a search for web pages relating to the special event in response to the received

selection; and presenting results based on the invoked search.

Neither Wolff nor Yahoo, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination,

discloses or suggests the combination of features recited in claim 37. For example, Wolff and

Yahoo do not disclose or suggest invoking a search for web pages relating to the special event in

response to a received selection of a special event logo for at least reasons similar to reasons

given with regard to claim 18. Instead, Wolff discloses performing a search of a product/service

database for a record containing information specific to the advertised product or service (col. 9,

lines 3-7). Yahoo merely discloses a standard Internet search that can be performed by entering

text into the search box and clicking on the search button.

For at least these reasons, Applicant submits that claim 37 is patentable over Wolff and

Yahoo, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination. Claims 22, 38, and 39 depend

from claim 37 and are, therefore, patentable over Wolff and Yahoo for at least the reasons given

with regard to claim 37.

New claim 40 depends from claim 18, and new claim 41 depends from claim 28. Claims

40 and 41 are, therefore, patentable over Wolff and Yahoo for at least the reasons given with

regard to claims 18 and 28.

In view of the foregoing amendments and remarks, Applicant respectfully requests the

17
PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

Examiner's reconsideration of the application and the timely allowance of pending claims 18-41.

As Applicant's remarks with respect to the Examiner's rejections overcome the

rejections, Applicant's silence as to certain assertions by the Examiner in the Office Action or

certain requirements that may be applicable to such rejections (e.g., whether a reference

constitutes prior art, motivation to combine references, etc.) is not a concession by Applicant that

such assertions are accurate or that such requirements have been met, and Applicant reserves the

right to dispute these assertions/requirements in the future.

If the Examiner does not believe that all pending claims are now in condition for

allowance, the Examiner is urged to contact the undersigned to expedite prosecution of this

application.

To the extent necessary, a petition for an extension of time under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136 is

hereby made. Please charge any shortage in fees due in connection with the filing of this paper,

including extension of time fees, to Deposit Account No. 50-1070 and please credit any excess

fees to such deposit account.

Respectfully submitted,

HARRITY SNYDER, L.L.P.

By: /Paul A. Harrity/


Paul A. Harrity
Reg. No. 39,574

Date: November 22,2006

11350 Random Hills Road


Suite 600
Fairfax, Virginia 22030
(571) 432-0800

18
Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt

EFSID: 1331304

Application Number: 09843923

International Application Number:

Confirmation Number: 9916

Title of Invention: Systems and methods for enticing users to access a web site

First Named Inventor/Applicant Name: Sergey Brin

Customer Number: 44989

Filer: Paul Harrity/Julia Cummings

Filer Authorized By: Paul Harrity

Attorney Docket Number: 0026-0002

Receipt Date: 22-NOV-2006

Filing Date: 30-APR-2001

Time Stamp: 16:15:22

Application Type: Utility

Payment information:
Submitted with Payment I no
"---------------
File Listing:
Document Multi Pages
Document Description File Name File Size(Bytes)
Number Part /.zip (if appl.)

1 0026-0002_Amendment.pdf 107683 yes 18


Multipart Description/PDF files in .zip description

Document Description Start End

Amendment - After Non-Final Rejection 1 1

Claims 2 8

Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment 9 18

Warnings:
Information:
Total Files Size (in bytes): 107683

This Acknowledgement Receipt evidences receipt on the noted date by the USPTO of the indicated documents,
characterized by the applicant, and including page counts, where applicable. It serves as evidence of receipt
similar to a Post Card, as described in MPEP 503.

New Applications Under 35 U.S.C. 111


If a new application is being filed and the application includes the necessary components for a filing date (see
37 CFR 1.53(b)-(d) and MPEP 506), a Filing Receipt (37 CFR 1.54) will be issued in due course and the date
shown on this Acknowledgement Receipt will establish the filing date of the application.

National Stage of an International Application under 35 U.S.C. 371


If a timely submission to enter the national stage of an international application is compliant with the conditions
of 35 U.S.C. 371 and other applicable requirements a Form PCT/DO/EO/903 indicating acceptance of the
application as a national stage submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 will be issued in addition to the Filing Receipt,
in due course.
PATENT APPUCAnON FEE DETERMINAnON RECORD
Effective December 8. 2004
64.JW3 1 C; 0
. ..
CLAIMS AS FILED - PART I SMALL ENTITY OTHER THAN
IO"tlumn '\ lColumn2\ TYPE c::J OR SMALL ENT1TY
TOTAL CLAIMS
~TE FEE RATE FEE
FOR NUMBERFUO NUMBER EXTRA BASIC FEE 150:00 OR IBASlCFEE .300.00
.. ,
TOTAl CHARGEABLE CLAIMS minus 20= • ~25: XS5O~
OR
INDEPENDENT ClAIMS minus 3 =

.. - ..
X100= OR X200c
MULTlPLE DEPENDENT ClAIM PRESENT
0 .180= OR ..360=
• " the difference in CXllumn 1 is less than zero. enter ·0· in column 2 TOTAL OR TOTAL

CLAIMS AS AMENDED - PART II OTHER THAN


(Column 1) tColumn21 lColumn3 SMALL ENTITY OR SMALL ENTITY

•~ 1I-'L7-(J~ CL,AlMS HIGHEST


REMAINING' NUMBER !..eftESENT
ADD'· AOOf· r-.
PREVIOUSlY- , RATE TlONAl. RATE TIc- .-
AFTER
au AMENDMENT PAIDFOA
~I"",

FEE
.~
iii'
:Ii
a Total
·~4 Minus ,,~/'
/1.l
V
i5
~
IndepeIldent • ...5' Minus
-? • -c:./
/' --
• '-c:::;I
XS25=

X100=
OA f\-.XS50=

OR
~.
FIRST PRESENTATION OF MULTIPLE DEPENDENT CLAIM f1
.180= OR 1}'6O='\
TOTAl.
TOTAL
ADDIT.FEE
0 ADOlf. FeE \.
(Column 1)
ClAIMS
(Column 2)
HIGHEST
'Column 31 \
ADOl' . ADDI".
TIO~
til REMAINING NUMBER PRESENT
tiW AFTER PREVIOUSLY EXTRA RATE RATE nONAL
AMENOMENT PAfOFOR. FE . R=I=
:E
c Total . Minus
- .
:=
XS25= ~
OR X$50=

-
z
w
:E Independent * Minus .. Xl 00= X200=
Cl OR
FIRST PRESENTATION OF MULTIPLE DEPENDENT CLAIM fJ
+180= OR +360-
TOTAl. OR TOTAl.
" . ACDrr. FEE ACDff.FEE
(Column 1) ICo;umn 21 IColumn 31
ClAIMS HIGHEST

...uz REMA,INING
AfTER
AMENDMENT
NUMBER
PREVIOUSlY
PRESENT
EXTRA RATE
ADD'·
TIONAL RA~
ADO,·
nONAL
w PAID FOR FEE FEr:
:Ii
0
zw
To1al • Minus ... = XS25= X$SO=

-
OR
Independent • Minus "
:Ii
ct FIRST PRESENTATION OF MULTIPLE DEPENDENT CLAIM Xl 00= OR ~

. 0
+180: OR +360=
• If the entry in COlumn I is less .than the entry in COfumn 2. WYile ·0' in tolurm 3. . lOTAi.
.TOTAL.
-1t1he "Highes1 Number Previousty Paid FCX·IN THIS SPACE Is less tnan 20. JI'lter~: OR ADM. FEE
-U the "Highest Number PrevCusly Paid FeY' IN THIS SPACE ille5s IhM 3. enter "3.'
ADDrr.FEE
The 'Highest Numbef PnMot~y Paid For (Total or Independent) is the highesl number found In !he appropriale box wi COIumn.t.

FORtoI PTo..n fAtlY. 10/041


UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFIC&.;
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

APPLICAnON NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMAnON NO.

09/843,923 0413012001 Sergey Brin 0026-0002 9916

44989 7590 08/2312006 EXAMINER

HARRITY SNYDER, LLP AILES. BENJAMIN A


11350 Random Hills Road
SUITE 600 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER

FAIRFAX, VA 22030 2142

DATE MAILED: 08/23/2006

Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.

PTO-90C (Rev. 10/03)


Application No. Applicant(s)

09/843,923 BRIN, SERGEY


Office Action Summary Examiner Art Unit
Benjamin A. Ailes 2142
-- 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 J 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, maya reply be timely filed
after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
If NO period for'reply is 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 timely filed, may reduce any
earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).

Status

1)~ Responsive to communication(s) filed on 17 Mav 2006.


2a)0 This action is FINAL. 2b)~ This action is non-final.
3)0 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 C.D. 11,453 O.G. 213.

Disposition of Claims
4)~ Claim(s) 18-39 is/are pending in the application.
4a) Of the above claim(s) _ _ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
5)0 Claim(s) _ _ is/are allowed.
6)~ Claim(s) 18-39 is/are rejected.
7)0 Claim(s) _ _ is/are objected to.
8)0 Claim(s) _ _ are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.

Application Papers
9)0 The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
10)0 The drawing(s) filed on _ _ is/are: a)O accepted or b)O objected to by the Examiner.
Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
11)0 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)0 Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (t).
J
a)O All b)O Some * c)O None of:
1.0 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
2.0 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No. __._.
'3.0 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».
* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.

Attachment(s)
1) cgJ Notice of References Cited (PTO-892j 4) 0 Interview Summary (PT0-413)
2) 0 Notice of Draftsperson's Patent Drawing Review (PTO-948) Paper No(s)/Mail Date. _ _ .
3) 0 Information Disciosure'Statement(s) (PTO-1449 or PTO/SB/08) 5) 0 Notice of Informal Patent Application (PTO-152)
Paper No(s)/Mail Date _ _. 6) 0 Other: _ _.

U.s. Patent and Trademarl< OffICe


PTOL-326 (Rev. 7-05) Office Action Summary Part of Paper No.lMail Date 20060821
Application/Control Number: 09/843,923 Page 2
Art Unit: 2142

DETAILED ACTION

1.. Claims 18-39 remain pending.

Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114

2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set

forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this

application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set

forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action

has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 24 April

2006 has been entered.

Response to Arguments

3. Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are

moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103

4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 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 skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.

5. Claims 18-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over

Wolff (US 6,247,047 81 )in view of Yahoo! (Yahoo!,

http://www.archive.orq/web/19961223150621 /http://\NWw8.yahoo.comJ), hereinafter

referred to as Yahoo.
Application/Control Number: 09/843,923 Page 3 .
Art Unit: 2142

6. Regarding claims 1, 22, 26, 28, 32, 33 and 37, Wolff teaches a method for

enticing users to access a web page comprising the use of a graphical icon (i.e. an

advertisement banner) wherein the icon is displayed to a user on a web page. A

keyword (indicia) is associated with the icon wherein when the user selects the icon a

search is invoked to search an online database and then the search results are

pr,esented to the user (see Wolff, column 8, line 56 - column 9, line 15). These

teachings teach upon the claim limitations "associating one or more search terms with a

logo", "uploading the logo to the web page", "receiving a user selection of the logo", and

"invoking a search based on the one ore more search terms in response to the user

s~lection". Wolff does not explicitly recite "modifying a standard company logo for a

special event to create a special event logo". Wolff teaches the use of the graphical

icon being an advertisement banner utilized to attract a computer user and further

suggests that the graphical icon can be quickly set up for seasonal and one-time use

(col. 2, lines 27-28). In related art, Yahoo taught on the claim limitation of modifying a

logo by altering their logo to celebrate the Christmas holiday on December 23, 1996

(see Yahoo main page NPL). Therefore, since it is suggested by Wolff to proVide a

mechanism to easily set up and utilize an icon for seasonal or one-time use, it would

have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a logo as demonstrated

by Yahoo to be a logo which is deemed seasonal because the logo has been altered in

order to celebrate a special event, in this case Christmas. Further, it would have been

obvious to associate the "search term" to relate the graphical icon as taught by Wolff

because the keyword associated with the icon is supposed to directly identify the
Application/Control Number: 09/843,923 Page 4
Art Unit: 2142

product or service being represented by use of the icon and when a use interacts

(clicks) on the icon (see Wolff, col. 8, II. 43-49), it is deemed obvious that search results

should be directly related to whatever the icon represents instead of erroneous data.

Therefore, in view of Yahoo, if a logo is altered in some sort of way, the keyword

associated with the logo should be altered accordingly. One or ordinary skill in the art at

the time of the applicant's invention would have found it obvious to combine the

teachings of Yahoo with what is taught by Wolff. One of ordinary skill in the art would

have been motivated to make such a combination due to being from the same field of

endeavor (client-server network systems) and for the reasons stated above, specifically

the advantages of providing a banner which is attractive to a user which would cause a

user to want to click on the banner and the ability to provide a banner which can be

used one-tim~ or seasonal.

7. Regarding claims 19 and 29, Wolff and Yahoo teach the method wherein the

m9difying a standard company logo includes creating the special event logo by

modifying the standard company logo with one or more animated images (Yahoo).

8. Regarding claims 20 and 30, Wolff and Yahoo teach the method wherein the

modifying a standard company logo includes creating the special event logo by

modifying the standard company logo with at least one of video or audio data (Yahoo

and Wolff, col. 3, II. 39-43).

9. Regarding claims 21 and 31, Wolff and Yahoo teach the method wherein the

special event includes a holiday (Yahoo).


Application/Control Number: 09/843,923 Page 5
Art Unit: 2142

10. Regarding claims 23 and 39, Wolff and Yahoo teach the method wherein the

uploading the special event includes displaying the special event logo on the web page

during the special event (Yahoo).

11. Regarding claim 24, Wolff and Yahoo teach the method wherein the invoking a

search includes:

generati,ng a search query using the one or more search terms (Wolff, col. 9, II. 3-

13);

using the search query to search at least one of a network, an index, or a

directory (Wolff, col. 9, II. 3-13); and

obtaining search results based on the search (Wolff, col. 9, II. 9-13).

12. Regarding claim 25, Wolff and Yahoo teach the method wherein the modifying a

standard company logo includes:

determining a home page for the web page on a network (Yahoo,

http://wwvo/.yahoo.com);

identifying the standard company logo on the home page (Yahoo, standard

Yahoo.! logo); and

modifying the standard company logo with special event information to create the

special event logo (Yahoo, the addition of the reindeer to the standard logo

creates a modified logo).

13. Regarding claim 27, the claim contains similar subject matter and is rejected

under the same rationale as taught by claim 18 and the additional limitation to
· .

Application/Control Number: 09/843,923 Page 6


Art Unit: 2142

"determine a home page for a web page on the network" is taught by Yahoo,

http://www.yahoo.com.

14. Regarding claims 34,35 and 36, Wolff and Yahoo teach the method wherein

uploading the special event logo includes replacing the standard company logo with the

special event logo on the web page (Yahoo, page is from 12/23/1996).

15. Regarding claim 38, Wolff and Yahoo teach the method wherein one or more

search terms are associated with the special event logo; and wherein the invoking a

search relating to the special event includes: causing a search to be performed based

on the one or more search terms (Wolff, col. 9, II. 9-13).


......

Application/Control Number: 09/843,923 Page 7


Art Unit: 2142

Conclusion

Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the

examiner. should be dir~cted to Benjamin A. Ailes whose telephone number is (571 )272-

3899. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 6:30-4, IFP Work Schedule.

If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's

supervisor, Andrew Caldwell can be reached on (571 )272-3868. 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 may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.

Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.

For more information about 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 (EBC) 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 .

baa
.t~~
.'.TRIZ PRIETO
:V EXAMINEP

BEATRlZ PRIETO
r-HMARV E)! M;ilNER
Application/Control No. Applicant(s)/Patent Under
Reexamination
09/843,923 BRIN, SERGEY
Notice of References Cited
Examiner Art Unit
Page 1 of 1
Benjamin A. Ailes 2142
u.s. PATENT DOCUMENTS
Document Number Date
* Country Code-Number-Kind Code MM-YYYY Name Classification

A US-

B US-
C US-

D US-

E US-
F US-
G US-

H US-
I US-

J US-

K US-

L US-

M US-
FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
Document Number Date
* Country Code·Number-Kind Code MM-YYYY Country Name Classification

0
P

R
S
T
NON·PATENT DOCUMENTS

* Include as applicable: Author, TiUe Date, Publisher, Edition or Volume, Pertinent Pages)

Yahoo! Main page, December23, 1996; http://web.archive.org/web/19961223150621/http:/1www8.yahoo.com accessed 07 May


U
2006.

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.
U.s. Patent and rrademar1< Office
PTO-892 (Rev. 01-2001) Notice of References Cited Part of Paper No. 20060821
Application/Control No. Applicant(s)/Patent under
Search Notes Reexamination

III I~ III II 09/843.923 BRIN, SERGEY

I Examiner Art Unit

" Benjamin A. Ailes

SEARCH NOTES
2142

SEARCHED
(INCLUDING SEARCH STRATEGY)
Class Subclass Date Examiner DATE EXMR

709 204,216 8/21/2006 BAA


EAST - updated class/subclass search
8/21/2006 BAA
of USPAT, USPGPub

705 26 8/21/2006 BAA

345 473, 730 8/21/2006 BAA

Wayback machine, Internet Archive,


345 738 8/21/2006 BAA
http://www.archive.org
5/7/2006 BAA

EIC NPL search 4/27/2006 BAA

Primary Examiner Beatriz Prieto,


8/21/2006 BAA
search assistance and strategy

INTERFERENCE SEARCHED

Class Subclass Date Examiner

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Par1 of Paper No. 20060821


Application/Control No. Applicant(s)/Patent under
Index of Claims Reexamination

I I ~I I I IIII II I
09/843,923 BRIN, SERGEY
Examiner Art Unit

Benjamin A. Ailes 2142

(Through numeral)
.J Rejected - Cancelled N Non-Elected A Appeal

= Allowed + Restricted I Interference 0 Objected

Claim Date Claim Date Claim Date


~ <0
::: ~ :'; ~
~ c ~ c ~ c
c '8> ~ c '8> ,;.
c '8>
u:: (5 ~ u:: (5 u:: (5
:::
1 51 :.; 101
2 52 102
3 53 ':. 103
4 54 104
5 - . 55 105
6 - 56 106
7 · 57 107
8 - 58 108
9 · 59 109
10 - 60 110
11 - 61 111
12 - 62 :. 112
13 - 63 113
14 - 64 114
15 - 65 115
16 · 66 116
17 - 67 117
'18 .,J 68 118
19 69 .: 119
20 70 120
21 71 121
22 72 122
23 73 123
24 74 124
25.. 75 125
26,) 76 126
~ 77 127
~BI 78 128
29 79 129
30 ,80 130 .
31 81 131
32 82 132
33 83 133
34 ... 84 134
35 85 135
36 86 136
(171 87 137
J8 88 138
39 89 139
..v 90 140
41 ': 91 141
42 92 142
43 93 143
44 94 144
45 95 145
46 96 :: 146
47 97 147
48 98 148
49 99 149
50 100 ': 150

U,S, Patent and Trademark Office Part of Paper No, 20060821


PC:-:fV\C-ri f~v-(",-:f\e( ~e,.~4-n' L fr~e-to ~c ~
EAST Search History
Ref Hits Search Query DBs Default Plurals Time Stamp
# Operator
L1 26 (image graphic bitmap icon iconic metaphor US-PGPUB; OR ON 2006/08/17 18:30
avatar emoticon) adj5 (keyword term word USPAT;
phrase text) adj5 (search query) adj3 EPO; JPO;
(command$4 request$4 retriev$) DERWENT
; IBM_TDB
L2 18 1 and @ad<=120010430" US-PGPUB; OR ON 2006/08/17 18:25
USPAT;
EPO; JPO;
DERWENT
; IBM_TDB
L3 1 (clickable or user-selectable) adj3 (image US-PGPUB; OR ON 2006/08/17 18:24
graphic bitmap icon iconic metaphor avatar USPAT;
emoticon) adj5 (search query) EPO; JPO;
DERWENT
; IBM_TDB
L4 51 (image graphic bitmap icon iconic metaphor US-PGPUB; OR ON 2006/08/17 18:25
avatar emoticon) adj5 predetermined adj USPAT;
(search query) EPO; JPO;
DERWENT
; IBM_TDB
LS 21 4 and @ad<="20010430" US-PGPUB; OR ON 2006/08/17 18:31
USPAT;
EPO; JPO;
DERWENT
;IBM_TDB·
L6 217 (image graphic bitmap icon iconic metaphor US-PGPUB; OR ON 2006/08/17 19:05
avatar emoticon) adj3 (search query) adj3 USPAT;
(command$4 request$4) EPO; JPO;
DERWENT
; IBM_TDB
L7 87 6 and @ad<=120010430" US-PGPUB; OR ON 2006/08/17 19:07
USPAT;
EPO; JPO;
DERWENT
;,IBM_TDB
L8 300 (predetermined embedded prestored US-PGPUB; OR ON 2006/08/17 19:06
predefined) adj3 (search query) adj3 USPAT;
(command$4 request$4 string instruction EPO; JPO;
parameters) DERWENT
; IBM_TDB
L9 96 8 and @ad<=120010430" US-PGPUB; OR ON 2006/08/1719:07
USPAT;
.EPO; JPO;
DERWENT
;JBM_TDB

') l-\ 'J


/f 0"'1/ \ ". \ 0
1 o~ (')li-') [~

8/17/067:53:04 PM Page 1
,

Set Items Description


Sl 303206 HOMEPAGE? OR HOME() PAGE? OR FRONTPAGE? OR ,FRONT() PAGE? OR -
SITE? OR HTML()FILE? OR INTERNET? OR WORLDWIDEWEB
S2 499527 WEBSITE? OR WEB()SITE? OR WEBPAGE? OR WEB() PAGE? OR WEB()A-
DDRESS? OR URL?? OR URI?? OR NETWORK? OR WWW
S3 43676 Sl:S2(50N) (LOGO?? OR STANDARD? (2N) LOGO?? OR BANNER? ? OR S-
YMBOL? ? OR GRAPHIC? OR SIGN? ? OR BRAND? OR ICON OR ICONS OR
IMAGE OR TRADEMARK?)
S4 4013 S3(50N) (MODIF? OR REVIS??? OR REMODEL? OR ADAPT? OR CHANGE?
? OR CHANGING? OR UPDATING? OR UP()DATE? ? OR CUSTOM?)
S5 2809 S3(50N) (UPDATE? ? OR TRANSFORM? OR ALTER??? OR REFORMAT? OR
REARRANG? OR ADD??? OR DELET??? OR SPECIAL?)
S6 5 S3(50N) (RE() (CREATE? ? OR CREATING? OR CREATION? OR DECORA-
T? OR FASHION? OR FURBISH? OR CONSTRUCT? OR CONFIG? OR DO OR -
DOING OR DESIGN?))
S7 2836 S4:S6(50N) (DELIVER? OR SEND??? OR SENT OR UPLOAD? OR DISTR-
IBUT? OR TRANSFER? OR TRANSMIT? OR BEAM???)
S8 99 S4:S6(50N) (SEARCH? OR RESEARCH? OR RETRIEV? OR INQUIR? OR -
QUERY? OR QUERIES OR REQUEST?) (5N) (WORD?? OR TERM? ? OR RESUL-
T? ? OR KEYWORD? OR KEY()WORD?)
S9 3 S8(100N) (EMBED? OR FIT OR FITS OR FITTED OR FITTING OR BUI-
LTIN OR (BUILD? OR BUILT) ()IN OR INLAY? OR INLAID? OR INGRAIN?
OR IMPLANT? OR INCULCAT?)
S10 o S9(100N) (DELIVER? OR SEND??? OR SENT OR UPLOAD? OR DISTRIB-
UT? OR TRANSFER? OR TRANSMIT? OR BEAM???)
Sl1 4787 (INTEREST??? OR COMMEMORAT? OR ANNUAL? OR SPECIAL? OR INAU-
GURA?) (5N) (EVENT? ? OR OCCASION? OR PARTY? OR PARTIES OR FUNC-
TION? ? OR ANNlVERSAR? OR HOLIDAY?)
S12 1024 S7(50N) (AFFILIAT? OR ASSOCIAT? OR BOUND? OR CONNECT? OR LI-
NK? OR COOPERAT? OR CORRELAT? OR RELAT?)
S13 570 S7(50N) (COMBIN? OR CONJUNCT? OR PARTNER? OR COUPL? OR JOIN?
OR CORRESPOND? OR SPONSOR? OR ATTACH?)
S14 1399 S4:S6 AND S12:S13
S15 o S14 AND S9
S16 39 S14 AND S8
S17 39 S16 NOT PR>2000
S18 39 IDPAT (sorted in duplicate/non-duplicate order)
S19 7 S14 AND (LOGO OR STANDARD(2N)LOGO OR COMPANY (2N) (LOGO OR T-
RADEMARK?) )
S20 8 AU=(BRIN S? OR BRIN, S?)
S21 o SERGEY(2N)BRIN
File 347:JAPIO Dec 1976-2005/Dec(Updated 060404)
(c) 2006 JPO & JAPIO
File 350:Derwent WPIX 1963-2006/UO,UM &UP=200626
(e) 2006 Thomson Derwent
,
Set Items Description
Sl 1544819 LOGO?? OR BANNER? ? OR SYMBOL? ? OR GRAPHIC? OR SIGN? ? OR
BRAND? OR ICON OR ICONS'OR IMAGE OR TRADEMARK?
S2 649 (COMPAN? OR STANDARD) (3N) (LOGO? ? OR BRAND? OR ICON? ? OR -
TRADEMARK? )
S3 52181 Sl:S2(5N) (MODIF? OR REVIS??? OR REMODEL? OR ADAPT? OR CHAN-
GE? ? OR CHANGING? OR UPDATING? OR UP()DATE? ? OR CUSTOM?)
S4 39251 Sl:S2(5N) (UPDATE? ? OR TRANSFORM? OR ALTER??? OR REFORMAT?
OR REARRANG? OR ADD??? OR DELET??? OR SPECIAL?)
S5 143 Sl:S2(5N) (RE() (CREATE? ? OR CREATING? OR CREATION? OR DECO-
RAT? OR FASHION? OR FURBISH? OR CONSTRUCT? OR CONFIG? OR DO OR
DOING OR DESIGN?»
S6 2270 S3:S5(10N) (EVENT? ? OR OCCASION? OR PARTY? OR PARTIES OR F-
UNCTION? ? OR ANNlVERSAR? OR HOLIDAY?)
S7 128 S3:S5(10N) (SEARCH? OR RESEARCH? OR RETRIEV? OR INQUIR? OR -
QUERY? OR QUERIES OR REQUEST?) (3N) (WORD?? OR TERM? ? OR RESUL-
T? ? OR KEYWORD? OR KEY () WORD?)
S8 971626 S3:S5(10N)SOFTWARE? OR SOFTWARE()AGENT? ? OR APPLICATION? -
OR SOFT()WARE? OR APP? ? OR OS OR OPERATING()SYSTEM? OR MACRO?
? OR EXECUT?()FILE?
S9 6852 S7:S8(10N) (EMBED? OR FIT OR FITS OR FITTED OR FITTING OR B-
UILTIN OR (BUILD? OR BUILT) ()IN OR INLAY? OR INLAID? OR INGRA-
IN? OR IMPLANT? OR INCULCAT?)
S10 7504 S3:S5(10N) (DELIVER? OR SEND??? OR SENT OR UPLOAD? OR DISTR-
IBUT? OR TRANSFER? OR TRANSMIT? OR BEAM???)
Sl1 2 S3:S5 AND S6 AND S9
S12 2270 S3:S5 AND S6
S13 o S12 AND S2 AND S5
S14 6 S12 AND S2
S15 36 S3:S5 AND S9
S16 36 S15 NOT PR>2000
S17 36 IDPAT (sorted in duplicate/non-duplicate order)
File 347:JAPIO Dec 1976-2005/Dec(Updated 060404)
(c) 2006 JPO & JAPIO
File 350:Derwent WPIX 1963-2006/UO,UM &UP=200627
(c) 2006 Thomson Derwent
.,
Set Items Description
Sl 1544819 LOGO?? OR BANNER? ? OR SYMBOL? ? OR GRAPHIC? OR SIGN? ? OR
BRAND? OR ICON OR ICONS OR IMAGE OR TRADEMARK?
S2 649 (COMPAN? OR STANDARD) (3N) (LOGO? ? OR BRAND? OR ICON? ? OR -
TRADEMARK?)
S3 52181 Sl:S2(SN) (MODIF? OR REVIS??? OR REMODEL? OR ADAPT? OR CHAN-
GE? ? OR CHANGING? OR UPDATING? OR UP()DATE? ? OR CUSTOM?)
S4 39251 Sl:S2(SN) (UPDATE? ? OR TRANSFORM? OR ALTER??? OR REFORMAT?
OR REARRANG? OR ADD??? OR DELET??? OR SPECIAL?)
SS 143 Sl:S2(SN) (RE() (CREATE? ? OR CREATING? OR CREATION? OR DECO-
RAT? OR FASHION? OR FURBISH? OR CONSTRUCT? OR CONFIG? OR DO OR
DOING OR DESIGN?))
S6 2270 S3:SS(10N) (EVENT? ? OR OCCASION? OR PARTY? OR PARTIES OR F-
UNCTION? ? OR ANNlVERSAR? OR HOLIDAY?)
S7 128 S3:SS(10N) (SEARCH? OR RESEARCH? OR RETRIEV? OR INQUIR? OR -
QUERY? OR QUERIES OR REQUEST?) (3N) (WORD?? OR TERM? ? OR RESUL-
T? ? OR KEYWORD? OR KEY()WORD?)
S8 971626 S3:SS(10N)SOFTWARE? OR SOFTWARE()AGENT? ? OR APPLICATION? -
OR SOFT()WARE? OR APP? ? OR OS OR OPERATING() SYSTEM? OR MACRO?
? OR EXECUT?()FILE?
S9 6852 S7:S8(10N) (EMBED? OR FIT OR FITS OR FITTED OR FITTING OR B-
UILTIN OR (BUILD? OR BUILT) ()IN OR INLAY? OR INLAID? OR INGRA-
IN? OR IMPLANT? OR INCULCAT?)
S10 7504 S3:SS(10N) (DELIVER? OR SEND??? OR SENT OR UPLOAD? OR DISTR-
IBUT? OR TRANSFER? OR TRANSMIT? OR BEAM???)
Sll 2 S3:SS AND S6 AND S9
S12 2270 S3:SS AND S6
S13 o S12 AND S2 AND SS
S14 6 S12 AND S2
SlS 36 S3:SS AND S9
S16 36 SlS NOT PR>2000
S17 36 IDPAT (sorted in duplicate/non-duplicate order)
File 347:JAPIO Dec 1976-200S/Dec(Updated 060404)
(c) 2006 JPO & JAPIO
File 3S0:Derwent WPIX 1963-2006/UO,UM &UP=200627
(c) 2006 Thomson Derwent
8et Items Description
81 402154 HOMEPAGE? OR HOME() PAGE? OR FRONTPAGE? OR FRONT()PAGE? OR -
SITE? OR HTML() FILE? OR INTERNET? OR WORLDWIDEWEB
S2 352836 WEBSITE? OR WEB()SITE? OR WEBPAGE? OR WEB() PAGE? OR WEB()A-
DDRESS? OR URL?? OR URI?? OR NETWORK? OR WWW
83 113362 Sl:S2(50N).(LOGO?? OR STANDARD? (2N) LOGO?? OR BANNER? ? OR S-
YMBOL? ? OR GRAPHIC? OR SIGN? ? OR BRAND? OR ICON OR ICONS OR
IMAGE OR TRADEMARK?)
S4 31175 S3(50N) (MODIF? OR REVIS??? OR REMODEL? OR ADAPT? OR CHANGE?
? OR CHANGING? OR UPDATING? OR UP()DATE? ? OR CUSTOM?)
85 23800 S3(50N) (UPDATE? ? OR TRANSFORM? OR ALTER??? OR REFORMAT? OR
REARRANG? OR ADD??? OR DELET??? OR SPECIAL?)
S6 150 S3(50N) (RE() (CREATE? ? OR CREATING? OR CREATION? OR DECORA-
T? OR FASHION? OR FURBISH? OR CONSTRUCT? OR CONFIG? OR DO OR -
DOING OR DESIGN?))
S7 2355 S4:S6(100N) (INTEREST??? OR COMMEMORAT? OR ANNUAL? OR SPECI-
AL? OR INAUGURA?) (5N) (EVENT? ? OR OCCASION? OR PARTY? OR PART-
IES OR FUNCTION? ? OR ANNIVER8AR? OR HOLIDAY?)
88 1499 S7(50N) (AFFILIAT? OR A880CIAT? OR BOUND? OR CONNECT? OR LI-
NK? OR COOPERAT? OR CORRELAT? OR RELAT?)
89 839 87(50N) (COMBIN? OR CONJUNCT? OR PARTNER? OR COUPL? OR JOIN?
OR CORRESPOND? OR SPONSOR? OR ATTACH?)
811 214 88:S9(100N) (SEARCH? OR RESEARCH? OR RETRIEV? OR INQUIR? OR
QUERY? OR QUERIES OR REQUEST?) (5N) (WORD?? OR TERM? ? OR RESUL-
T? ? OR KEYWORD? OR KEY()WORD?)
812 40 Sll(100N) (EMBED? OR FIT OR FIT8 OR FITTED OR FITTING OR BU-
ILTIN OR (BUILD? OR BUILT) ()IN OR INLAY? OR INLAID? OR INGRAI-
N? OR IMPLANT? OR INCULCAT?)
813 32 812 (lOON) (DELIVER? OR 8END??? OR SENT OR UPLOAD? OR DISTRI-
BUT? OR TRANSFER? OR TRANSMIT? OR BEAM???)
814 17 813 NOT AD=2001:2006
S15 3 S14 NOT AD>2000
816 2 86(5N)88:S9
817 1784 84:86(5N)S8:89
818 40 817(100N)S12
819 6 818 NOT AD>2000
S20 42 S14:S16 OR S18:S19
821 1742 817 NOT 820
S22 0 S21 AND (LOGO OR 8TANDARD(2N)LOGO OR COMPANY (2N) (IMAGE OR -
BRAND OR SYMBOL OR TRADEMARK))/TI
S23 292 S21 AND (LOGO OR LOG08 OR STANDARD (2N) (LOGO OR LOGOS) OR C-
OMPAN???(2N) (IMAGE? ? OR BRAND??? OR SYMBOL? ? OR TRADEMARK? -
?) )
S24 62 S23 NOT AD>2000
S25 62 S24 NOT AD=2001:2006
S26 62 825(5N)84:S6
S27 62 IDPAT (sorted in duplicate/non-duplicate order)
828 4 AU=(BRIN S? OR BRIN, S?)
S29 18 SERGEY (2N) BRIN
830 18 S28:S29
831 0 S30 NOT AD>2000
File 348:EUROPEAN PATENTS 1978-2006/ 200616
(c) 2006 European Patent Office
File 349:PCT FULLTEXT 1979-2006/UB=20060420,UT=20060413
(c) 2006 WIPO/Univentio

Set Items Description


Sl 2798856 HOMEPAGE? OR HOME() PAGE? OR FRONTPAGE? OR FRONT(YPAGE? OR -
SITE? OR HTML() FILE? OR INTERNET? OR WORLDWIDEWEB
S2 3176350 WEBSITE? OR WEB()SITE? OR WEBPAGE? OR WEB () PAGE? OR WEB()A-
DDRESS? OR URL?? OR URI?? OR NETWORK? OR WWW
S3 168891 Sl:S2(50N) (LOGO?? OR STANDARD? (2N) LOGO?? OR BANNER? ? OR S-
YMBOL? ? OR GRAPHIC? OR SIGN? ? OR BRAND? OR ICON OR ICONS OR
IMAGE OR TRADEMARK?)
S4 20669 S3(50N) (MODIF? OR REVIS??? OR REMODEL? OR ADAPT? OR CHANGE?
? OR CHANGING? OR UPDATING? OR UP()DATE? ? OR CUSTOM?)
S5 16788 S3(50N) (UPDATE? ? OR TRANSFORM? OR ALTER??? OR REFORMAT? OR
REARRANG? OR ADD??? OR DELET??? OR SPECIAL?)
S6 61 S3(100N) (RE() (CREATE? ? OR CREATING? OR CREATION? OR DECOR-
AT? OR FASHION? OR FURBISH? OR CONSTRUCT? OR CONFIG? OR DO OR
DOING OR DESIGN?»
S7 766 S4:S6(100N) (INTEREST??? OR COMMEMORAT? OR ANNUAL? OR SPECI-
AL? OR INAUGURA?) (5N) (EVENT? ? OR OCCASION? OR PARTY? OR PART-
IES OR FUNCTION? ? OR ANNlVERSAR? OR HOLIDAY?)
S8 294 S7(50N) (AFFILIAT? OR ASSOCIAT? OR BOUND? OR CONNECT? OR LI-
NK? OR COOPERAT? OR CORRELAT? OR RELAT?)
S9 172 S7(50N) (COMBIN? OR CONJUNCT? OR PARTNER? OR COUPL? OR JOIN?
OR CORRESPOND? OR SPONSOR? OR ATTACH?)
S10 5923 S4:S6(50N) (DELIVER? OR SEND??? OR SENT OR UPLOAD? OR DISTR-
IBUT? OR TRANSFER? OR TRANSMIT? OR BEAM???)
Sll 1134 S4:S6(50N) (SEARCH? OR RESEARCH? OR RETRIEV? OR INQUIR? OR -
QUERY? OR QUERIES OR REQUEST?) (5N) (WORD?? OR TERM? ? OR RESUL-
T? ? OR KEYWORD? OR KEY()WORD?)
S12 55 Sll(100N) (EMBED? OR FIT OR FITS OR FITTED OR FITTING OR BU-
ILTIN OR (BUILD? OR BUILT) ()IN OR INLAY? OR INLAID? OR INGRAI-
N? OR IMPLANT? OR INCULCAT?)
S13 7 S12(100N) (DELIVER? OR SEND??? OR SENT OR UPLOAD? OR DISTRI-
BUT? OR TRANSFER? OR TRANSMIT? OR BEAM???)
S14 1 S4:S6 AND S8:S9 AND S12
S15 14 S4:S6 AND S8:S9 AND Sll
S16 389 S4:S6 AND S8:S9
S17 8 S15 NOT PY>2000
S18 5 RD (unique items)
S19 21 S13:S15 OR S17:S18
S20 375 S16 NOT S19
S21 233 S20 NOT PY>2000
S22 179 RD (unique items)
S23 1 S22 AND (LOGO?? OR STANDARD? (2N) LOGO?? OR COMPAN???(3N) (Sy-
MBOL? ? OR GRAPHIC? OR SIGN? ? OR BRAND? OR ICON OR ICONS OR -
IMAGE OR TRADEMARK?»
S24 79 AU=(BRIN S? OR BRIN, S?)
S25 36 SERGEY(2N)BRIN
S26 1 S24:S25 AND S4:S6
S27 56 S24:S25 NOT PY>2000
File 2:INSPEC 1898-2006/Apr W3
(c) 2006 Institution of Electrical Engineers
File 6:NTIS 1964-2006/Apr W2
(c) 2006 NTIS, IntI Cpyrght All Rights Res
File 8:Ei Compendex(R) 1970-2006/Apr W3
(c) 2006 Elsevier Eng. Info. Inc.
File 34:SciSearch(R) Cited Ref Sci 1990-2006/Apr W3
(c) 2006 Inst for Sci Info
File 35:Dissertation Abs Online 1861-2006/Mar
(c) 2006 ProQuest Info&Learning
File 56:Computer and Information Systems Abstracts 1966-2006/Apr
(c) 2006 CSA.
File 60:ANTE: Abstracts in New Tech & Engineer 1966-2006/Apr
,
I

(c) 2006 CSA.


File 62:SPIN(R) 1975-2006/Mar WI
(c) 2006 American Institute of Physics
File 65:Inside Conferences 1993-2006/Apr 26
(c) 2006 BLOSC all rts. reserv.
File 94:JICST-EPlus 1985-2006/Jan W5
(c)2006 Japan Science and Tech Corp(JST)
File 95:TEME-Technology & Management 1989-2006/Apr W4
(c) 2006 FIZ TECHNIK
File 99:Wilson Appl. Sci & Tech Abs 1983-2006/Mar
(c) 2006 The HW Wilson Co.
File 111:TGG Natl.Newspaper Index (SM) 1979-2006/Apr 18
(c) 2006 The Gale Group
File 144:Pascal 1973-2006/Mar W4
(c) 2006 INIST/CNRS
File 239:Mathsci 1940-2006/Jun
(c) 2006 American Mathematical Society
File 256:TecInfoSource 82-2006/May
(c) 2006 Info.Sources Inc
File 434:SciSearch(R) Cited Ref Sci 1974-1989/0ec
(c) 1998 Inst for Sci Info
File 583:Gale Group Globalbase(TM) 1986-2002/0ec 13
(c) 2002 The Gale Group
Set Items Description
Sl 3127530 LOGO?? OR BANNER? ? OR SYMBOL? ? OR GRAPHIC? OR SIGN? ? OR
BRAND? OR ICON OR ICONS OR IMAGE OR TRADEMARK?
S2 6772 (COMPAN? OR STANDARD) (3N) (LOGO? ? OR BRAND? OR ICON? ? OR -
TRADEMARK? )
S3 97172 Sl:S2(5N) (MODIF? OR REVIS??? OR REMODEL? OR ADAPT? OR CHAN-
GE? ? OR CHANGING? OR UPDATING? OR UP()DATE? ? OR CUSTOM?)
S4 95057 Sl:S2(5N) (UPDATE? ? OR TRANSFORM? OR ALTER??? OR REFORMAT?
OR REARRANG? OR ADD??? OR DELET??? OR SPECIAL?)
S5 156 Sl:S2(5N) (RE() (CREATE? ? OR CREATING? OR CREATION? OR DECO-
RAT? OR FASHION? OR FURBISH? OR CONSTRUCT? OR CONFIG? OR DO OR
DOING OR DESIGN?»
S6 8622 S3:S5(10N) (EVENT? ? OR OCCASION? OR PARTY? OR PARTIES OR F-
UNCTION? ? OR ANNlVERSAR? OR HOLIDAY?)
S7 266 S3:S5(10N) (SEARCH? OR RESEARCH? OR RETRIEV? OR INQUIR? OR -
QUERY? OR QUERIES OR REQUEST?) (3N) (WORD?? OR TERM? ? OR RESUL-
T? ? OR KEYWORD? OR KEY () WORD?)
88 7117974 S3:S5(10N)SOFTWARE? OR SOFTWARE()AGENT? ? OR APPLICATION? -
OR SOFT()WARE? OR APP? ? OR OS OR OPERATING()SYSTEM? OR MACRO?
? OR EXECUT?()FILE?
89 56970 S7:S8(10N) (EMBED? OR FIT OR FITS OR FITTED OR FITTING OR B-
UILTIN OR (BUILD? OR BUILT) ()IN OR INLAY? OR INLAID? OR INGRA-
IN? OR IMPLANT? OR INCULCAT?)
S10 6582 S3:S5(10N) (DELIVER? OR SEND??? OR SENT OR UPLOAD? OR DISTR-
IBUT? OR TRANSFER? OR TRANSMIT? OR BEAM???)
811 8622 S3:S5 AND 86
812 28 Sll AND S9
813 3 S12 AND S10
814 18 S12:S13 NOT PY>2000
S15 12 RD (unique items)
S16 0 Sll NOT Sl
S17 431 S3:S5 AND S9
S18 0 S17 AND (COMPAN? OR STANDARD) (3N) (LOGO? ? OR BRAND? OR ICO-
N? ? OR TRADEMARK?)
File 2:INSPEC 1898-2006/Apr W3
(c) 2006 Institution of Electrical Engineers
File 6:NTIS 1964-2006/Apr W2
(c) 2006 NTIS, IntI Cpyrght All Rights Res
File 8:Ei Compendex(R) 1970-2006/Apr W3
(c) 2006 Elsevier Eng. Info. Inc.
File 34:SciSearch(R) Cited Ref Sci 1990-2006/Apr W3
(c) 2006 Inst for Sci Info
File 35:Dissertation Abs Online 1861-2006/Mar
(c) 2006 ProQuest Info&Learning
File 56:Computer and Information Systems Abstracts 1966-2006/Apr
(c) 2006 CSA.
File 60:ANTE: Abstracts in New Tech & Engineer 1966-2006/Apr
(c) 2006 CSA.
File 62:SPIN(R) 1975-2006/Mar W1
(c) 2006 American Institute of Physics
File 65:Inside Conferences 1993-2006/Apr 27
(c) 2006 BLDSC all rts. reserv.
File 94:JICST-EPlus 1985-2006/Jan W5
(c)2006 Japan Science and Tech Corp(JST)
File 95:TEME-Technology & Management 1989-2006/Apr W4
(c) 2006 FIZ TECHNIK
File 99:Wilson Appl. Sci & Tech Abs 1983-2006/Mar
(c) 2006 The HW Wilson Co.
File 111:TGG Natl.Newspaper Index (SM) 1979-2006/Apr 19
(c) 2006 The Gale Group
File 144:Pascal 1973-2006/Apr W1
(c) 2006 INIST/CNRS
File 239:Mathsci 1940-2006/Jun
(c) 2006 American Mathematical Society
File 256:TeclnfoSource 82-2006/May
(c) 2006 Info.Sources Inc
File 434:SciSearch(R) Cited Ref Sci 1974-1989/Dec
(c) 1998 Inst for Sci Info
File 583:Gale Group Globalbase(TM) 1986-2002/Dec 13
(c) 2002 The Gale Group
~

~
Set Items Description
Sl 14590250 HOMEPAGE? OR HOME()PAGE? OR FRONTPAGE? OR FRONT()PAGE? OR -
SITE? OR HTML()FILE? OR INTERNET? OR WORLDWIDEWEB
S2 20216735 WEBSITE? OR WEB()SITE? OR WEBPAGE? OR WEB () PAGE? OR WEB()A-
DDRESS? OR URL?? OR URI?? OR NETWORK? OR WWW
S3 4773104 Sl:S2(50N) (LOGO?? OR STANDARD? (2N) LOGO?? OR BANNER? ? OR S-
YMBOL? ? OR GRAPHIC? OR SIGN? ? OR BRAND? OR ICON OR ICONS OR
IMAGE OR TRADEMARK?)
S4 1576944 S3(50N) (MODIF? OR REVIS??? OR REMODEL? OR ADAPT? OR CHANGE?
? OR CHANGING? OR UPDATING? OR UP()DATE? ? OR CUSTOM?)
S5 822796 S3(50N) (UPDATE? ? OR TRANSFORM? OR ALTER??? OR REFORMAT? OR
REARRANG? OR ADD??? OR DELET??? OR SPECIAL?)
S6 11972 S3(100N) (RE() (CREATE? ? OR CREATING? OR CREATION? OR DECOR-
AT? OR FASHION? OR FURBISH? OR CONSTRUCT? OR CONFIG? OR DO OR
DOING OR DESIGN?»
S7 135752 S4:S6(100N) (INTEREST??? OR COMMEMORAT? OR ANNUAL? OR SPECI-
AL? OR INAUGURA?) (5N) (EVENT? ? OR OCCASION? OR PARTY? OR PART-
IES OR FUNCTION? ? OR ANNlVERSAR? OR HOLIDAY?)
S8 63881 S7(50N) (AFFILIAT? OR ASSOCIAT? OR BOUND? OR CONNECT? OR LI-
NK? OR COOPERAT? OR CORRELAT? OR RELAT?)
S9 40917 S7(50N) (COMBIN? OR CONJUNCT? OR PARTNER? OR COUPL? OR JOIN?
OR CORRESPOND? OR SPONSOR? OR ATTACH?)
S10 75030 S4:S6(50N) (SEARCH? OR RESEARCH? OR RETRIEV? OR INQUIR? OR -
QUERY? OR QUERIES OR REQUEST?) (5N) (WORD?? OR TERM? ? OR RESUL-
T? ? OR KEYWORD? OR KEY()WORD?)
Sll 3539 S10(100N) (EMBED? OR FIT OR FITS OR FITTED OR FITTING OR BU-
ILTIN OR (BUILD? OR BUILT) ()IN OR INLAY? OR INLAID? OR INGRAI-
N? OR IMPLANT? OR INCULCAT?)
S12 1538 Sll(100N) (DELIVER? OR SEND??? OR SENT OR UPLOAD? OR DISTRI-
BUT? OR TRANSFER? OR TRANSMIT? OR BEAM???)
S13 87 S4:S6(10N)S8:S9(10N)Sll(10N)S12
S14 42 RD (unique items)
S15 26 S14 NOT PD>2000
Set Items Description
Sl 12894467 LOGO?? OR BANNER? ? OR SYMBOL? ? OR GRAPHIC? OR SIGN? ? OR
BRAND? OR ICON OR ICONS OR IMAGE OR TRADEMARK?
S2 673134 Sl(5N) (MODIF? OR REVIS??? OR REMODEL? OR ADAPT? OR CHANGE?
? OR CHANGING? OR UPDATING? OR UP()DATE? ? OR CUSTOM?)
S3 452506 Sl(5N) (UPDATE? ? OR TRANSFORM? OR ALTER??? OR REFORMAT? OR
REARRANG? OR ADD??? OR DELET??? OR SPECIAL?)
S4 5287 Sl(5N) (RE() (CREATE? ? OR CREATING? OR CREATION? OR DECORAT?
OR FASHION? OR ,FURBISH? OR CONSTRUCT? OR CONFIG? OR DO OR DO-
ING OR DESIGN?»
S5 44334 S2:S4(20N) (EVENT? ? OR OCCASION? OR PARTY? OR PARTIES OR F-
UNCTION? ? OR ANNlVERSAR? OR HOLIDAY?)
S6 2180 S2:S4(10N) (SEARCH? OR RESEARCH? OR RETRIEV? OR INQUIR? OR -
QUERY? OR QUERIES OR REQUEST?) (3N) (WORD?? OR TERM? ? OR RESUL-
T? ? OR KEYWORD? OR KEY()WORD?)
S7 24 S6(10N) (EMBED? OR FIT OR FITS OR FITTED OR FITTING OR BUIL-
TIN OR (BUILD? OR BUILT) ()IN OR INLAY? OR INLAID? OR INGRAIN?
OR IMPLANT? OR INCULCAT?)
S8 56030 S2:S4(10N) (DELIVER? OR SEND??? OR SENT OR UPLOAD? OR DISTR-
IBUT? OR TRANSFER? OR TRANSMIT? OR BEAM???)
S9 0 S2:S4(10N)S5(10N)S6(10N)S7
S10 7 S7 NOT PD>2000
S11 5 RD (unique items)
S12 3036 S5(10N) (WEBSITE? OR WEB()SITE? OR WEBPAGE? OR WEB()PAGE? OR
WEB()ADDRESS? OR URL?? OR URI?? OR NETWORK? OR WWW)
S13 2965 S5(10N) (HOMEPAGE? OR HOME() PAGE? OR FRONTPAGE? OR FRONT()P-
AGE? OR SITE? OR HTML() FILE? OR INTERNET? OR WORLDWIDEWEB)
S14 26 S12:S13(10N)S6
S15 13 RD (unique items)
S16 6 S15 NOT PD>2000
S17 515 S12:S13(10N)S8
S18 0 S17(10N)S6
S19 87 S6(10N)S8
S20 87 S19 AND S6(5N)S8
821 41 RD (unique items)
S22 22 S21 NOT PD>2000
S23 515 S17 NOT S20
S24 44 S23 AND (COMPAN? OR STANDARD) (5N) (IMAGE? ? OR ICON? ? OR L-
OGO? ? OR BRAND??? OR TRADEMARK?)
S25 16 S24 NOT PD>2000
S26 8 RD (unique items)
S27 3616 S5(5N) (COMPAN? OR STANDARD) (3N) (IMAGE? ? OR ICON? ? OR LOG-
O? ? OR BRAND??? OR TRADEMARK?)
S28 6 S27(5N)S6
S29 375 S27(5N)S12:S13
S30 214 RD (unique items)
S31 80 S30 NOT PD>2000
File 9:Business & Industry(R) Jul/1994-2006/Apr 26
(c) 2006 The Gale Group
File 13:BAMP 2006/Apr W3
(c) 2006 The Gale Group
File 15:ABI/lnform(R) 1971-2006/Apr 27
(c) 2006 ProQuest Info&Learning
File 16:Gale Group PROMT(R) 1990-2006/Apr 27
(c) 2006 The Gale Group
File 47:Gale Group Magazine DB(TM) 1959-2006/Apr 26
(c) 2006 The Gale group
File 75:TGG Management Contents(R) 86-2006/Apr W3
(c) 2006 The Gale Group
File 88:Gale Group Business A.R.T.S. 1976-2006/Apr 20
(c) 2006 The Gale Group
~
File 98:General Sci Abs 1984-2004/Dec
(c) 2005 The HW Wilson Co.
File 141:Readers Guide 1983-2005/May
(c) 2006 The HW Wilson Co
File 148:Gale Group Trade & Industry DB 1976-2006/Apr 27
(c)2006 The Gale Group
File 160:Gale Group PROMT(R) 1972-1989
(c) 1999 The Gale Group
File 239:Mathsci 1940-2006/Jun
(c) 2006 American Mathematical Society
File 275:Gale Group Computer DB(TM) 1983-2006/Apr 26
(c) 2006 The Gale Group
File 369:New Scientist 1994-2006/Sep WI
(c) 2006 Reed Business Information Ltd.
File 370:Science 1996-1999/Jul W3
(c) 1999 AAAS
File 484:Periodical Abs Plustext 1986-2006/Apr W2
(c) 2006 ProQuest
File 553:Wilson Bus. Abs. 1982-2006/Apr
(c) 2006 The HW Wilson Co
File 610:Business Wire 1999-2006/Apr 27
(c) 2006 Business Wire.
File 613:PR Newswire 1999-2006/Apr 27
(c) 2006 PR Newswire Association Inc
File 621:Gale Group New Prod.Annou. (R) 1985-2006/Apr 27
(c) 2006 The Gale Group
File 624:McGraw-Hill Publications 1985-2006/Apr 27
(c) 2006 McGraw-Hill Co. Inc
File 634:San Jose Mercury Jun 1985-2006/Apr 26
(c) 2006 San Jose Mercury News
File 635:Business Dateline(R) 1985-2006/Apr 27
(c) 2006 ProQuest lnfo&Learning
File 636:Gale Group Newsletter DB(TM) 1987-2006/Apr 26
(c) 2006 The Gale Group
File 647:CMP Computer Fulltext 1988-2006/May W2
(c) 2006 CMP Media, LLC
File 674:Computer News Fulltext 1989-2006/Apr W3
(c) 2006 lDG Communications
File 696:DlALOG Telecom. Newsletters 1995-2006/Apr 27
(c) 2006 Dialog
File 810:Business Wire 1986-1999/Feb 28
(c) 1999 Business Wire
File 813:PR Newswire 1987-1999/Apr 30
(c) 1999 PR Newswire Association Inc
REQUEST Application Number 09/843,923

FOR Filing Date Apri130, 2001


CONTINUED EXAMINATION
First Named Inventor Sergey Brin
TRANSMITTAL
Art Unit 2142
Address to:
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Examiner Name B. Ailes
Customer Service Window, Mail Stop RCE
Randolph Building Attorney Docket Number 0026-0002
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
This is a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114 ofthe above-identified application.
Request for Continued Examination (RCE) practice under 37 CFR 1.114 does not apply to any utility or plant application filed prior to June
8, 1995, or to any design application. See Instruction Sheet for RCEs (not to be submitted to the USPTO) on page 2.
l. Submission required under 37 CFR 1.114 (Note: If the RCE is proper, any previously filed unentered
amendments and amendments enclosed with the RCE will be entered in the order in which they were filed unless
applicant instructs otherwise. If applicant does not wish to have any previously filed unentered amendment(s)
entered, applicant must request non-entry of such amendment(s).

a. ~ Previously submitted. If a final Office action is outstanding, any amendments filed after the final
Office action may be considered as a submission even if this box is not checked.
l. 0
Consider the arguments in the Appeal Brief or Reply Brief previously filed on
11. 0
Other
b. 0 Enclosed
...
l. 0
Amendment/Reply 111. 0
Information Disclosure Statement (mS)
11. 0
Affidavit(s)/Declaration(s) IV. Other 0
2. Miscellaneous
a. 0 Suspension of action on the above-identified application is requested under 37 CFR l.l03(c) for a
period of months (Period of suspension shall not exceed 3 months; Fee under 37 CFR 1.17(i) required)
b. 0 Other

3. Fees The RCE fee under 37 CFR 1.1 7(e) is required by 37 CFR 1.114 when the RCE is filed.
a. ~ The Director is hereby authorized to charge any other appropriate fees that may be required
by this paper that are not accounted for below, and to credit any overpayment, to Deposit
Account No. 50-1070.
l. ~ RCE fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(e)
11. 0 Extension of time fee (37 CFR 1.136 and 1.17)
111. 0 Other
b. 0 Check in the amount of $ 790.00 enclosed
c. ~ Payment by credit card (Form PTO-2038 enclosed)
WARNING: Information on this form may become public. Credit card information should
not be included on this form. Provide credit card information and authorization on PTO-2038.

CUSTOMER NUMBER: 44989


SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT, ATTORNEY, OR AGENT REQUIRED
Name (Print / Type) Paul A. Harrity Registration No. (Attorney/Agent) 39,574
Signature /Paul A. Harrity/ Date May 17,2006
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING OR TRANSMISSION
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being deposited with the United States Postal Service with sufficient postage as first
class mail in an envelope addressed to: Commissioner for Patents, Box RCE, Washington, DC 20231, or facsimile transmitted
to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on the date shown below.
Name (Print / Type)
Signature Date
Electronic Patent Application Fee Transmittal
Application Number: 09843923

Filing Date: 30-Apr-2001

Title of Invention: Systems and methods for enticing users to access a web site

First Named Inventor: Sergey Brin

Filer: Paul Harrity/Julia Cummings

Attorney Docket Number: 0026-0002

Filed as Large Entity

Utility Filing Fees

Sub-Total in
Description Fee Code Quantity Amount
USD($)

Basic Filing:

Pages:

Claims:

Miscellaneous-Fi Ii ng:

Petition:

Patent-Appeals-and-I nterference:

Post -Allowance-and -Post -Issu ance:

Extension-of-Time:
Sub-Total in
Description Fee Code Quantity Amount
USD($)

Miscellaneous:

Request for continued examination 1801 1 790 790

Total in USD ($) 790


Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt

EFSID: 1049503

Application Number: 09843923

Confirmation Number: 9916

Title of Invention: Systems and methods for enticing users to access a web site

First Named Inventor: Sergey Brin

Customer Number: 44989

Filer: Paul Harrity/Julia Cummings

Filer Authorized By: Paul Harrity

Attorney Docket Number: 0026-0002

Receipt Date: 17-MAY-2006

Filing Date: 30-APR-2001

Time Stamp: 14:12:36

Application Type: Utility

International Application Number:

Payment information:
Submitted with Payment yes

Payment was successfully received in RAM $790


RAM confirmation Number 638

Deposit Account

File Listing:
Document Multi
Document Description File Name File Size(Bytes)
Number Part
Request for Continued Examination 05-17-06-RCE-Transmittal.p
1 111091 no 1
(RCE) df

Warnings:
Information:

2 Fee Worksheet (PTO-875) fee-info.pdf 8159 no 2

Warnings:
Information:
Total Files Size (in bytes): 119250

This Acknowledgement Receipt evidences receipt on the noted date by the USPTO of the indicated documents,
characterized by the applicant, and including page counts, where applicable. It serves as evidence of receipt
similar to a Post Card, as described in MPEP 503.

New Applications Under 35 U.S.C. 111


If a new application is being filed and the application includes the necessary components for a filing date (see
37 CFR 1.53(b)-(d) and MPEP 506), a Filing Receipt (37 CFR 1.54) will be issued in due course and the date
shown on this Acknowledgement Receipt will establish the filing date of the application.

National Stage of an International Application under 35 U.S.C. 371


If a timely submission to enter the national stage of an international application is compliant with the conditions
of 35 U.S.C. 371 and other applicable requirements a Form PCT/OO/EO/903 indicating acceptance of the
application as a national stage submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 will be issued in addition to the Filing Receipt,
in due course.
PATENT
Docket No. 0026-0002

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

In re Patent Application of )
)
SergeyBrin ) Group Art Unit: 2142
)
'Application No.: 09/843,923 . ) Examiner: B. Ailes
)
Filed: April 30, 2001 .)
)
or. SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR )
ENTICING USERS TO ACCESS A )
WEBSITE )

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office


Customer Service Window, Mail Stop AF
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
},Jexandria, VA 22314

AFTER FINAL AMENDMENT

In response to the final Office Action. dated February 22, 2006, and pursuant to 37 C.F.R

§ 1.116, Applicant proposes to amend the above-identified application as follows:

Amendments to the Oaims begin on page ~ of this paper.

'Remarks begin on page 9 of this paper.


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
Alexnndri•• Virgini. 22313·1450
www.uspto.gov

APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.

09/843,923 04/30/2001 Sergey Brio 0026-0002 9916

44989 7590 05/11/2006 EXAMINER

HARRITY SNYDER, LLP AILES, BENJAMIN A


11350 Random Hills Road
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
SUITE 600
FAIRFAX, VA 22030 2142

DATE MAILED: 05/11/2006

Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.

PTO-90C (Rev. 10/03)


~.
..
Application No. Applicant(s)
Advisory Action 09/843,923 BRIN, SERGEY
Before the Filing of an Appeal Brief Examiner Art Unit
Benjamin A. Ailes 2142
•• The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address ••
THE REPLY FILED 24 April 2006 FAILS TO PLACE THIS APPLICATION IN CONDITION FOR ALLOWANCE.
1. [8l The reply was filed after a final rejection, but prior to or on the same day as filing a Notice of Appeal. To avoid abandonment of
.this application, applicant must timely file one of the following replies: (1) an amendment, affidavit, or other evidence, which
places the application in condition for allowance; (2) a Notice of Appeal (with appeal fee) in compliance with 37 CFR 41.31; or
(3) a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) in compliance with 37 CFR 1.114. The reply must be filed within one of the
following time periods:
a) 0 The period for reply expires months from the mailing date of the final rejection.
b) ~ The period for reply expires on: (1) the mailing date of this Advisory Action, or (2) the date set forth in the final rejection, whichever is later. In no
event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of the final rejection.
Examiner Note: If box 1 is checked, check either box (a) or (b). ONLY CHECK BOX (b) WHEN THE FIRST REPLY WAS FILED WITHIN TWO
MONTHS OF THE FINAL REJECTION. See MPEP 706.07(f).
Extensions of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). The date on which the petition under 37 CFR 1.136(a) and the appropriate extension fee have
been filed is the date for purposes of determining the period of extension and the corresponding amount of the fee. The appropriate extension fee under 37
CFR 1..17(a) is calculated froni: (1) the expiration date of the shortened statutory period for reply originally set in the final Office action; or (2) as set forth in (b)
above, if checked. Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of the final rejection, even if timely filed, may reduce any
earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
NOTICE OF APPEAL
2. DThe Notice of Appeal was filed on _ _. A brief in compliance with 37 CFR 41.37 must be filed within two months of the date
of filing the Notice of Appeal (37 CFR 41.37(a)), or any extension thereof (37 CFR 41.37(e)), to avoid dismissal of the appeal.
Since a Notice of Appeal has been filed, any reply must be filed within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 41.37(a).
AMENDMENTS
3. ~ The proposed amendment(s) filed after a final rejection, but prior to the date of filing a brief, will not be entered because
(a)~ They raise new issues that would require further consideration and/or search (see NOTE below);
(b)D They raise the issue of new matter (see NOTE below); .
(c)O They are not deemed to place the application in better form for appeal by materially reducing or simplifying the issues for
• appeal; and/or .
(d)D They present additiona~ claims without canceling a corresponding number of finally rejected claims.
NOTE: See Continuation Sheet. (See 37 CFR 1.116 and 41.33(a)).
4.0 The amendments are not in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121. See attached Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment (PTOL-324).
5.0 Applicant's reply has overcome the following rejection(s): _ _.
6. 0 Newly proposed or amended claim(s) _ _ would be allowable if submitted in a separate, timely filed amendment canceling
the non-allowable c1aim(s).
7. ~ For purposes of appeal, the proposed amendment(s): a) [8l will not be entered, or b) 0 will be entered and an explanation of
how the new or amended claims would be rejected is provided below or appended.
The status of the c1aim(s) is (or will be) as follows:
Claim(s) allowed: _ _.
Claim(s) objected to: _ _.
Claim(s) rejected: 18-39.
Claim(s) withdrawn from consideration: _ _.
AFFIDAVIT OR OTHER EVIDENCE
8. 0 The affidavit or other evidence filed after a final action, but before or on the date of filing a Notice of Appeal will not be 'entered
because applicant failed to provide a showing of good and sufficient reasons why the affidavit or other evidence is necessary
and was not earl ier presented. See 37 CFR 1.116(e).
9. 0 The affidavit or other evidence filed after the date of filing a Notice of Appeal, but prior to the date of filing a brief, will not be
entered because the affidavit or other evidence failed to overcome ~ rejections under appeal and/or appellant fails to provide a
showing a good and sufficient reasons why it is necessary and was not earlier presented. See 37 CFR 41.33(d)(1).
10. 0 The affidavit or other evidence is entered. An explanation of the status of the claims after entry is below or attached.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION/OTHER
11. [8l The r~quest for reconsideration has been considered but does NOT place the application in condition for allowance because:
See Continuation Sheet.
12.0 Note the attached Information Disclosure Statement(s). (PTO/SB/OB or PTO-1449) Paper No(s). _ _
13. 0 Other: _ _.

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office


PTOL-303 (Rev. 7-05) Advisory Action Before the Filing of an Appeal Brief Part of Paper No. 20060508
(
• ,_.:3 •
.Continuation Sheet (PTOL.303) Application No.

. Continuation of 3. NOTE: The change in scope due to the amendments to claims 18, 22, 26 and 28 requires further search· and/or
consideration.

Continuation of 11. does NOT place the application in condition for allowance because: The Examiner maintains the rejectionsset forth in
the previous office action.

~,.~ ~
BEATRlZ PRIETO
PAIMA~ ~y M,1.!t\IF':'"

2
PATENT
Docket No. 0026-0002

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

In re Patent Application of )
)
SergeyBrin ) Group Art Unit: 2142
)
'Application No.: 09/843,923 ) Examiner: B. Ailes
)
Filed: April 30, 2001 . )
)
or: SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR )
ENTICING USERS TO ACCESS A )
WEB SITE )

u.s. Patent and Trademark Office


Customer Service Window, Mail Stop AF
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314

AFTER FINAL AMENDMENT

In response to the fmal Office Action, dated February 22,2006, and pursuant to 37 C.F.R.

§ 1.116, Applicant proposes to amend the above-identified application as follows:

Amendments to the Claims begin on page 2 of this paper.

'Remarks begin on page 9 of tins paper.


UNITED STA~ DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Addrcu: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.o. Box 1450
A!<XImdria, Vuginia 22313-1450
www.tIIplO.gov

___AP_PL_IC_ATI_O_N_NUMB
__ ER FIL_IN_G_O_R_37_1<;.;.c}_DA_T_E FIRS_T_NAM_E_D_AP_PL_IC_ANT
_ _I--ATIY-.-OOC-KE-T-N-O.r-rl-TL-E-

09/843,923 04/30/2001 Sergey Brin 0026-0002

CONFIRMATION NO. 9916


44989
HARRITY SNYDER, LLP
Immlll~~mmlmmn~n~nmmlml~~mnII19~m~~I~1
*OC000000018720192*
11350 Random Hills Road
SUITE 600
FAIRFAX, VA 22030

Date Mailed: 05/09/2006

NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE OF POWER OF ATTORNEY

This is in response to the Power of Attorney filed 04/24/2006.

The Power of Attorney in this application is accepted. Correspondence in this application will be mailed to the
above address as provided by 37 CFR 1.33.

• LA!4
3921 (571) 272-3586
OFFICE COpy
PATENT
Docket No. 0026-0002

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

In re Patent Application of )
)
SergeyBrin ) Group Art Unit 2142
)
Application No.: 09/843,923 ) Examiner: B. Ailes
)
Filed: April 30, 2001 )
)
For: SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR )
ENTICING USERS TO ACCESS A )
WEBSITE )

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office


Customer Service Window, Mail Stop AF
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314

AFTER FINAL AMENDMENT

In response to the final Office Action, dated February 22,2006, and pursuant to 37 C.F.R.

§ 1.116, Applicant proposes to amend the above-identified application as follows:

Amendments to the Claims begin on page 2 ofthis paper.

Remarks begin on page 9 of this paper.


PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

Amendments to the Claims:

This listing of claims will replace all prior versions, and listings, of claims in the application:

Listing of Claims:

1-17. (canceled)

18. (currently amended) A method for enticing users to access a web page,

comprising:

modifying a standard company logo for a special event to create a special event logo;

associating one or more search terms with the special event logo, the one or more search

terms relating to the special event;

uploading the special event logo to the web page;

receiving a user selection of the special event logo; and

invoking a search relating to the special event based on the one or more search terms in

response to the user selection.

19. (original) The method of claim 18, wherein the modifying a standard company

logo includes:

creating the special event logo by modifying the standard company logo with one or more

animated images.

20. (previously presented) The method of claim 18, wherein the modifying a standard

company logo includes:

2
PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

creating the special event logo by modifying the standard company logo with at least one

of video or audio data.

21. (original) The method of claim 18, wherein the special event includes a holiday.

22. (currently amended) The method of claim [[18]] 37, '""herein the associating one

or more search tenns includes further comprising:

identifying associating one or more search temlS relating to the special event; and

wherein invoking a search includes:

performing the search based on the one or more search terms.

23. (original) The method of claim 18, wherein the uploading the special event logo

includes:

displaying the special event logo on the web page during the special event.

24. (previously presented) The method of claim 18, wherein the invoking a search

includes:

generating a search query using the one or more search terms,

using the search query to search at least one of a network, an index, or a directory, and

obtaining search results based on the search.

3
PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

25. (original) The method of claim 18, wherein the modifYing a standard company

logo includes:

determining a home page for the web page on a network,

identifying the standard company logo on the home page, and

modifYing the standard company logo with special event infonnation to create the special

event logo.

26. (currently amended) A computer-readable medium that stores instructions

executable by one or more processors to perform a method for attracting users to a web page,

comprising:

instructions for creating a special event logo by modifying a standard company logo for a

special event;

instructions for associating at least one of a link or search results with the special event

logo, the link or search results relating to the special event;

instructions for uploading the special event logo to the web page;

instructions for receiving a user selection of the special event logo; and

instructions for providing the link or search results associated with the special event logo.

27. (original) A server connected to a network, comprising:

a memory configured to store instructions; and

a processor configured to execute the instructions to:

determine a home page for a web page on the network,

4
PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

identify a standard company logo on the home page,

modify the standard company logo with special event information corresponding

to a special event to create a special event logo, and

replace the standard company logo with the special event logo during the special

event.

28. (currently amended) A method, comprising:

identifying a standard company logo associated with a web site~

modifying the standard company logo with at least one of image, video, or audio data

relating to a special event to create a special event logo;

associating one or more search terms relating to the special event with the special event

logo;

detecting a selection associated with the special event logo; and

invoking a search relating to the special event based on the one or more search tenus in

response to the detected selection.

29. (previously presented) The computer-readable medium of claim 26, wherein the

instructions for creating a special event logo include:

instructions for modifying the standard company logo with one or more animated images.

30. (previously presented) The computer-readable medium of claim 26, wherein the

instructions for creating a special event logo include:

5
PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843 l923
Docket No. 0026-0002

instructions for modifying the standard company logo with at least one of video or audio

data.

31. (previously presented) The computer-readable medium of claim 26, wherein the

instructions for creating a special event logo include:

instructions for modifying the standard company logo with information associated with a

holiday.

32. (previously presented) The server of claim 27 l wherein the processor is further

configured to~

associate one or more search terms relating to the special event with the special event

logo.

33. (previously presented) The server of claim 32l wherein the processor is further

configured to~

detect a selection associated with the special event logo,

generate a search query based on the one or more search terms l

perform a search based on the search queryl and

provide a result of the search.

34. (previously presented) The method of claim 18, wherein uploading the special

event logo includes:

6
PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

replacing the standard company logo with the special event logo on the web page.

35. (previously presented) The computer-readable medium of claim 26, wherein the

instructions for uploading the special event logo include:

instructions for replacing the standard company logo with the special event logo on the

web page.

36. (previously presented) The method of claim 28, further comprising:

replacing the standard company logo with the special event logo.

37. (previously presented) A method, comprising:

presenting a special event logo on a web page, the special event logo being associated

with a standard company logo that has been modified or replaced for a special event;

receiving selection of the special event logo;

invoking a search relating to the special event in response to the received selection; and

presenting results based on the invoked search.

38. (previously presented) The method of claim 37, wherein one or more search

terms are associated with the special event logo; and

wherein the invoking a search relating to the special event includes:

causing a search to be performed based on the one or more search terms.

7
PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026~0002

39. (previously presented) The method of claim 37, wherein the presenting a special

event logo includes:

displaying the special event logo on the web page during the special event.

8
PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

REMARKS

Initially, in accordance with Applicant's duty to provide information regarding the

substance of an interview, a personal interview was held on April 12, 2006, between Applicant's

representative, Primary Patent Examiner Prieto, and Examiner Ailes. Applicant would first like

to thank Examiners Prieto and Ailes for the courtesies extended during the personal interview.

During that interview, the rejection based on Wolff (U.S. Patent No. 6,247,047) in view of Unold

et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0055880) was discussed. The Examiners

agreed to reconsider the rejections upon the filing of this After Final Amendment.

In the final Office Action, the Examiner rejected claims 18-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)

as unpatentable over Wolff (U.S. Patent No. 6,247,047) in view of Unold et al. (U.S. Patent

Application Publication No. 2002/0055880).

By this Amendment, Applicant proposes amending claims 18, 22, 26, and 28 to improve

form solely to expedite prosecution and without acquiescing in the Examiner's rejection.

Applicant respectfully traverses the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claims 18-39

remain pending.

In paragraphs 4-21 of the final Office Action, the Examiner rejected claims 18-39 as

allegedly unpatentable over Wolff in view of Unold et al. Applicant respectfully traverses the

rejection.

Amended independent claim 18, for example, is directed to a method for enticing users to

access a web page. The method comprises modifying a standard company logo for a special

event to create a special event logo; associating one or more search terms with the special event

logo, the one or more search terms relating to the special event; uploading the special event logo

9
PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843~923
Docket No. 0026-0002

to the web page; receiving a user selection of the special event logo; and invoking a search

relating to the special event based on the one or more search tenus in response to the user

selection.

Neither Wolff nor Unold et al., whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination~

discloses or suggests the combination of features recited in claim 18. For example, neither Wolff

nor Unold et at discloses or suggests modifying a standard company logo for a special event to

create a special event logo.

The Examiner alleged that Wolff discloses the use of a standard company logo and cited

column 8, lines 35-40, of Wolff for support (final Office Action, paragraph 5). Applicant

respectfully disagrees.

At column 8, lines 35-42~ Wolff discloses:

At step 200, a WWW page 100 is displayed on display 18 of a user node 14. Page 100 is retrieved
from sponsor server 50 (FIG. 1) when server 50 is accessed by specifying its URL during a
browsing session by the user. Page 100 is specified by HTML file 52 which, as described above,
caused an icon or advertising banner 102 to be displayed. Banner 102, displayed on a geographic
area 104 of page ]00, includes graphics relating to a particular product or service being advertised.

In this section, Wolff discloses displaying an advertising banner relating to a particular product

or service being advertised on a web page. It appears that the Examiner is alleging that an

advertising banner is equivalent to a company logo. Applicant submits that such an allegation is

unreasonable because an advertising banner is quite different from a company logo. They are

designed for different purposes and they implement different functionality. An advertising

banner typically includes advertising material that offers a product or service for sale. It may be

possible for an advertising banner to include a company logo with the advertising material (see,

e.g., paragraphs 0125 and 0126 of Unold et at), but an advertising banner is definitely not

equivalent to a company logo. Wolff does not even mention a company logo. Therefore, Wolff

10
PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

cannot disclose the ability to modify a standard company logo, as alleged by the Examiner.

In response to a similar argument previously presented by Applicant, the Examiner

alleged:

Through broadest reasonable interpretation of the term "company logo" it is interpreted by the
Examiner to mean anything or any type of representation of a company including any type of
advertisement for the company which is used to ltrepresentlt the company. It is well known that
one company can be represented by a plurality of different logos in a plurality of ways of media
(animation, video, pictures, etc.). It is therefore maintained by the Examiner that a company logo
when altered is quite often done to "attract" a consumer, making the company seem more different
and unique when compared with other companies. The same reasoning is used for advertising.
Advertising is used to "attract" customers to a product sold by the company by attempting to be
unique and different Therefore, it is concluded by the Examiner that a company logo is in fact
equivalent in functionality to an advertisement logo.

(final Office Action, paragraph 23). Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner's

allegations are premised on an incorrect presumption by the Examiner. The Examiner alleged

that companies are represented by a plurality of different logos and that companies often alter

their company logos to attract customers. Applicant disagrees. Companies do not typically alter

their company logos to attract customers. In fact, the opposite it true. A company's logo is quite

often their trademark and they keep it the same so that customers know that they are dealing with

the company and not some other company. Therefore, the Examiner1s allegation that Ii a company

logo when altered is quite often done to 'attrad a consumer, making the company seem more

different and unique when compared with other companies" finds no basis in fact.

The Examiner admitted that Wolff does not disclose modifYing a standard company logo

to become a special event logo (final Office Action, paragraph 5). The Examiner alleged that

Unold et al. discloses the ability to alter a standard company logo to become a special event logo

in accordance with a special event and cited paragraph 0007 of Unold et al. for support (final

Office Action, paragraph 5). Applicant respectfully disagrees.

11
PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

At paragraph 0007, Unold et aL discloses:

Therefore, there exists in the industry, a need for a system and method for enabling the rapid
creation of electronic advertisements, for rapidly changing or replacing advertisements in response
to market and sales trends, changes in customer preferences, or the occurrence of a holiday or
special event, for controlling access to digital signs, and for addressing these and other related, and
unrelated, problems.

In this section, Unold et al. discloses the need for a system and method to rapidly create, change,

and replace advertisements. It appears again that the Examiner is alleging that an advertisement

is equivalent to a company logo. As explained above, such an allegation is unreasonable because

advertisements are quite different from company logos. Therefore, the need for rapidly creating,

changing, and replacing advertisements, as identified by Unold et aI., falls short of curing the

deficiencies in the disclosure of Wolff.

Therefore, even if Wolff and Unold et aL were combinable (a point that Applicant does

not concede), the combined system would not disclose or suggest modifYing a standard company

logo for a special event to create a special event logo, as required by claim 18.

Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that an advertisement can be equated to a

company logo, Wolff and Unold et al. do not disclose or suggest associating one or more search

terms with a special event logo, where the one or more search terms relate to the special event.

The Examiner alleged that Wolff discloses associating one or more search terms with a company

logo (final Office Action, paragraph 5) and that it would have been obvious to associate a search

term with the special event because Wolff discloses associating a search term with a company

logo, therefore, "the search term would have to be related to the special event logo in some sort

of way" (final Office Action, paragraph 8). Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner's

obviousness statement falls short of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.

Wolff discloses that a URL and unique indicia identifying the product or service being

12
PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

advertised is embedded within an advertising banner (coL 8, lines 43-48). Wolff discloses that if

a user clicks on the advertising banner, the host server (associated with the advertiser) uses the

unique indicia to search a product/service database for a record containing information specific to

the advertised product or service (coL 9, lines 3-7). Nowhere does Wolff disclose or remotely

suggest that this unique indicia is related to a special event, as required by claim 18. The

Examiner's allegation that the unique indicia "would have to be related" to a special event is

unsupported by any facts.

Because neither Wolff nor Unold et aI. discloses or suggests associating one or more

search terms with the special event logo, where the one or more search terms relate to the special

event, Wolff and Unold et aI., whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, cannot

disclose or suggest invoking a search relating to the special event based on the one or more

search terms in response to the user selection, as further required by claim 18.

For at least these reasons, Applicant submits that claim 18 is patentable over Wolff and

Unold et aI., whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination. Claims 19-21,23-25, and 34

depend from claim 18 and are, therefore, patentable over Wolffand Unold et aI. for at least the

reasons given with regard to claim 18. Claims 19-21, 23-25, and 34 are also patentable over

Wolff and Unold et al. for reasons of their own.

For example, claim 19 recites creating the special event logo by modifying the standard

company logo with one or more animated images. Neither Wolff nor Unold et al. discloses or

suggests this combination of features.

The Examiner alleged that Unold et al. discloses the ability to modify a logo with

animated images, video, and audio data and cited paragraph 0047, lines 9-13, of Unold et al. for

13
PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

support (final Office Action, paragraph 6). Applicant respectfully disagrees.

At paragraph 0047, lines 9-13, Unold et al. discloses:

Each digital sign 108, preferably, comprises: a display subsystem capable of displaying video or
still images received in the form of digital signals; an audio subsystem capable of producing and
delivering audible sound from received digital signals therefor.

In this section, Unold et aL discloses that a digital sign is capable of displaying video or still

images and producing audible sound. The Examiner appears to allege that a digital sign is

equivalent to a company logo. Unold et aL describes a digital sign as a device that includes a

display via which an advertiser can advertise its products or services in locations, such as

airports, shopping malls, exhibit halls, taxi cabs, etc. (paragraphs 0047 and 0048). Applicant

submits that it is unreasonable to equate a digital sign device to a company logo since they are

two very different things.

In response to a similar argument previously presented by Applicant, the Examiner

alleged that it is "deemed obvious in the art that a digital display can display animated images '1

(final Office Action, paragraph 26). Applicants respectfully submit that the Examiner's

allegation falls short of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. The mere fact that a

digital display can display animated images falls way short of rendering obvious creating a

special event logo by modifYing a standard company logo with one or more animated images, as

required by claim 19.

For at least these additional reasons, Applicant submits that claim 19 is patentable over

Wolff and Unold et al.

Claim 20 recites creating the special event logo by modifying the standard company logo

with at least one of video or audio data. Neither Wolff nor Unoid et al. discloses or suggests this

14
PATENT
u.s. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

combination of features.

The Examiner alleged that Unold et al. discloses the ability to modify a logo with

animated images, video, and audio data and cited paragraph 0047, lines 9-13, of Unold et al. for

support (final Office Action, paragraph 6). Applicant respectfully disagrees.

Paragraph 0047, lines 9-13, of Unold et al. has been reproduced above. In this section,

Unold et al. discloses that a digital sign is capable of displaying video or still images and

producing audible sound. As explained above with regard to claim 19, Applicant submits that it

is unreasonable to equate a digital sign device to a company logo since they are two very

different things. Applicant further submits that the mere fact that a digital display device can

display video and produce audible sound falls way short of rendering obvious creating the special

event logo by modifYing the standard company logo with at least one of video or audio data, as

required by claim 20.

For at least these additional reasons, Applicant submits that claim 20 is patentable over

Wolff and Unold et al.

Claim 25 recites determining a home page for the web page on a network, identifying the

standard company logo on the home page, and modifying the standard company logo with special

event information to create the special event logo. Neither Wolff nor Unold et al. discloses or

suggests this combination of features.

For example, neither Wolff nor Unold et al. discloses or suggests determining a home

page for a web page on a network. The Examiner alleged that Wolff discloses this feature and

cited column 8, lines 35-40, of Wolff for support (final Office Action, paragraph 11). Applicant

respectfully disagrees.

15
PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

Column 8, lines 35-42, of Wolff has been reproduced above. In this section, Wolff

discloses retrieving a page 100 during a browsing session by a user. Nowhere in this section, or

elsewhere, does Wolff disclose or remotely suggest determining a home page for a web page on a

network, as required by claim 25.

If the Examiner persists with this rejection, Applicant respectfully requests that the

Examiner provide a reasonable explanation of how the above-cited portion of Wolff discloses or

suggests determining a home page for a web page on a network, as required by claim 25. lfthe

Examiner cannot provide a reasonable explanation, then the Examiner must withdraw the

rejection.

Wolff and Unold et al. also do not disclose or suggest identifYing a standard company

logo on the home page. The Examiner alleged that Wolff discloses this feature and cited column

8, lines 35-40, of Wolff for support (final Office Action, paragraph 11). Applicant respectfully

disagrees.

Column 8, lines 35-40, of Wolff has been reproduced above. In this section, Wolff

discloses that an advertising banner is displayed on a web page. As explained above with regard

to claim 18, an advertising banner is not equivalent to a company logo. Therefore, contrary to

the Examiner's allegation, Wolff does not disclose or remotely suggest identifYing a standard

company logo on a home page, as required by claim 25.

For at least these additional reasons, Applicant submits that claim 25 is patentable over

Wolff and Unold et al.

Amended independent claim 26 recites features similar to, but possibly different in scope

from, features recited in claim 18. Claim 26 is, therefore, patentable over Wolff and Unold et aI.,

16
PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, for at least reasons similar to reasons

given with regard to claim 18. Claims 29-31 and 35 depend from claim 26 and are, therefore,

patentable over Wolff and Unold et aL for at least the reasons given with regard to claim 26.

Claims 29-31 and 35 also recite features similar to, but possibly different in scope from, features

recited in claims 19-21,23-25, and 34. Claims 29-31 and 35 are, therefore, also patentable over

Wolff and Unold et al. for reasons similar to reasons given with regard to claims 19-21,23-25,

and 34.

Independent claim 27 is directed to a server connected to a network. The server

comprises a memory configured to store instructions and a processor configured to execute the

instructions to determine a home page for a web page on the network, identifY a standard

company logo on the horne page, modifY the standard company logo with special event

infonnation corresponding to a special event to create a special event logo, and replace the

standard company logo with the special event logo during the special event.

Neither Wolff nor Unold et aI., whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination,

discloses or suggests the combination of features recited in claim 27. For example, neither Wolff

nor Unold et al. discloses or suggests a processor configured to determine a home page for a web

page on a network or identify a standard company logo on the home page, for at least reasons

similar to reasons given with regard to claim 25.

The Examiner alleged that Wolff discloses retrieving data from a sponsor server that the

Examiner alleged is the same as a horne page (final Office Action, page 29). Applicant

respectfully disagrees. A server and a home page are two totally different things and any

argument that they are equivalents finds no basis in fact.

17
PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843~923
Docket No. 0026-0002

Wolff and Unold et al. also do not disclose or suggest a processor configured to modify a

standard company logo with special event information corresponding to a special event to create

a special event logo, as further recited in claim 27, for at least reasons similar to reasons given

with regard to claim 18.

Wolff and Unold et aI. also do not disclose or suggest a processor configured to replace

the standard company logo with the special event logo during the special event, as further recited

in claim 27. The Examiner did not address this feature and, therefore, did not establish a prima

facie case of obviousness with regard to claim 27.

For at least these reasons, Applicant submits that claim 27 is patentable over Wolff and

Unold et aI., whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination. Claims 32 and 33 depend

from claim 27 and are~ therefore, patentable over Wolff and Unold et aI. for at least the reasons

given with regard to claim 27.

Independent claim 28 recites features similar to, but possibly different in scope from,

features recited in claims l8~20. Claim 28 is~ therefore~ patentable over Wolff and Unold et aL~

whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, for at least reasons similar to reasons

given with regard to claims 18-20. Claim 36 depends from claim 28. Claim 36 is, therefore,

patentable over Wolff and Unold et at for at least the reasons given with regard to claim 28.

Independent claim 37 recites features similar to, but possibly different in scope from,

features recited in claim 18. Claim 37 is, therefore~ patentable over Wolff and Unold et aI.,

whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, for at least reasons similar to reasons

given with regard to claim 18. Claims 22, 38, and 39 depend from claim 37 and are~ therefore,

patentable over Wolff and Unold et ai. for at least the reasons given with regard to claim 37.

18
PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

In view of the foregoing amendments and remarks, Applicant respectfully requests the

Examiner1s reconsideration of the application and the timely allowance of pending claims 18-39.

Applicant respectfully requests that this Amendment under 37 c.P.R. § 1.116 be entered

by the Exanliner, placing claims 18-39 in condition for immediate allowance. Applicant submits

that the proposed amendments do not raise new issues or necessitate the undertaking of any

additional search of the art by the Examiner, since all of the elements and their relationships

claimed were either earlier claimed or implied in the claims as examined. Therefore, this

Amendment should allow for immediate action by the Examiner. Further, Applicant submits that

the entry of this Amendment would place the application in better fonn for appeal, should the

Examiner dispute the patentability of the pending claims.

lfthe Examiner does not believe that all pending claims are now in condition for

allowance, the Examiner is urged to contact the undersigned to expedite prosecution of this

application.

19
PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

To the extent necessary, a petition for an extension of time under 37 C.P.R. § 1.136 is

hereby made. Please charge any shortage in fees due in connection with the filing of this paper,

including extension of time fees, to Deposit Account No. 50-1070 and please credit any excess

fees to such deposit account.

Respectfully submitted,

HARRITY SNYDER, L.L.P.

By: IPau! A. Harrity!


Paul A. Harrity
Reg. No. 39,574

Date: April 24, 2006

11350 Random Hills Road


Suite 600
Fairfax, Virginia 22030
(571) 432-0800

20
STATEMENT UNDER 37 CFR 3.73(b)

Applicant/Patent Owner: Sergey Brin

Application No./Patent No.: 09/843,923 Filed/Issue Date: April 30, 2001

Entitled: SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ENTICING USERS TO ACCESS A WEB SITE

Google Inc., a corporation


(Name of Assignee) (Type of Assignee, e.g., corporation, partnership, etc.)

states that it is:

1. ~ the assignee of the entire right, title, and interest; or

2.0 an assignee of less than the entire right, title and interest.
The extent (by, percentage) of its ownership interest is _%

in the patent application/patent identified above by virtue of either:

A. ~ An assignment from the inventor(s) of the patent application/patent identified above.


The assignment was recorded in the United States Patent and Trademark Office at Reel
011757, Frame 0476, or for which a copy thereof is attached.
OR

B. 0 A chain of title from the inventor(s), of the patent application/patent identified above, to
the current assignee as shown below:

1. From: To:
The document was recorded in the United States Patent and Trademark Office at
Reel _' Frame _' or for which a copy thereof is attached.

2. From: To:
The document was recorded in the United States Patent and Trademark Office at
Reel _' Frame _' or for which a copy thereof is attached.

3. From: To:
The document was recorded in the United States Patent and Trademark Office at
Reel _' Frame _' or for which a copy thereof is attached.

o Additional documents in the chain of title are listed on a supplemental sheet.


o Copies of assignments or other documents in the chain of title are attached.
[NOTE: A separate copy (i.e., the original assignment document or a true copy of the
original document) must be submitted to Assignment Division in accordance with 37 CFR
Part 3, if the assignment is to be recorded in the records of the USPTO. See MPEP 302.08]

The undersigned (whose title is supplied below) is authorized to act on behalf of the assignee.

April 24, 2006 Paul A. Harrity


Date Typed or printed name

/Paul A. Harrity/
Signature

Attorney for Assignee


Title
PTO/SB/81 (04-05)
Approved for use through 11/30/2005. OMB 0651-0035
U.S. Patenl and Trademark Office; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Under the PaperworkR eduction Act of 1995 no persons are reqUired to respond to a colIecllon
" of Information un Iess il disolavs a valid OMB control number.
/ Application Number ATIACHMENT: EXHIBIT A & EXHIBIT B ""'\
Filing Date
POWER OF ATTORNEY
First Named Inventor
and Title
CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS Art Unit
INDICATION FORM Examiner Name
\. Attorney Docket Number ~

I hereby revoke all previous powers of attorney given in the above~identified application.
I hereby appoint:

[i] Practitioners associated with the Customer Number: 44989

OR I I
D Practitioner(s) named below:

Name Registration Number

as my/our attorney(s) or agent(s) to prosecute the application identified above, and to transact all business in the United States Patent and
Trademark Office connected therewith.

Please recognize or change the correspondence address for the above-identified application to:
[Z] The address associated with the above-mentioned Customer Number;
OR

D OR The address associated with Customer Number:


I I

D Firm or
Individual Name
Address

City I State I I Zip I


Country
Telephone I Email I
! am the:
0 Applicant/Inventor.
[Z] Assignee of record of the entire interest. See 37 CFR 3.71.
Statement under 37 CFR 3. 73(b) is enclosed. (Form PTO/SBI96)
SIGNATURE of Applicant or Assignee of Record
Signature () /l r} #' I Date I /1/.z..llzez:qy:;-
Name David C. Drummond £/. ...4%'# /f I Telephone I
Title and Company Vice President Corporate Development, General Counsel of Google Inc.
NOTE: Signatures of aillhe inventors or assignees of record of the entire interest or their represenlative(s) are required. Submit multiple forms if more than one
signature is required, see below'.

[Z] 'Totalo1.1 forms are submitted.


ThiS colleclion of information IS reqUIred by 37 CFR 1.31, 1.32 and 1.33. The Information IS reqUIred to obtain or retain a benefit by the publlc which IS to file (and by
the USPTO to process) an application. Confidentiality is governed by 35 U.S.C. 122 and 37 CFR 1.11 and 1.14. This collection is estimated to lake 3 minutes
to complete, including gathering, preparing, and submitting the completed application form to lhe USPTO. Time will vary depending upon the individual case. Any
comments on lhe amount of time you require to complete this form and/or suggestions for reducing this burden, should be sent to the Chief Information Officer,
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, U.S. Department of Commerce, P.O, Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450, DO NOT SEND FEES OR COMPLETED
FORMS TOTHlS ADDRESS. SEND TO: Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313·1450.

If you need assistance in completing the form, caI/1-800-PTO-9199 and select option 2.
EXHIBIT A TO POWER OF ATTORNEY
U.S. PATENT APPLICATIONS
Serial No. Filed Date
09/729,240 12/5/2000
09/843,923 4130/2001
09/895,174 712/2001
111000,375 12/1/2004
09/734,887 12/13/2000
091734,886 12/13/2000
09/734,883 12/13/2000
09/777,863 2/7/2001
091734,901 12/13/2000
10/965,714 10118/2004
11/008,262 12/1012004
09/636,052 8110/2000
09/638,080 8114/2000
09/638,082 8114/2000
10/029,883 12/31/2001
10/386,110 3112/2003
09/939,661 8128/2001
10/385}52 3112/2003
09/850,403 518/2001
091956,875 9121/2001
10/408,784 4/8/2003
10/734,111 12/15/2003
10/747,043 12/30/2003
10/608,140 8/30/2003
10/377,117 313/2003
101425,819 4/30/2003
10/462,690 6117/2003
10/608,550 6/30/2003
10/462,818 6/17/2003
PCT/US04/19241 6/17/2004

10/608,139 6/30/2003
10/608,039 6130/2003
EXHIBIT A TO POWER OF ATTORNEY
U.S. PATENT APPLICATIONS
Serial No. Filed Date
10/608,037 6130/2003
10/608,135 6/30/2003
10/608,136 6130/2003
10/457A88 6110/2003
PCT/US04/18241 6/8/2004

10/665,359 9/22/2003
10/658,452 9/10/2003
10/662,931 9/16/2003
PCT/US04/30028 9/1412004

10/673,681 9/30/2003
10/653,899 9/4/2003
101813,356 3131/2004
peTIU804/28927 9/312004

101658,390 9/10/2003
101743,547 12/23/2003
10/672,248 9129/2003
10/748,666 12/31/2003
PCT/US04/42165 12/17/2004,

10/671,516 9129/2003
10/668,142 9124/2003
10/726A83 12/4/2003
101748,655 12/31/2003
10/664,902 9122/2003
10/664,929 9122/2003
PCT/US04/30983 9/20/2004

10/813,607 3131/2004
10/732,366 12/11/2003

2
EXHIBIT A TO POWER OF ATTORNEY
U.S. PATENT APPLICATIONS
Serial No. Filed Date
PCT/US04/37383 11110/2004

10/726,484 12/4/2003
101748,654 12/31/2003
10/697,333 10/31/2003
10/706,991 11/13/2003
101748,664 12/31/2003
peTIUS04/30000 9/1512004

10/712,263 11/14/2003
10/930,848 911/2004
101734,584 12/15/2003
10/748,663 12/31/2003
PCTIUS04/42162 12/17/2004

10/748,661 12/31/2003
101748,662 12/31/2003
11/023,962 12/29/2004
10/813,586 3/31/2004
10/748,656 12/31/2003
PCT/US04/30982 9/20/2004

10/879,520 6130/2004
10/813,359 3131/2004
PCT/US05/10701 3/29/2005

10/810,723 3/29/2004
10/808,326 3125/2004
10/813,229 3131/2004
10/813,573 3131/2004
10/810,725 3129/2004
10/813,618 3131/2004
10/879,503 6130/2004

3
EXHIBIT A TO POWER OF ATTORNEY
U.S. PATENT APPLICATIONS
Serial No. Filed Date
PCTIUS04/29982 9/1512004

10/953,114 9130/2004
10/813,572 3131/2004
peTIUS05/1 0344 3/2812005

10/879,521 6130/2004
10/813,592 3131/2004
10/813,590 3131/2004
10/800,006 3/15/2004
10/878,653 6129/2004
10/804,180 3119/2004
29/201,661 3119/2004
29/201,660 3/19/2004
10/880,164 6/30/2004
10/869,057 6/1712004
10/887,443 6130/2004
PCTIUS05/22726 6/29/2005
~

10/952,449 9129/2004
10/871,030 6121/2004
101842,697 5/11/2004
10/923,034 8/23/2004
10/952,445 9129/2004
10/938,502 t1f13/2004
101938,505 9/13/2004
10/938,727 9113/2004
10/949,706 9127/2004
10/949,708 9127/2004
10/953,491 9130/2004
10/952,482 9129/2004
10/954,009 9130/2004
10/952,501 9129/2004

4
EXHIBIT A TO POWER OF ATTORNEY
U.S. PATENT APPLICATIONS
Serial No. Filed Date
10/950,696 9128/2004
10/953,497 9130/2004
N/A 7/13/2005
10/952,444 9129/2004
10/953,496 9130/2004
10/953,112 9130/2004
10/611,267 6/30/2003
10/611,269 6/30/2003
29/214,259 9/30/2004
10/953,117 9130/2004
10/954,007 9130/2004
10/954,008 9130/2004
11/139,999 5131/2005
10/954,021 9130/2004
10/952,443 9129/2004
10/996,602 11/26/2004
PCT/US04/39656 11126/2004

11/024,968 12/30/2004
11/024,966 12/30/2004
11/024,784 12/30/2004
11/024,976 12/30/2004
11/094,793 3/31/2005
11/169,279 6129/2005
11/024,851 12/30/2004
11/024,765 12/30/2004
11/024,967 12/30/2004
11/024,785 12/30/2004
11/024,975 12/30/2004
11/024,790 12/30/2004
11/024,977 12/30/2004
11/010,316 12/14/2004
11/090,302 3/28/2005

5
EXHIBIT A TO POWER OF ATTORNEY
U.S. PATENT APPLICATIONS
Serial No. Filed Date
11/094,790 3131/2005
11/094,794 3131/2005
11/169,151 6/29/2005
11/132,362 5119/2005
11/170,134 6/30/2005
11/094,791 3131/2005
11/167,581 6128/2005
10/674,802 9130/2003
10/119,375 419/2002
09/939,522 8124/2001
10/629,479 7/28/2003
PCT/US04/24306 7/27/2004

10/608,270 6127/2003
PCT/US04/16258 5/20/2004

10/668,721 9122/2003
peTIUS04/28651 9/1/2004

101750,917 112/2004
101607,927 6127/2003
peTIUS04/19219 6/1612004

11/168,561 6/29/2005
111170,786 6130/2005
11/169,285 6129/2005
11/138,670 5127/2005
11/139,032 5127/2005
11/155,882 6120/2005
11/160,872 7113/2005
PCT/US05/10866 3/30/2005

6
EXHIBIT B TO POWER OF ATTORNEY
U.S. PATENTS
Serial No. Filed Date U.S. Patent No. Issued Date
~904z827 1/9/1998 _~~285~929 9/4/2001
09/899,068 7/6/2001 US 6.799,176 Bl - --.. 9/28/2004 --
_-----,--
1--------
_9J./771.~77 '1730/2001 6.526,440 Bl 2/25/2003
10/351.316 1/27/2003 6.725,259 BI
-----.-.-.----1---'--------- 4/2012004
_.Q~{134.88;L J)/13/2000 US 6,839.702 Bl-- ---174720"05---
09/521,996 3/9/2000 6,67§E81 Bl 1 1137iOo'~f-
r9/S44,733 4/6/2000 ----_ __._
US.._-_._---_.
6.754,873 Bl 6/22/2004'
.._-- ---------_.-~
.to/664,9.92 --9 /22!.~QQ~~ . Qf3 6.934,61~J~.!_,--J>j~~i200~J
Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt

EFSID: 1029015

Application Number: 09843923

Confirmation Number: 9916

Title of Invention: Systems and methods for enticing users to access a web site

First Named Inventor: Sergey Brin

Customer Number: 44989

Filer: Paul Harrity/Julia Cummings

Filer Authorized By: Paul Harrity

Attorney Docket Number: 0026-0002

Receipt Date: 24-APR-2006

Filing Date: 30-APR-2001

Time Stamp: 15:04:58

Application Type: Utility

International Application Number:

Payment information:
Submitted with Payment
L-----
I no
_

File Listing:
Document Multi
Document Description File Name File Size(Bytes) Pages
Number Part

0026-0002-After-Final-Amen
1 885063 yes 20
dment.pdf
Multipart Description

Doc Desc Start End

Amendment After Final 1 1

Amendment Copy Claims/Response to Suggested Claims 2 8

Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment 9 20

Warnings:
Information:

Assignee showing of ownership per


2 0026-0002-Statement.pdf 44579 no 1
37 CFR 3.73(b).

Warnings:
Information:

Power of Attorney (may include 0026-0002-Power-of-Attorne


3 408075 no 8
Associate POA) y.pdf

Warnings:
Information:
Total Files Size (in bytes): 1337717

This Acknowledgement Receipt evidences receipt on the noted date by the USPTO of the indicated documents,
characterized by the applicant, and including page counts, where applicable. It serves as evidence of receipt
similar to a Post Card, as described in MPEP 503.

New Applications Under 35 U.S.C. 111


If a new application is being filed and the application includes the necessary components for a filing date (see
37 CFR 1.53(b)-(d) and MPEP 506), a Filing Receipt (37 CFR 1.54) will be issued in due course and the date
shown on this Acknowledgement Receipt will establish the filing date of the application.

National Stage of an International Application under 35 U.S.C. 371


If a timely submission to enter the national stage of an international application is compliant with the conditions
of 35 U.S.C. 371 and other applicable requirements a Form PCT/DO/EO/903 indicating acceptance of the
application as a national stage submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 will be issued in addition to the Filing Receipt,
in due course.
------------' ...-;;:::;;:;::::--,'I'D Ion or DocMt Number
PAJENT APPUCATION FEE D~N RECORD
.
•. ~ .' ... Effective October 1. 2000 .
CLAIMS AS FILED· PART I IllALLENmY cnMER1HAN
:mae c::::'I OR IUALLENmY
AA1E FEE RATE FEE
SSUO OR 710.G0
XI. OR . , .
x.o=. ORXBo.
o .tas- OR . .
. oR..lOTAL . - . _...
• ". cmtER'IIIAN
Oft.· SMALL ENnIY
ADDJ. ADDJ.
Am: 1IOHM. .~~
. Pm;

XI" OR .*..
x.,. OAXBo.

• 13&- .. OR 4270. .
".-:
~~.. . .ft"~ OR Man: fCCIl-._-I
..

Ii
I TClIIII ." ••
lad . . . . . . . . . .

'=' RATE

,.......~. . .U&DUUIIIIIrI'. ,...c.lIl _


..::- .

Appli~tion No. Applicant( 5)


\ .
09/843,923 BRIN, SERGEY
Interview Summary
Examiner Art Unit

Benjamin A. Ailes 2142

All participants (applicant, applicant's representative, PTO personnel):

(1) Benjamin A. Ailes. (3)Beatriz Prieto.

(2) Paul Harrity (39,574). (4)_ _.

Date of Interview: 12 April 2006.

Type: a)O Telephonic b)O Video Conference


c)~ Personal [copy given to: 1)0 applicant 2)0 applicant's representative]

Exhibit shown or demonstration conducted: d)~ Yes e)O' No.


If Yes, brief description: Examples of standard company logos and an altered logo.

Claim(s) discussed: 18.22.26.27 and 37.

Identification of prior art discussed: Wolff ((US 6,247,047) Unold (uS 200210055880).

Agreement with respect to the claims f)0 was reached. g)~ was not reached. h)O N/A.

Substance of Interview including description of the general nature of what was agreed to if an agreement was
reached, or any other comments: See Continuation Sheet,

(A fuller description, if necessary, and a copy of the amendments which the examiner agreed would render the claims
allowable, if available, must be attached, Also, where no copy of the amendments that would render the claims
allowable is available, a summary thereof must be attached.)

THE FORMAL WRITTEN REPLY TO THE LAST OFFICE ACTION MUST INCLUDE THE SUBSTANCE OF THE
INTERVIEW. (See MPEP Section 713.04). If a reply to the last Office action has already been filed, APPLICANT IS
GIVEN A NON-EXTENDABLE PERIOD OF THE LONGER OF ONE MONTH OR THIRTY DAYS FROM THIS
INTERVIEW DATE, OR THE MAILING DATE OF THIS INTERVIEWSUMMARYFORM,WHICHEVER IS LATER,TO
FILE A STATEMENT OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE INTERVIEW. See Summary of Record of Interview
requirements on reverse side or on attached sheet.

Examiner Note: You must sign this form unless it is an


Attachment to a signed Office action. Examiner's signature, if required
U.S. Patent and Trademark OffIce
PTOL-413 (Rev. 04-03) Interview Summary Paper No. 20060412
Summary of Record of Interview Requirements
Manual of Patent examining Procedure (MPEP), Section 713.04, Substance of Interview Must be Made of Record
A ~mplete written statement as to the substance of any face-to-face: video conference, or telephone interview with regard to an application must be made of record in the
application whether or not an agreement with the examiner was reached at the interview.

Title 37 Code of Federal RegUlations (CFR) § 1.133 Interviews


Paragraph (b)
In every instance where reconsideration is requested in view of an interview with an examiner, a complete written statement of the reasons presented at the interview as
warranting favorable action must be filed by the applicant. An interview does not remove the necessity for reply to Office action as specified in §§ 1.111, 1.135. (35 U .S.C. 132)

37 CFR §1.2 Business to be transacted in writing.


All business with the Patent or Trademark Office should be transacted in writing. The personal attendance of applicants or their attorneys or agents at the Patent and
Trademark Office is unnecessary. The action ofthe Patent and Trademark Office will be based exclusively on the written record in the Office. No attention will be paid to
any alleged oral promise, stipulation, or understanding in relation to which there is disagreement or doubt. .

The action of the Patent and Trademark Office cannot be based exclusively on the written record in the Office if that record is itself
incomplete through the failure to record the substance of interviews. .
It is the responsibility of the applicant or the attorney or agent to make the substance of an interview of record in the application file, unless'
the examiner indicates he or she will do so. It is the examiner's responsibility to see that such a record is made~and to correct material inaccuracies
which bear directly on the question of patentability. .
Examiners must complete an Interview Summary Form for each interview held where a matter of substal)ce has been discussed during the
interview by checking the appropriate boxes and filling in the blanks. Discussions regarding only procedural matters, directed solely to restriction
requirements for which interview recordation is otherwise prOVided for in Section 812.01 of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, or pointing
out typographical errors or unreadable script in Office actions or the like, are excluded from the interview recordation procedures below. Where t/'le
substance of an interview is completely recorded in an Examiners Amendment, no separate Interview Summary Record is required.
The Interview Summary Form shall be given an appropriate Paper No., placed in the right hand portion of the file, and listed on the
"Contents" section of the file wrapper. In a personal interview, a duplicate of the Form is given to the applicant (or attorney or agent) at the
conclusion of the interview. In the case of a telephone or video-conference interview, the copy is mailed to the applicant's correspondence address
either with or prior to the next official communication. If additional correspondence from the examiner is not likely before an allowance or if other
circumstances dictate, the Form should be mailed promptly after the interview rather than with the next official communication.

The Form provides for recordation of the following information:


Application Number (Series Code and Serial Number)
Name of applicant
Name of examiner
Date of interview
Type of interview (telephonic, video-conference, or personal)
Name of participant(s) (applicant, attorney or agent, examiner, other PTO personnel, etc.)
An indication whether or not an exhibit was shown or a demonstration conducted
An identification of the specific prior art discussed
An indication whether an agreement was reached and if so, a description of the general nature of the agreement (may be by
attachment of a copy of amendments or claims agreed as being allowable). Note: Agreement as to allowability is tentative and does
not restrict further action by the examiner to the contrary.
The signature of the examiner who conducted the interview (if Form is not an attachment to a signed Office action)

It is desirable that the examiner orally remind the applicant of his or her obligation to record the substance of the interview of each case. It
should be noted, however, that the IntervieW Summary Form will not normally be considered a complete and proper recordation of the interview
unless it includes, or is supplemented by the applicant or the examiner to include, all of the applicable items required below concerning the
substance of the interview.

A complete and proper recordation of the substance of any interview should include at least the following applicable items:
1) A brief description of the nature of any exhibit shown or any demonstration conducted,
2) an identification of the claims discussed,
3) an identification of the specific prior art discussed,
4) an identification of the principal proposed 'amendments of a substantive nature discussed, unless these are already described on the
Interview Summary Form completed by the Examiner,
5) a brief identification of the general thrust of the principal arguments presented to the examiner,
(The identification of arguments need not be lengthy or elaborate. A verbatim or highly detailed description of the arguments is not
required. The identification of the arguments is sufficient if the general nature or thrust of the principal arguments made to the
examiner can be understood in the context of the application file. Of cours'e, the applicant may desire to emphasize and fully
describe those arguments which he or she feels were or might be persuasive to the examiner.)
6) a general indication of any other pertinent matters discussed, and
7) if appropriate, the general results or outcome of the interview unless already described in the Interview Summary Form completed by
the examiner.

Examiners are expected to carefully review the applicant's record of the substance of an interview. If the record is hot complete and
accurate, the examiner will give the applicant an extendable one month time period to correct the record.

Examiner to Check for Accuracy

If the claims are allowable for other reasons of record, the examiner should send a letter setting forth the examiner's version of the
statement attributed to him or her. If the record is complete and accurate, the examiner should place the indication, "Interview Record OK" on the
paper recording the substance of the interview along with the date and the examiner's initials.

2
.. .- . ,

.
Continuation Sheet (PTOL-413) Application No. 09/843,923

,./

Continuation of Substance of Interview including'description of the general nature of what was agreed to if an
agreement was reached, or any other comments: Mr. Harrity initiated the interview by outlining the applicant's
invention and provided examples of the intended interpretation of a standard company logo vs. a modified company'
logo based on a special event and also discussed the search functionality of the claims. Examiner Ailes, Examiner
Prieto and Mr. Harrity discussed the claim terminology and it was determined that the "standard company logo" needs
to be more properly defined within the claims to exclude it from reading on the modifiable web page banners of the
Wolff reference. Examiner Ailes and Examiner Prieto provided Mr. Harrity with a few possible options for distinguishing
the claims, (1) narrow the interpretation of claimed term "standard company logo" with extrinsic evidence such as a
dictionary definition, or (2) Amend the claims to include search terms relating to a special event. Beyond this, no
agreement was reached in terms of allowance. Mr. Harrity agreed to file a response to the final rejection.

, .64.~';~
~TRlZ PRIETO
PRtMARY EXAMtNER

3
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATIORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.

09/843,923 04/3012001 Sergey Brin 0026-0002 9916

44989 7590 02/22/2006 EXAMINER

HARRITY SNYDER, LLP AILES, BENJAMIN A


11350 Random Hills Road
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
SUITE 600
FAIRFAX, VA 22030 2142

DATE MAILED: 02/22/2006

Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.

PTO·90C (Rev. 10/03)


Application No. Applicant(s)

09/843,923 BRIN, SERGEY


Office Action Summary Examiner Art Unit
Benjamin A. Ailes 2142
-- 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 ~ 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, maya reply be timely filed
after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
- If NO period for reply is 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 timely filed, may reduce any
earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).

Status

1)[2] Responsive to communication(s) filed on 22 November 2005.


2a)[2] This action is FINAL. 2b)0 This action is non-final.
3)0 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 C.D. 11,453 O.G. 213.

Disposition of Claims
4)[2] Claim(s) 18-39 is/are pending in the application.
4a) Of the above claim(s) _ _ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
5)0 Claim(s) _ _ is/are allowed.
6)[2] Claim(s) 18-39 is/are rejected.
7)0 Claim(s) _ _ is/are objected to.
8)0 Claim(s) _ _ are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.

Application Papers
9)0 The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
10)0 The drawing(s) filed on _ _ is/are: a)O accepted or b)O objected to by the Examiner.
Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
Replacement drawing sheet(s) inclUding the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
11)0 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)0 Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (t).
a)O All b)O Some * c)O None of:
1.0 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
2.0 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No. _ _.
3.0 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)).
* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.

Attachment(s)
1) 0 Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) 4) 0 Interview Summary (PT0-413)
2) 0 Notice of Draftsperson's Patent Drawing Review (PTO-948) Paper No(s)/Mail Date. _ _ .
3) 0 Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO-1449 or PTO/S8/08) 5) 0 Notice of Informal Patent Application (PTO-152)
Paper No(s)/Mail Date _ _. 6) 0 Other: _ _'
U.s. Palent and Trademark Office
PTOL-326 (Rev. 7-05) Office Action Summary Part of Paper No.lMail Date 20060218
Application/Control Number: 09/843,923 Page 2
Art Unit: 2142

DETAILED ACTION

1. This action is in response to correspondence filed 22 November 2005.

2. Claims 18-39 remain pending.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103

3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 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 skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.

4. Claims 18-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over

Wolff (U.S. 6,247,047) in view of Unold et al. (U.S. 2002/0055880 A1), hereinafter

referred to as Unold.

5. Regarding claims 18, 26, 28, and 37-38, Wolff discloses the use of a standard

company logo (col. 8, lines 35-40), associating one or more search terms with the

company logo (col. 8, lines 43-48), uploading the company logo to a web page (col. 8,

lines 38-40), receiving a user selection of the company logo (col. 8, lines 58-62), and

invoking a search based on the one or more search terms in response to the user

selection (col. 9, lines 1-7). Wolff discloses the main idea of using a company logo,

being able to modify the company logo, and associating a search term along with it, but

does not explicitly disclose in the modifying step of modifying the standard company

logo to become a special event logo. However, Unold discloses the ability and method

of altering a standard company logo to become a special event logo in accordance with

a special event (Page 1, column 2, paragraph [0007]). One of ordinary skill in the art
Application/Control Number: 09/843,923 Page 3
Art Unit: 2142

would have found it useful to combine the method of modifying a standard company

logo to become a special event logo as disclosed by Unold because Unold provides a

method wherein company logos and advertisements can be changed qUickly and

efficiently to correspond with market and sales trends (Page 1, column 2, paragraph

[0007]). It is for this reason that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the

applicant's invention would have been motivated to implement the methods of modifying

a company logo as disclosed by Unold and combine them with the standard company

logo displaying method disclosed by Wolff.

6. Regarding claims 19 and 20, Unold discloses the ability to modify the logo with

animated images, video, and audio data (page 3, column 2, paragraph [0047], lines 9-

13). The motivation used to combine Wolff and Unold in the rejection of claim 18

applies equally as well to claims 19 and 20.

7. Regarding claim 21, Unold discloses the special event including a holiday (page

1, column 1, paragraph [0007]). The motivation used to combine Wolff and Unold in the

rejection of claim 18 applies equally as well to claim 21.

8. Regarding claim.22, Wolff discloses the use of a search term but Wolff does not

explicitly disclose the search term being related to the special event because Wolff does

not explicitly disclose the step of modifying a company logo to become a special event

logo as explained in the rejection of claim 18. It would have been obvious to one of

ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant's invention to associate the search

term with the special event in the combination of Wolff and Unold because Wolff alone

associates the search term with the company logo, so in combination of Wolff and
Application/Control Number: 09/843,923 Page 4
Art Unit: 2142

Unold, the search term 'would have to be related to the special event logo in some sort

of way. It is for this reason that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been

motivated to associate the search term with the special event.

9. Regarding claim 23, Unold discloses the ability to schedule when a special event

logo is to be displayed (page 2, column 2, paragraph [0018]). The motivation used to

combine Wolff and Unold in the rejection of claim 18 applies equally as well to claim 23.

10. Regarding claim 24, Wolff discloses the method of generating a search query

using the one or more search terms (col. 9, lines 1-8), using the search query to search

at least one of a network, an index, or a directory (col. 9, lines 1-8), and obtaining

search results based on the search (col. 9, lines 9-15).

11. Regarding claim 25, Wolff discloses determining a home page for the web page

on a network (col. 8, lines 35-40) and identifying the standard company logo on the

home page (col. 8, lines 35-40), but does not explicitly disclose in the modifying step of

modifying the standard company logo to become a special event logo. However, Unold

discloses the ability and method of altering a standard company logo to become a

special event logo in accordance with a special event (Page 1, column 2, paragraph

[0007]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it useful to combine the

method of modifying a standard company logo to become a special event logo as

disclosed by Unold because Unold provides a method wherein company logos and

advertisements can be changed quickly and efficiently to correspond with market and

sales trends (Page 1, column 2, paragraph [0007]). It is for this reason that one of

ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant's invention would have been
Application/Control Number: 09/843,923 Page 5
Art Unit: 2142

motivated to implement the methods of modifying a company logo as disclosed by

Unold and combine them with the standard company logo displaying method disclosed

by Wolff.

12. Claim 27 contains similar subject matter and is rejected under the same rationale

as claims 18 and 25.

13. Claim 29 contains similar subject matter and is rejected under the same rationale

as claim 19.

14. Claim 30 contains similar subject matter and is rejected under the same rationale

as claim 20.

15. Claim 31 contains similar subject matter and is rejected under the same rationale

as claim 21.

16. Claim 32 contains similar subject matter and is rejected under the same rationale

as claim 22.

17. Claim 33 contains similar subject matter and is rejected under the same rationale

as claim 24.

18. Regarding claim 34, Wolff discloses the method wherein uploading the special

event logo includes replacing the standard company logo with the special event logo on

the web page (col. 8, lines 38-40, deemed inherent in the art that when uploading

something new the old is replaced.)

19. Claim 35 contains similar subject matter and is rejected under the same rationale

as claim 34.
Application/Control Number: 09/843,923 Page 6
Art Unit: 2142

20. Claim 36 contains similar subject matter and is rejected under the same rationale

as claim 34.

21. Claim 39 contains similar subject matter and is rejected under the same rationale

as claim 23.

Response to Arguments

22. Applicant's arguments filed 22 November 2005 have been fUlly considered but

they are not persuasive.

23. (A) Applicant argues on page 8 of the response that neither Wolff nor Unold et al.

discloses or suggests modifying a standard company logo for a special event to create

a special event logo. The Examiner does not agree. Through broadest reasonable

interpretation of the term "company logo" it is interpreted by the Examiner to mean

anything or any type of representation of a company including any type of

advertisement for the company which is used to "represent" the company. It is well

known that one company can be represented by a plurality of different logos in a

plurality of ways of media(animation, video, pictures, etc.). It is therefore maintained by

the Examiner that a company logo when altered is quite often done to "attract" a

consumer, making the company seem more different and unique when compared with

other companies. The same reasoning is used for advertising. Advertising is used to

"attract" customers to a product sold by the company by attempting to be unique and

different. Therefore, it is concluded by the Examiner that a company logo is in fact

equivalent in functionality to an advertisement logo. In view of this point, the Examiner

has maintained the rejection set forth above.


Application/Control Number: 09/843,923 Page 7
Art Unit: 2142

24. (B) Applicant argues on pages 9-10 of the response that Wolff and Unold cannot

disclose or suggest associating one or more search terms with the special event logo.

In view of argument (A), the Examiner disagrees and maintains the rejection. Wolff

explicitly discloses the use of search term in column 8, lines 43-48.

25. (C) Applicant argues on page 11 of the response that Wolff and Unold cannot

disclose or suggest providing search results relating to a special event in response to

user selection of the special event logo. In response to applicant's argument that the

references fail to show certain features of applicant's invention, it is noted that the

features upon which applicant relies (i.e., "providing search results relating to the

special event") are not recited in the rejected c1aim(s). Although the claims are

interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into

the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181,26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

26. (0) Applicant argues on pages 12-13 that neither Wolff nor Unold et al. disclose

or suggest creating the special event logo by modifying the standard company logo with

one or more animated images. The Examiner does not agree. Through the combination

of Wolff and Unold, the Examiner has concluded the combination teaches the ability to

alter a company logo based on a special event as outlined in the rejection of

independent claim 18. In view of the combination Unold clearly discloses the ability to

alter and display animation on page 3, column 2, paragraph [0047], lines 9-13. It is

deemed obvious in the art that a digital display can display animated images. The

digital display is utilized to display the logo.


Application/Control Number: 09/843,923 Page 8
Art Unit: 2142

27. (E) Applicant argues on pages 13-14 that neither Wolff nor Unold et al. disclose

or suggest modifying the standard company logo with at least one of video or audio

data. The Examiner does not agree. Through the combination of Wolff and Unold, the

Examiner has concluded the combination teaches the ability to alter a company logo

based on a special event as outlined in the rejection of independent claim 18. In view of

the combination Unold clearly discloses the ability to alter and display video or audio on

page 3, column 2, paragraph [0047], lines 9-13. It is deemed obvious in the art that a

digital display can display video. The digital display is utilized to display the logo.

28. (F) Applicant argues on page 14 in regards to claim 22 that neither Wolff nor

Unold et al. disclose identifying one or more search terms relating to the special event.

The Examiner does not agree. In reference to Wolff (col. 8, line 65 - col. 9, line 15) a

key word is assigned (i.e. 12345). Therefore this keyword must be related in some sort

of way. This evidence is enough to fall under the Applicant's claimed subject matter.

29. (G) Applicant argues on page 15 in regards to claim 25 and page 16 in regards to

claim 27 that neither Wolff nor Unold et al. disclose or suggest identifying a standard

company logo on a home page. The Examiner does not agree. Wolff discloses in

column 8, lines 35-40 the method of retrieving data from a "sponsor server" which is

deemed the same as applicant's claimed "home page."

Conclusion

30. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time

policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).


Application/Control Number: 09/843,923 Page 9
Art Unit: 2142

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 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 mailing date of this final action.

Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the

examiner should be directed to Benjamin A. Ailes whose telephone number is (571 )272-

3899. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 6:30-4, IFP Work Schedule.

If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's

supervisor, Andrew Caldwell can be reached on (571 )272-3868. 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 may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.

Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.

For more information about 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 (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).

baa
Application/Control No. Applicant(s)/Patent under
Index of Claims Reexamination
09/843,923

IIII"II I IIII
BRIN, SERGEY
Examiner Art Unit
II Benjamin A. Ailes 2142

(Through numeral)
..J Rejected - Cancelled N
Non-Elected
A Appeal

= Allowed + Restricted I Interference 0 Objected

Claim Date Claim Date Claim Date


; ...
(ij (ij (ij
(ij c '" (ij c (ij c
c 'm § c 'm c 'm
i.i: (5 i;j i.i: (5 i.i: (5
1
2
- 51
52
101
102
3 53 103
4 54 104
5 55 105
6 56 106
7 57 107
8 58 108
9 59 109
10 60 110
11 61 111
12 62 112
13 63 113
14 64 114
15 65 115
16 66 116
17 ,'"' 67 117
Ifl81 ..; 68 118
"I!l 69 119
20 70 120
21 71 121
22 72 122
23 73 123
24 74 124
25- 75 125
('26 76 126
Tel) 77 127
(W 78 128
29 79 129
30 80 130
31 81 131
32 82 132
33 83 133
34 ;.;.
84 134
35 :
85 135
3.6 86 136
37) 87 137
38 88 138
39 89 139
40 90 140
41 91 141
42 92 142
43 93 143
44 94 144
45 95 145
46 96 146
47 97 147
48 98 148
49 99 149
50 100 : 150

U,S. Patent and Trademark Office Part of Paper No, 20060218


Application/Control No. Applicant(s)/Patent under
Search Notes Reexamination

IIII III IIII I


09/843,923 BRIN, SERGEY
Examiner Art Unit

Beniamin A. Ailes 2142

SEARCH NOTES
SEARCHED
(INCLUDING SEARCH STRATEGY)
Class Subclass Date Examiner DATE EXMR

709 204,216 2120/2006 BAA


EAST - updated class/subclass search 2120/2006 BAA

705 26 2120/2006 BAA

345 473, 730 2120/2006 BAA

345 738 2120/2006 BAA

INTERFERENCE SEARCHED

Class Subclass Date Examiner

u.S. Patent and Trademark Office Part of Paper No. 20060218


EAST Search History
Ref Hits Search Query DBs Default Plurals Time Stamp
# Operator

. :,·:,·······:1 in:: I.,:••·.':!: i1 •••••:••..•. •••..•.•••.•.•••••••:.:.:.:'.. ,.. ,.,


S35 1533 705/26.ccls. and ON 2006/02/18 12:03
(@ad<120000S01" or
@rlad<120000S01")

L1 97 705/26.ccls. and
(@ad<120000501" or
@rlad<120000S01") and
@pd>120050719"

L3 3200 345/473.ccls. 709/204.ccls. ON 2006/02/2009:17


709/216.ccls. 345/738.ccls.

249 14 ON 2006/02/2009:17

2/20/069:35:38 AM Page 1
C: \Documents and Settings\bailes\My Documents\EAST\Workspaces\09843923. wsp
PATENT
Docket No. 0026-0002

In re Patent Application of )
)
Sergey Brin ) Group Art Unit: 2142
)
Application No.: 09/843,923 ) Examiner: B. Ailes
)
Filed: April 30, 2001 )
)
For: SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR )
ENTICING USERS TO ACCESS A )
WEB SITE )

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office


Customer Service Window, Mail Stop Amendment
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314

AMENDMENT

In response to the non-final Office Action, dated July 21,2005, the period for response

being extended through December 21, 2005 by the filing of a petition for a two month extension

oftime and the requisite fee concurrently herewith, please amend the application as follows:

Amendments to the Claims begin on page 2 of this paper.

Remarks begin on page 7 of this paper.


PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

Amendments to the Claims:

This listing of claims will replace all prior versions, and listings, of claims in the application:

Listing of Claims:

1-17. (canceled)

18. (currently amended) A method for enticing users to access a web page,

comprising:

modifying a standard company logo for a special event to create a special event logo;

associating one or more search terms with the special event logo;

uploading the special event logo to the web page;

receiving a user selection of the special event logo; and

fJfeyicling seareh fesults felatiRg te the sfJeeia:l eveRt invoking a search based on the one

or more search terms in response to the user selection.

19. (original) The method of claim 18, wherein the modifying a standard company

logo includes:

creating the special event logo by modifying the standard company logo with one or more

animated images.

20. (previously presented) The method of claim 18, wherein the modifying a standard

company logo includes:

creating the special event logo by modifying the standard company logo with at least one

2
PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

of video or audio data.

21. (original) The method of claim 18, wherein the special event includes a holiday.

22. (original) The method of claim 18, wherein the associating one or more search

terms includes:

identifying one or more search terms relating to the special event.

23. (original) The method of claim 18, wherein the uploading the special event logo

includes:

displaying the special event logo on the web page during the special event.

24. (currently amended) The method of claim 18, wherein the flreyiaiag seat'eh

resllits invoking a search includes:

generating a search query using the one or more search terms,

using the search query to search at least one of a network, an index, or a directory, and

obtaining search results based on the search.

25. (original) The method of claim 18, wherein the modifying a standard company

logo includes:

determining a home page for the web page on a network,

identifying the standard company logo on the home page, and

3
PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

modifying the standard company logo with special event infonnation to create the special

event logo.

26. (previously presented) A computer-readable medium that stores instructions

executable by one or more processors to perfonn a method for attracting users to a web page,

comprising:

instructions for creating a special event logo by modifying a standard company logo;

instructions for associating at least one of a link or search results with the special event

logo;

instructions for uploading the special event logo to the web page;

instructions for receiving a user selection of the special event logo; and

instructions for providing the link or search results associated with the special event logo.

27. (original) A server connected to a network, comprising:

a memory configured to store instructions; and

a processor configured to execute the instructions to:

detennine a home page for a web page on the network,

identify a standard company logo on the home page,

modify the standard company logo with special event infonnation corresponding

to a special event to create a special event logo, and

replace the standard company logo with the special event logo during the special

event.

4
PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

28. (currently amended) A method, comprising:

identifying a standard company logo associated with a web site;

modifying the standard company logo with at least one of image, video, or audio data

relating to a special event to create a special event logo;

associating one or more search terms with the special event logo;

detecting a selection associated with the special event logo; and

flfoviEliHg seareh feSl:l1ts felatiflg to the s:fleeial e'leHt invoking a search based on the one

or more search terms in response to the detected selection.

29. (previously presented) The computer-readable medium of claim 26, wherein the

instructions for creating a special event logo include:

instructions for modifying the standard company logo with one or more animated images.

30. (previously presented) The computer-readable medium of claim 26, wherein the

instructions for creating a special event logo include:

instructions for modifying the standard company logo with at least one of video or audio

data.

31. (previously presented) The computer-readable medium of claim 26, wherein the

instructions for creating a special event logo include:

instructions for modifying the standard company logo with information associated with a

5
PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

holiday.

32. (previously presented) The server of claim 27, wherein the processor is further

configured to:

associate one or more search terms relating to the special event with the special event

logo.

33. (previously presented) The server of claim 32, wherein the processor is further

configured to:

detect a selection associated with the special event logo,

generate a search query based on the one or more search terms,

perform a search based on the search query, and

provide a result of the search.

34. (new) The method of claim 18, wherein uploading the special event logo

includes:

replacing the standard company logo with the special event logo on the web page.

35. (new) The computer-readable medium of claim 26, wherein the instructions for

uploading the special event logo include:

instructions for replacing the standard company logo with the special event logo on the

web page.

6
PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

36. (new) The method of claim 28, further comprising:

replacing the standard company logo with the special event logo.

37. (new) A method, comprising:

presenting a special event logo on a web page, the special event logo being associated

with a standard company logo that has been modified or replaced for a special event;

receiving selection of the special event logo;

invoking a search relating to the special event in response to the received selection; and

presenting results based on the invoked search.

38. (new) The method of claim 37, wherein one or more search terms are associated

with the special event logo; and

wherein the invoking a search relating to the special event includes:

causing a search to be performed based on the one or more search terms.

39. (new) The method of claim 37, wherein the presenting a special event logo

includes:

displaying the special event logo on the web page during the special event.

7
PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

REMARKS

In the non-fmal Office Action, the Examiner rejected claims 18-33 under 35 U.S.C. §

I03(a) as unpatentable over Wolff (U.S. Patent No. 6,247,047) in view of Unold et ai. (U.S.

Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0055880).

By this Amendment, Applicant amends claims 18, 24, and 28 to improve foim, and adds

new claims 34-39. Applicant respectfully traverses the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. §

103. Claims 18-39 are pending.

In paragraphs 4-17 of the Office Action, the Examiner rejected claims 18-33 as allegedly

unpatentable over Wolff in view of Unold et ai. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.

Independent claim 18, for example, is directed to a method for enticing users to access a

web page. The method comprises modifying a standard company logo for a special event to

create a special event logo; associating one or more search terms with the special event logo;

uploading the special event logo to the web page; receiving a user selection of the special event

logo; and providing search results relating to the special event in response to the user selection.

Neither Wolff nor Unold et aI., whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination,

discloses or suggests the combination of features recited in claim 18. For example, neither Wolff

nor Unold et ai. discloses or suggests modifying a standard company logo for a special event to

create a special event logo.

The Examiner alleged that Wolff discloses "the main idea of using a company logo, being

able to modify the company logo, and associating a search term with it" and cited column 8, line

35 - column 9, line 7 of Wolff for support (Office Action, paragraph 5). Applicant respectfully

disagrees.

8
PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

At column 8, line 35 - column 9, line 7, Wolff discloses:

At step 200, a WWW page 100 is displayed on display 18 of a user node 14. Page 100 is retrieved
from sponsor server 50 (FIG. I) when server 50 is accessed by specifying its URL during a
browsing session by the user. Page 100 is specified by HTML file 52 which, as described above,
caused an icon or advertising banner 102 to be displayed. Banner 102, displayed on a geographic
area 104 of page 100, includes graphics relating to a particular product or service being advertised.
Embedded within banner 102 is the URL of host server 12 (e.g., "www .bannerbuy.com") and a
unique indicia (e.g., "12345") identifying the product or service being advertised. The indicia is
appended to the end of the URL (e.g., www .bannerbuy.com/I2345"). and the URL is linked to
I

banner 102. The URL and indicia are shown in a dashed box 106 to indicate they are transparent to
the user. In other embodiments, the URL and indicia can be displayed to the user, or banner 102
can be replaced by another icon having embedded therein the same URL and indicia. For example,
banner 102 can be replaced by a hyperlink including the URL of host server 12 and the indicia of
the advertised product or service.

At step 202, a user uninterested in the advertised product or service may continue browsing
without selecting banner 102. However, if the user wants to make a transaction or wants more
information about the advertised product or service, the user selects banner 102 using an input
device such as mouse 22 by clicking in geographic area 104. In response, at step 204, user node 14
makes an TCP/IP request using the URL (" www .bannerbuy.com") embedded within banner 102 to
contact host server 12 over Internet 16.

At step 206, host server 12 generates a unique transaction identification number ("transaction ill"),
and creates a new record in the transaction record database which can be indexed by the
transaction ill. This record will be used to store any input data entered by the user for this
transaction. At step 208, host server 12 receives the unique indicia (e.g., "12345") embedded
within banner 102 and uses the indicia to search the on-line product/service database for a record
containing information specific to the advertised product or service.

In this section, Wolff discloses displaying an advertising banner on a web page and embedding

within the advertising banner a URL of the host server and a unique indicia that identifies the

product or service being advertised. It appears that the Examiner is alleging that an advertising

banner is equivalent to a company logo. Applicant submits that such an allegation is

unreasonable because an advertising banner is quite different from a compa.TJ.y logo. They are

designed for different purposes and they implement different functionality. An advertising

banner typically includes advertising material that offers a product or service for sale. It may be

possible for an advertising banner to include a company logo with the advertising material (see,

e.g., paragraphs 0125 and 0126 of Unold et al.), but an advertising banner is definitely not

9
PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

equivalent to a company logo. Wolff does not even mention a company logo. Therefore, Wolff

cannot disclose the ability to modify a company logo, as alleged by the Examiner.

The Examiner admitted that Wolff does not disclose modifying a standard company logo

to become a special event logo (Office Action, paragraph 5). The Examiner alleged that Unold et

ai. discloses the ability to alter a standard company logo to become a special event logo in

accordance with a special event and cited paragraph 0007 of Unold et ai. for support (Office

Action, paragraph 5). Applicant respectfully disagrees.

At paragraph 0007, Unold et ai. discloses:

Therefore, there exists in the industry, a need for a system and method for enabling the rapid
creation of electronic advertisements, for rapidly changing or replacing advertisements in response
to market and sales trends, changes in customer preferences, or the occurrence of a holiday or
special event, for controlling access to digital signs, and for addressing these and other related, and
unrelated, problems.

In this section, Unold et ai. discloses the need for a system and method to rapidly create, change,

and replace advertisements. It appears again that the Examiner is alleging that an advertisement

is equivalent to a company logo. As explained above, such an allegation is unreasonable because

advertisements are quite different from company logos. Therefore, the need for rapid creating,

changing, and replacing of advertisements, as identified by Unold et aI., falls short of curing the

deficiencies in the disclosure of Wolff.

Therefore, even if Wolff and Unold et ai. were combinable (a point that Applicant does

not concede), the combined system would not disclose or suggest modifying a standard company

logo for a special event to create a special event logo, as required by claim 18.

Because neither Wolff nor Unold et ai. discloses or suggests modifying a standard

company logo for a special event to create a special event logo, Wolff and Unold et aI., whether

taken alone or in any reasonable combination, cannot disclose or suggest associating one or more

10
PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

search tenns with the special event logo, as further required by claim 18.

The Examiner alleged that Wolff discloses associating one or more search tenns with a

company logo and cited column 8, lines 43-48, of Wolff for support (Office Action, paragraph

5). Applicant respectfully disagrees.

At column 8, lines 43-48, Wolff discloses:

Embedded within banner 102 is the URL of host server 12 (e.g., ..www.bannerbuy.com..) and a
unique indicia (e.g., "12345") identifying the product or service being advertised. The indicia is
appended to the end of the URL (e.g., ..www.bannerbuy.com/12345 ..). and the URL is linked to
banner 102.

In this section, Wolff discloses that a URL and unique indicia identifying the product or service

being advertised is embedded within an advertising banner. Wolff discloses that if a user clicks

on the advertising banner, the host server (associated with the advertiser) uses the unique indicia

to search a product/service database for a record containing infonnation specific to the advertised

product or service (col. 9, lines 3-7). Even if, for the sake of argument, the unique indicia could

be equated to a search tenn (a point that Applicant does not concede), Wolff does not disclose or

suggest associating the unique indicia with a special event logo, as required by claim 18. The

disclosure of Unold et al. does not cure this deficiency in the disclosure of Wolff.

Because neither Wolff nor Unold et al. discloses or suggests associating one or more

search tenns with the special event logo, Wolff and Unold et aI., whether taken alone or in any

reasonable combination, cannot disclose or suggest providing search results relating to a special

event in response to user selection of the special event logo, as further required by claim 18.

The Examiner alleged that Wolff discloses providing search results relating to the logo in

response to user selection and cited column 9, lines 1-7, of Wolff for support (Office Action,

paragraph 5). Applicant submits that the Examiner has misconstrued the language of claim 18.

11
PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

Claim 18 does not recite providing search results relating to a logo, but instead recites providing

search results relating to a special event. Wolff does not disclose or suggest this feature.

At column 9, lines 1-7, Wolff discloses:

This record will be used to store any input data entered by the user for this transaction. At step
208, host server 12 receives the unique indicia (e.g., "12345") embedded within banner 102 and
uses the indicia to search the on-line product/service database for a record containing information
specific to the advertised product or service.

In this section, Wolff discloses that the unique indicia is used to search a product/service

database for a record containing information specific to the advertised product or service. This

section of Wolff is deficient for at least a couple of reasons. First, Wolff discloses that the host

server performs a search in response to user selection of the advertising banner, not in response

to user selection of a special event logo, as required by claim 18. Second, the information

obtained as a result of the search (i.e., information specific to the advertised product or service)

cannot reasonably be equated to search results relating to a special event, as required by claim 18.

The disclosure of Unold et ai. does not cure these deficiencies in the disclosure of Wolff.

For at least these reasons, Applicant submits that claim 18 is patentable over Wolff and

Unold et aI., whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination. Claims 19-25 depend from

claim 18 and are, therefore, patentable over Wolff and Unold et ai. for at least the reasons given

with regard to claim 18. Claims 19-25 are also patentable for reasons of their own.

For example, claim 19 recites creating the special event logo by modifying the standard

company logo with one or more animated images. Neither Wolff nor Unold et ai. discloses or

suggests this combination of features.

The Examiner alleged that Unold et ai. discloses the ability to modify a logo with

animated images, video, and audio data and cited paragraph 0047, lines 9-13, of Unold et ai. for

12
PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

support (Office Action, paragraph 6). Applicant respectfully disagrees.

At paragraph 0047, lines 9-13, Unold et al. discloses:

Each digital sign 108, preferably, comprises: a display subsystem capable of displaying video or
still images received in the form of digital signals; an audio subsystem capable of producing and
delivering audible sound from received digital signals therefor.

In this section, Unold et al. discloses that a digital sign is capable of displaying video or still

images and producing audible sound. The Examiner appears to allege that a digital sign is

equivalent to a company logo. Unold et al. describes a digital sign as a device that includes a

display via which an advertiser can advertise its products or services in locations, such as

airports, shopping malls, exhibit halls, taxi cabs, etc. (paragraphs 0047 and 0048). Applicant

submits that it is unreasonable to equate a digital sign device to a company logo since they are

two very different things.

For at least these additional reasons, Applicant submits that claim 19 is patentable over

Wolff and Unold et al.

Claim 20 recites creating the special event logo by modifying the standard company logo

with at least one of video or audio data. Neither Wolff nor Unold et al. discloses or suggests this

combination of features.

The Examiner alleged that Unold et al. discloses the ability to modify a logo with

animated images, video, and audio data and cited paragraph 0047, lines 9-13, of Unold et al. for

support (Office Action, paragraph 6). Applicant respectfully disagrees.

Paragraph 0047, lines 9-13, of Unold et al. has been reproduced above. In this section,

Unold et al. discloses that a digital sign is capable of displaying video or still images and

producing audible sound. As explained above with regard to claim 19, Applicant submits that it

13
PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

is unreasonable to equate a digital sign device to a company logo since they are two very

different things.

For at least these additional reasons, Applicant submits that claim 20 is patentable over

Wolff and Unold et al.

Claim 22 recites identifying one or more search terms relating to the special event.

Neither Wolff nor Unold et al. discloses or suggests this combination of features.

The Examiner alleged that Wolff discloses the use of a search term but admitted that

Wolff does not disclose the search term being related to a special event (Office Action, paragraph

8). The Examiner alleged that it would have been obvious to associate the search term with the

special event in the combination of Wolff and Unold et al. "because Wolff alone associates the

search term with the company logo, so in combination of Wolff and Unold, the search term

would be related to the special event logo in some sort of way" (Office Action, paragraph 8).

Applicant respectfully disagrees.

The Examiner's allegation rests on the assumption that Wolff discloses associating a

search term with a company logo. As explained above with regard to claim 18, contrary to the

Examiner's allegation, Wolff does not disclose associating a search term with a company logo.

Because the basis of the Examiner's allegation lacks merit, the rest of the Examiner's allegation

also lacks merit. Contrary to the Examiner's allegation, even if Wolff could be combined with

Unold et al. (a point that Applicant does not concede), the combined system would not have

identified one or more search terms relating to a special event, or associated the one or more

search terms with the special event logo, as required by claim 22.

For at least these additional reasons, Applicant submits that claim 22 is patentable over

14
, I

PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

Wolff and Unold et aI.

Claim 25 recites determining a home page for the web page on a network, identifying the

standard company logo on the home page, and modifying the standard company logo with special

event information to create the special event logo. Neither Wolff nor Unold et aI. discloses or

suggests this combination of features.

For example, neither Wolff nor Unold et al. discloses or suggests identifying a standard

company logo on a home page. The Examiner alleged that Wolff discloses this feature and cited

column 8, lines 35-40, of Wolff for support (Office Action, paragraph 11). Applicant

respectfully disagrees.

At column 8, lines 35-40, Wolff discloses:

At step 200, a WWWpage 100 is displayed on display 18 ofa user node 14. Page 100 is retrieved
from sponsor server 50 (FIG. 1) when server 50 is accessed by specifying its URL during a
browsing session by the user. Page 100 is specified by HTML file 52 which, as described above,
caused an icon or advertising banner 102 to be displayed.

In this section, Wolff discloses that an advertising banner is displayed on a web page. As

explained above with regard to claim 18, an advertising banner is not equivalent to a company

logo. Therefore, contrary to the Examiner's allegation, Wolff does not disclose or remotely

suggest identifying a standard company logo on a home page, as required by claim 25.

For at least these additional reasons, Applicant submits that claim 25 is patentable over

Wolff and Unold et aI.

Independent claim 26 recites features similar to features recited in claim 18. Claim 26 is,

therefore, patentable over Wolff and Unold et aI., whether taken alone or in any reasonable

combination, for at least reasons similar to reasons given with regard to claim 18. Claims 29-31

depend from claim 26 and are, therefore, patentable over Wolff and Unold et aI. for at least the

15
•• I. , (

PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

reasons given with regard to claim 26. Claims 29-31 also recite features similar to features

recited in claims 19-25. Claims 29-31 are, therefore, also patentable over Wolff and Unold et ai.

for reasons similar to reasons given with regard to claims 19-25.

Independent claim 27 is directed to a server connected to a network. The server

comprises a memory configured to store instructions and a processor configured to execute the

instructions to determine a home page for a web page on the network, identify a standard

company logo on the home page, modify the standard company logo with special event

information corresponding to a special event to create a special event logo, and replace the

standard company logo with the special event logo during the special event.

Neither Wolff nor Unold et aI., whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination,

discloses or suggests the combination of features recited in claim 27. For example, neither Wolff

nor Unold et ai. discloses or suggests a processor configured to identify a standard company logo

on a home page, for at least reasons similar to reasons given with regard to claim 25.

Wolff and Unold et ai. also do not disclose or suggest a processor configured to modify a

standard company logo with special event information corresponding to a special event to create

a special event logo, as further recited in claim 27, for at least reasons similar to reasons given

with regard to claim 18.

Wolff and Unold et ai. also do not disclose or suggest a processor configured to replace

the standard company logo with the special event logo during the special event, as further recited

in claim 27. The Examiner did not address this feature and, therefore, did not establish a prima

facie case of obviousness with regard to claim 27.

For at least these reasons, Applicant submits that claim 27 is patentable over Wolff and

16
, , I I

PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

Unold et al., whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination. Claims 32 and 33 depend

from claim 27 and are, therefore, patentable over Wolff and Unold et al. for at least the reasons

given with regard to claim 27.

Independent claim 28 recites features similar to features recited in claims 18-20. Claim

28 is, therefore, patentable over Wolff and Unold et al., whether taken alone or in any reasonable

combination, for at least reasons similar to reasons given with regard to claims 18-20.

New claims 34, 35, and 36 depend from claims 18,26, and 28, respectively. Claims 34-

36 are, therefore, patentable over Wolff and Unold et al. for at least the reasons given with regard

to claims 18, 26, and 28.

New independent claim 37 recites features similar to, but different in scope from, features

recited in other independent claims. Claim 37 is, therefore, patentable over Wolff and Unold et

al. for at least reasons similar to reasons given with regard to the other independent claims.

Claims 38 and 39 depend from claim 37 and are, therefore, patentable over Wolff and Unold et

al. for at least the reasons given with regard to claim 37.

In view of the foregoing amendments and remarks, Applicant respectfully requests the

Examiner's reconsideration ofthe application and the timely allowance of pending claims 18-36.

If the Examiner does not believe that all pending claims are now in condition for

allowance, the Examiner is urged to contact the undersigned to expedite prosecution of this

application.

To the extent necessary, a petition for an extension oftime under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136 is

hereby made. Please charge any shortage in fees due in connection with the filing ofthis paper,

17
., '/ l ..,

PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

including extension of time fees, to Deposit Account No. 50-1070 and please credit any excess

fees to such deposit account.

Respectfully submitted,

HARRITY & SNYDER, L.L.P.

Paul A. Harrity
Reg. No. 39,574

Date: November 22, 2005

11240 Waples Mill Road


Suite 300
Fairfax, Virginia 22030
(571) 432-0800

18
Patent
Attorney's Docket No. 0026-0002

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE


,~E 'AlA
In re Patent Application of o ~
Sergey Brin 1.\\\\~ ~ Group Art Unit: 2142
\\()~ ').'}. g,
Application No.: 09/843,923
~ ~ Examiner: B. Ailes
'~&TR~dft
Filed: April 30, 2001

For: SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR


ENTICING USERS TO ACCESS A WEB
SITE

PETITION FOR TWO MONTH EXTENSION OF TIME

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office


Customer Service Window, Mail Stop Amendment
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314

Sir:

The following extension of time is requested to respond to the Office Action dated July 21,2005:

Two months to December 21,2005; the extension fee is:

D $ 225.00 IZJ $ 450.00

D The shortened statutory period has been reset by an Advisory Action dated _ _.

IZJ An extension fee in the amount of $ $450.00 is enclosed.

D Charge $ _ to Deposit Account No. 50-1070.

The Comm issioner is hereby authorized to charge any other appropriate fees that may be required by this
paper that are not accounted for above, and to credit any overpayment, to Deposit Account No. 50-1070.
Respectfully submitted,

HARRITY & SNYDER, L.L.P.

~~~5~89843923
450.08 OP
By: --'---"'-"""""'=--_-==----+_ _~_ _____'~-

11240 Waples Mill Road


Suite 300
Fairfax, Virginia 22030
(571) 432-0800
CUSTOMER NUMBER: 44989
Date: November 22, 2005
Ir().{~
paZ
Attorney's Docket No. 0020:0002
l

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

In re Patent Application of )
)
Sergey Brin ) Group Art Unit: 2142
)
Application No.: 09/843,923 ) Examiner: B. Ailes
)
Filed: April 30, 2001 )
)
For.: SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR )
ENTICING USERS TO ACCESS )
A WEB SITE )

AMENDMENT/REPLY TRANSMITTAL LETTER

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office


Customer Service Window, Mail Stop Amendment
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street'
Alexandria, VA 22314

Sir:

Enclosed is a reply for the above-identified patent application.

~ A Petition for Extension of Time is also enclosed.

D A Terminal Disclaimer and a check for D $65.00 D $130.00 to cover the


requisite Government fee are also enclosed.

D A Request for Continued Examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114 is enclosed.

D A request for Entry and Consideration of Submission under 37 C.F.R. § 1. 129(a)


is also enclosed.'
Amendment/Reply Transmittal Letter
Application Serial No. 09/843,923
Attorney's Docket No. 0026-0002
Page 2

[:g] No additional claim fee is required.


D An additional claim fee is required, and is calculated as shown below:

AMENDED CLAIMS

No. of Highest No. Extra Rate Additional


Claims Of Claims Claims Fee
Previously
Paid For
Total Minus x $50.00 =

Claims

Ind. Minus x $200.00 =

Claims

If Amendment adds multiple dependent claims, add $360.00

Total Amendment Fee

If Small entity status is claimed, subtract 50% of Total Amendment Fee

TOTAL ADDITIONAL FEE DUE FOR THIS AMENDMENT

o A claim fee in the amount of $ is enclosed.

D Charge $ _ to Deposit Account no. 50-1070.

To the extent necessary, a petition for an extension of time under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136 is
hereby made. Please charge any shortage in fees due in connection with the filing of this paper,
including extension of time fees, to Deposit Account No. 50-1070 and please credit any excess
fees to such deposit account.
Amendment/Reply Transmittal Letter
Application Serial No. 09/843,923
Attorney's Docket No. 0026-0002
Page 3

The Commissioner is hereby authorized to charge any other appropriate fees that may be
required by this paper that are not accounted for above, and to credit any overpayment, to
Deposit Account No. 50-1070.

Respectfully submitted,

HARRITY & SNYDER, L.L.P.

By~Qep\=3)
Paul A. Harrity
Reg. No. 39,574

11240 Waples Mill Road


Suite 300
Fairfax, Virginia 22030
(571) 432-0800
Customer Number: 44989
Date: November 22, 2005
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMElIo'T OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark om..,
Address: COMMlSSIOll.'ER FOR PATENTS
P.O.1lox 1450
Akxandria, ViIginia 2231 3-14S0
www.lISplO.gov

APPLICAnON NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMAnON NO.

09/843,923 04130/2001 Sergey Brin 0026-0002 9916

44989 7590 0712112005 EXAMINER

HARRITY & SNYDER, LLP AILES, BENJAMIN A


11240 WAPLES MILL ROAD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
SUITE 300
FAIRFAX, VA 22030 2142

DATE MAILED: 07/21/2005

Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.

PTO-90C (Rev. 10/03)


T Application No. Applicant(s)

I 09/843,923 BRIN, SERGEY


Office Action Summary Examiner Art Unit
Benjamin A Ailes 2142
-- 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;J MONTH(S) 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, maya reply be timely filed
after SIX (6) MONTHS from the maUing date of this communication.
- If the period for reply specified above is less than thirty (3D) days, a reply within the staMory minimum of thirty (3D) days will be considered timely.
- If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum staMory 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 timely filed, may reduce any
earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).

Status
1)~ Responsive to communication(s) filed on 02 Mav 2005.
2a)0 This action is FINAL. 2b)~ This action is non-final.
3)0 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 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.

Disposition of Claims
4)~ Claim(s) 18-33 is/are pending in the application.
4a) Of the above claim(s) _ _ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
5)0 Claim(s) _ _ is/are allowed.
6)~ Claim(s) 18-33 is/are rejected.
7)0 Claim(s) _ _ is/are objected to.
8)0 Claim(s) _ _ are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.

Application Papers
9)0 The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
10)0 The drawing(s) filed on _ _ is/are: a)O accepted or b)O objected to by the Examiner.
. Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
11)0 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)0 Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)' or (t).
a)O All b)D Some * c)O None of:
1.0 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
2.0 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No. _ _.
3.0 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».
* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.

Attachment(s)
1) ~ Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) 4) 0 Interview Summary (PT0-413)
2) 0 Notice of Draftsperson's Patent Drawing Review (PTO-948) Paper No(s)/Mail Date. _ _ .
3) 0 Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO-1449 or PTO/SB/08) 5) 0 Notice of Informal Patent Application (PTO-152)
Paper No(s)/Mail Date _ _. 6) 0 Other: _ _.

U.S. Patent and Trademar1< Office


PTOL-326 (Rev. 1-04) Office Action Summary Part of Paper No.lMail Date 20050719

.(.0 ()
Application/Control Number: 09/843,923 Page 2
Art Unit: 2142

DETAILED ACTION

1. This action is in response to the Amendment and Response to Restriction

Requirement filed 02 May 2005.

2. Claims 18-33 remain pending.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103

3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 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 skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.

4. Claims 18-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over

Wolff (U.S. 6,247,047) in view of Unold et al. (U.S. 2002/0055880 A1), hereinafter

referred to as Unold.

5. Regarding claims 18,26, and 28, Wolff discloses the use of a standard company

logo (col. 8, lines 35-40), associating one or more search terms with the company logo

(col. 8, lines 43-48), uploading the company logo to a web page (col. 8, lines 38-40),

receiving a user selection of the company logo (col. 8, lines 58-62), and providing

search results relating to the logo in response to the user selection (col. 9, lines 1-7).

Wolff discloses the main idea of using a company logo, being able to modify the

company logo, and associating a search term along with it, but does not explicitly

disclose in the modifying step of modifying the standard company logo to become a

special event logo. However, Unold discloses the ability and method of altering a

standard company logo to become a special event logo in accordance with a special
Application/Control Number: 09/843,923 Page 3
Art Unit: 2142

event (Page 1, column 2, paragraph [0007]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have

found it useful to combine the method of modifying a standard company logo to become

a special event logo as disclosed by Unold because Unold provides a method wherein

company logos and advertisements can be changed quickly and efficiently to

correspond with market and sales trends (Page 1, column 2, paragraph [0007]). It is for

this reason that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant's invention

would have been motivated to implement the methods of modifying a company logo as

disclosed by Unold and combine them with the standard company logo displaying

method disclosed by Wolff.

6. Regarding claims 19 and 20, Unold discloses the ability to modify the logo with

animated images, video, and audio data (page 3, column 2, paragraph [0047], lines 9-

13). The motivation used to combine Wolff and Unold in the rejection of claim 18

applies equally as well to claims 19 and 20.

7. Regarding claim 21, Unold discloses'the special event including a holiday (page

1, column 1, paragraph [0007]). The motivation used to combine Wolff and Unold in the

rejection of claim 18 applies equally as well to claim 21.

8. Regarding claim 22, Wolff discloses the use of a search term but Wolff does not

explicitly disclose the search term being related to the special event because Wolff does

not explicitly disclose the step of modifying a company logo to become a special event

logo as explained in the rejection of claim 18. It would have been obvious to one of

ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant's invention to associate the search

term with the special event in the combination of Wolff and Unold because Wolff alone
Application/Control Number: 09/843,923 Page 4
Art Unit: 2142

associates the search term with the company logo, so in combination of Wolff and

Unold, the search term would have to be related to the special event logo in some sort

of way. It is. for this reason that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been

motivated to associate the search term with the special event.

9. Regarding claim 23, Unold discloses the ability to schedule when a special event

logo is to be displayed (page 2, column 2, paragraph [0018]). The motivation used to

combine Wolff and Unold in the rejection of claim 18 applies equally as well to claim 23.

10. Regarding claim 24, Wolff discloses the method of generating a search query

using the one or more search terms (col. 9, lines 1-8), using the search query to search

at least one of a network, ali index, or a directory (col. 9, lines 1-8), and obtaining

search results based on the search (col. 9, lines 9-15).

11. Regarding claim 25, Wolff discloses determining a home page for the web page

on a network (col. 8, lines 35-40) and identifying the standard company logo on the

home page (col. 8, lines 35-40), but does not explicitly disclose in the modifying step of

modifying the standard company logo to become a special event logo. However, Unold

discloses the ability and method of altering a standard company logo to become a

special event logo in accordance with a special event (Page 1, column 2, paragraph

[0007]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it useful to combine the

method of modifying a standard company logo to become a special event logo as

disclosed by Unold because Unold provides a method wherein company logos and

advertisements can be changed quickly and efficiently to correspond with market and

sales trends (Page 1, column 2, paragraph [0007]). It is for this reason that one of
Application/Control Number: 09/843,923 Page 5
Art Unit: 2142

ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant's invention would have been

motivated to implement the methods of modifying a company logo as disclosed by

Unold and combine them with the standard company logo displaying method disclosed

by Wolff.

12. Claim 27 contains similar subject matter and is rejected under the same rationale

as claims 18 and 25.

13. Claim 29 contains similar subject matter and is rejected under the same rationale

as claim 19.

14. ·Claim 30 contains similar subject matter and is rejected under the same rationale

as claim 20.

15. Claim 31 contains similar subject matter and is rejected under the same rationale

as claim 21.

16. Claim 32 contains similar subject matter and is rejected under the same rationale

as claim 22.

17. Claim 33 contains similar subject matter and is rejected under the same rationale

as claim 24.

Response to Arguments

18. Applicant's arguments filed 02 May 2005 have been considered but are moot in

view of the new ground(s) of rejection.


Application/Control Number: 09/843,923 Page 6
Art Unit: 2142

Conclusion

19. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to

applicant's disclosure.

Baum (U.S. 2002/0065741 A1) discloses a method of distributing images to

multiple recipients.

Bollay (U.S. 6,457,009 B1) discloses a method of searching multiple Internet

resident databases using search fields in a generic form.

Tognazzini et al. (U.S. 6,519,584) disclose advertising displays such as found in

mass transit vehicles or stations or in electronic newspapers are provided with user

directed search capabilities.

Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the

examiner should be directed to Benjamin A. Ailes whose telephone number is (571 )272-

3899. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30-5, First Friday Off.

If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's

supervisor, Andrew Caldwell can be reached on (571 )272-3868. The fax phone number

for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.


Application/Control Number: 09/843,923 Page 7
Art Unit: 2142

Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the

Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for

published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.

Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.

For more information about 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 (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).

L~~
WTRIZ PRtETO
baa
PA1MARY EXAtJnNER
Application/Control No. Applicant(s)/Patent Under
Reexamination
09/843,923 BRIN, SERGEY
Notice of References Cited
Examiner Art Unit
Page 1 of 1
Benjamin A Ailes 2142

U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS


Document Number Date
* Country Code-Number-Kind Code MM-YVYY Name Classification

A U5-6,247,047 B1 06-2001 Wolff, Eric L. 709/219

B U5-2002l0055880 A 1 05-2002 Unold et aI. 705/26

C US-2002l0065741 A1 05-2002 Baum, Daniel R. 705/26

D U5-6,457,009 B1 09-2002 Bollay, Denison W. 707/10

E U5-e,519,584 B1 02-2003 Tognazzini et al. 707/3

.F US-

G US-

H US-

I US-

J US-

K US-

L US-

M US-

FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS


Document Number Date
* Country Code-Number-Kind Code MM-VYVY Country Name Classification

T
NON·PATENT DOCUMENTS

* Include as applicable: Author, Title Date, Publisher, Edition or Volume, Pertinent Pages)

.A copy of this reference IS not bemg furnished with this Office action. (See MPEP § 707.05(a).)
Dates in MM-YYYY format are publication dates. Classifications may be US or foreign.
u.s. Patent ard Trademark Office
PTO-892 (Rev. 01-2001) Notice of References Cited Part of Paper No. 20050719
Application/Control No. Applicant(s)/Patent under
Index of Claims Reexamination

I I IIII IIIIII ~ I
09/843,923 BRIN, SERGEY
Examiner Art Unit

Benjamin A. Ailes 2142

(Through numeral)
Rejected - Non-Elected Appeal
"
= Allowed +
Cancelled

Restricted
N

I Interference
A

0 Objected

Claim Date Claim Date Claim Date


: .
1ii II> 1ii 1ii
1ii c: 1ii c: 1ii c:
c:
u::
'01
(5
~
;:::
c:
u::
'01
(5
c:
u::
'01
(5
:.:.

1 . 51 101
2 52 I'" 102
3 1'. 53 I:':' 103
I:·: I·:·
4 54 104
5 H 55 105
6 - :::. 56 106
7 - 57 107
8 - :::. 58 108
9 - 59 109
10 - 60 110
11 - .. : 61 111
12 62 112
13 . 63 113
14 64 114
15 65 115
16 - ::: 66 116
17 - ::. 67 117
18 ..J 68 118
l"§ -J 69 119
20 -J 70 120
21 -J 71 121
22 ..J 72 122
23 -J 73 123
24 ..J 74 124
25 -J 75 125
f~ ..J 76 126
71 -J 77 127
8) ..J 78 128
29 -J 79 129
30 -J 80 130
31 -J 81 131
32 ..J 82 132
33 -J 83 133
34 84 134
35 85 135
36 86 136
37 87 137
38 88 138
39 89 139
40 90 140
41 91 141
42 92 142
43 93 143
44 94 144
45 95 145
46 96 146
47 97 147
48 98 148
49 99 149
50 .: 100 150

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Part of Paper No. 20050719


Application/Control No. Applicant(s)/Patent under
Search Notes Reexamination
09/843,923 BRIN, SERGEY

I I IIII I I I I Examiner

Benjamin A. Ailes
Art Unit

2142

SEARCH NOTES
SEARCHED
(INCLUDING SEARCH STRATEGY)
Class Subclass Date Examiner DATE EXMR

705 26 7/19/2005 BAA


EAST - General Text Search,
Class/subclass seach
7/19/2005 BAA

Search Tips· Primary Examiner •


Larry Donaghue - see attached (LD)
7/19/2005 BAA

INTERFERENCE SEARCHED

Class Subclass Date Examiner

u.s. Patent and Trademark Office Part of Paper No. 20050719


~. I

Ref Hits Search Query DBs Plurals Time Stamp


#
:uS·· "i0020055880i , :tiS':PGPUB· 2005/07/19.. 14:29
L17 ("6457009" "6247047").pn. USPAT 2005/07/1914:29
t16 . • ·('16457009"1~624
. .- .--
7047'.'.). piL
. ' , -
:l.IS-PGPUS·;. 2005/07/l9.1~f:23.
·.USPAT;;.;<: :
.EPQ~)p'(~i;."I:···'·'····'···'
.DERWENTL
. JB,~~TOB..:
L15 19 ("5572643" I "5675507" I US-PGPUB; OR ON 2005/07/1914:23
"5715453" I "5724424" I USPAT;
"5778368" I "5796952" I USOCR
"5948061" I "5960411").PN. OR
("6247047").URPN.

·:~8vt~s~~~~tf-~:~~MNe~~~~i~r:b~! ::e~~~~~:;;:!
.•• ~piid:ay.)::::·:~.~ .. ~~·~~!J!IIH;iJj; •. ::·<: i:~~~W$.~) :::::::::::':.::;'::: ... :';"::"::::.:::::':':"
.. .•••: '•••:.::•••:•••:..:.: ::.:.'.' .•••:•.• ·lBl'vtTDB:::.:··V·:.::.:.: I : ' :1
L14 36 11 and ((logo or banner or ad or US-PGPUB; OR ON 2005/07/1911:14
advertisement or sale or USPAT;
clearance) same (season$3 or EPO; JPO;
holiday» DERWENT;
IBM_TDB
. . . . . . -.. , il'~~d:«(i8gd.8t:'b~·~h~~)$~h1e.. .. ;·l)S~PGPLJBfl·;b·IRi:·l ..:: l:C)N::"/il':'id()5/oij1.9!i·l:i~· •
"<.:.,•..:.;.::. ;·ljSPAT;:··.·.·.··
•(seasbri$36r,holid~y»· :: .....:
:l:PO;)PO;I.:::> ::1> :.1 .:::: ••
............ ,..· :.1.·:>.:;·.'.::.::': ···oERWENt··II: :::11:1:;:1·:::.:: ·:· ·:·
!:j~MI"'t.>$.;·.:
:.. :... :: .••.. :...:.: ••• :.. ::.:.:.:.: •.•.. :.:.:.:.:.:.:.: •.. :.: •• •••.•••.•. :••1\ ••

L11 1435 705/26.ccls. and US-PGPUB; OR ON 2005/07/19 11:13


(@ad<"20000501" or USPAT;
@rlad<"20000501") EPO; JPO;
DERWENT;
IBM_TDB
'.':;:1.'.:.:·:·:;':':,:235:1·(lqg8With2qmp~ny>:$~·m~
..... . ····,·······,·······,·,·······'IQ~lllllrTINill·.ip()SjR7h.Q:i.i!i~ .
....:::lJ.$~P:G.PUB.;
....................';?:i Ia,v,:$n::srpe.seieCt$3;..:... j::~:~~~;~~~:::!
1J iIj iii::;!i:::::!! : .
· 1:······:::·······:·••••• ·.···1•.· ··:.:.: : ' ·..:.. ! i • • fB~~ltB~T;!·il!IY·.T.TI: : ••• >1 ill.· •.,:}:'·· .
L8 9 (logo with company) same US-PGPUB; OR ON 2005/07/1910:38
display$3 same (season$2 or USPAT;
holida$2) EPO; JPO;
DERWENT;
IBM_TDB
...,-.:-:."'..,....,•• (I()gc>.With2qrnp~hY)~~m~:: •••..:••.••• ·ij~~PGP:W:B;::·IPR' : lQN;:
:qlsplaY$:3:· . . . ... USpAt ..
..... . . . Ji\i jEPp;ii~6;k
Ik::::·jI[iII ili}..:•• :!ll::::"":::,:: H ::. ..:: >T...·••.•. ·DERWENT;:::

Search History 7/19/05 4:00:48 PM Page 1


C:\Documents and Settings\bailes\My Documents\EAST\Workspaces\09843923.wsp
.'
L6 4447 logo with company US-PGPUB; OR ON 2005/07/19 10:36
USPAT;
EPa; JPO;
DERWENT;
IBM_TDB
........... - .
'1265: . (logo orcompany):s~n1e USjP,GP.iJ~;;-:
: : I· "':::(season$3:orhbliday)C
. : - .... ,'::"
"'-.- - _. - '
·U$pAT;'..;:: .
.. ,:. '.• :EPQn"Q;/:,· . ." !".

I' .
·DERWENt),"·, :::: !"" . :: ..
..
IBM:TDB::>
~.. ::,,',.,.,,::: ...
... : .
!" .
.1·:".
L4 69 2 not 3 US-PGPUB; OR ON 2005/07/1910:36
USPAT;
EPa; JPO;
DERWENT;
IBM_TDB
........................... "".""."." . """""""""""''''''''1:::.::.:'.:;.:::::::::::::
" I::, '::L :::~:·~~n"~(Vi@:9.r·in~~rr.~t§r.$ite) .• · : ::QS~P(jP.LJB;::;F·(OR:R:>'·;'::rCiN·: ::I::2005!Q7/19'iO:35::
,. >:' ,,::
.':'

::::
: .. :
,. . . ,.
'.'.:.
:.:.
.;.:. . . •.• • • • • • ;••:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.; ; ; ; :;:.:.; :; .:•. ;.; ; ; .; ;.;• :;i!~I;;;I!:!:!I!! I!!!I::I!!III'I: !':!·I :.: :;, ,,;.,:,':: •. . .
L2 90 1 and (web or internet or site) US-PGPUB; OR ON 2005/07/1910:35
USPAT;
EPa; JPO;
DERWENT;
IBM_TDB

: iJ~:'P'·":'.G.,.·
. ·u":",,,,·B··;:I:;'nll:,.,1:IJDNi
:USP,AT;:: p.·,.:. I::2d65/o7/i91o!3s::
...
... :.:,' ',: ... :
:.:::::,:::'
",: :,:' :,:.:.:.: :.:.:

::~PPU&9.;:': ....
:PI;RWI;NT:> .:. ..... .... ..
." .,,,. :JaH:tos: .,. .:. I <: : : .: : :•. :. Y: II

Search History 7/19/05 4:00:48 PM Page 2


C:\Documents and Settings\bailes\My Documents\EAST\Workspaces\09843923.wsp
Ref Hits Search Query DBs Default Plurals Time Stamp
# Operator
Ll 252 (logo or banner)same (season$3 or US-PGPUB; ADJ OFF 2005/07/12 10:29
holiday) USPAT;
EPO
L2 55 11 and (web or internet or site) US-PGPUB; ADJ OFF 2005/07/12 10:22
USPAT;
EPO
L3 11 11 same (web or internet or site) US-PGPUB; ADJ OFF 2005/07/12 10:17
USPAT;
EPO
L4 44 12 not 13 US-PGPUB; ADJ OFF 2005/07/12 10:22
USPAT;
EPO
L5 764 (logo or company)same (season$3 US-PGPUB; ADJ OFF 2005/07/12 10:28
or holiday) USPAT;
EPO
L6 3067 (logo with company) US-PGPUB; ADJ OFF 2005/07/12 10:28
USPAT;
EPO
L7 751 (logo with company) same US-PGPUB; ADJ OFF 2005/07/12 10:29
displaY$3 USPAT;
EPO
L8 1 (logo with company) same US-PGPUB; ADJ OFF 2005/07/12 10:30
displaY$3 same (season$2 or USPAT;
holida$2) EPO
L9 181 (logo with company) same US-PGPUB; ADJ OFF 2005/07/12 10:30
displaY$3 same select$3 USPAT;
EPO

Search History 7/12/2005 10:39:16 AM Page 1


C:\Documents and Settings\ldonaghue\My Documents\EAST\\default.wsp
Patent
Attorney's Docket No. 0026-0002

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

In re Patent Application of )
)
Sergey Brin ) Group Art Unit: ~142
)
Application No.: 09/843,923 ) Examiner: B. Ailes
)
Filed: April 30, 2001 )
)
For: SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR )
ENTICING USERS TO ACCESS )
A WEB SITE )

AMENDMENTIREPLY TRANSMITTAL LETTER

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office


Customer Service Window, Mail Stop Amendment
Randolph Building
40 I Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314

Sir:

Enclosed is a reply for the above-identified patent application.

D A Petition for Extension of Time is also enclosed.

D A Terminal Disclaimer and a check for D $65.00 D $130.00 to cover the


requisite Government fee are also enclosed.

D A Request for Continued Examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114 is enclosed.

D A request for Entry and Consideration of Submission under 37 C.F.R. § 1.129(a)


is also enclosed.
Amendment/Reply Transmittal Letter
Application Serial No. 09/843,923
Attorney's Docket No. 0026-0002
Page 2

I:8J No additional claim fee is required.


o An additional claim fee is required, and is calculated as shown below:

AMENDED CLAIMS

No. of Highest No. Extra Rate Additional


Claims Of Claims Claims Fee
Previously
Paid For
Total Minus x $50.00 = 0

Claims

Ind. Minus x $200.00 = 0

Claims

If Amendment adds multiple dependent claims, add $360.00

Total Amendment Fee 0

If Small entity status is claimed, subtract 50% of Total Amendment Fee

TOTAL ADDITIONAL FEE DUE FOR THIS AMENDMENT 0

o A claim fee in the amount of $ is enclosed.

D Charge $ _ to Deposit Account no. 50-1070.

To the extent necessary, a petition for an extension of time under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136 is
hereby made. Please charge any shortage in fees due in connection with the filing of this paper,
including extension of time fees, to Deposit Account No. 50-1070 and please credit any excess
fees to such deposit account.
Amendment/Reply Transmittal Letter
Application Serial No. 09/843,923
Attorney's Docket No. 0026-0002
Page 3

The Commissioner is hereby authorized to charge any other appropriate fees that may be
required by this paper that are not accounted for above, and to credit any overpayment, to
Deposit Account No. 50-1070.

Respectfully submitted,

HARRITY & SNYDER, L.L.P.

By: ~O<t=\ ;-
Paul A. Harrity
Reg. No. 39,574

11240 Waples Mill Road


Suite 300
Fairfax, Virginia 22030
(571) 432-0800
Customer Number: 44989
Date: May 2, 2005
PATENT
Docket No. 0026-0002
'M"Y 0 2 - ~
-<> ~
~~ 'J:-~ IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
:t!4 TRAOtY-"
In re Patent Application of )
)
Sergey Brin ) Group Art Unit: 2142
)
Application No.: 09/843,923 ) Examiner: B. Ailes
)
Filed: April 30, 2001 )
)
For: SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR )
ENTICING USERS TO ACCESS A )
WEB SITE )

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office


Customer Service Window, Mail Stop Amendment
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314

AMENDMENT AND RESPONSE TO RESTRICTION REQUIREMENT

In response to the Restriction Requirement, dated April 21, 2005, please amend this

application as follows:

Amendments to the Claims begin on page 2 of this paper.

Remarks begin on page 7 of this paper.


PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

Amendments to the Claims:

This listing of claims will replace all prior versions, and listings, of claims in the application:

Listing of Claims:

1-17. (canceled)

18. (original) A method for enticing users to access a web page, comprising:

modifying a standard company logo for a special event to create a special event logo;

associating one or more search terms with the special event logo;

uploading the special event logo to the web page;

receiving a user selection of the special event logo; and

providing search results relating to the special event in response to the user selection.

19. (original) The method of claim 18, wherein the modifying a standard company

logo includes:

creating the special event logo by modifying the standard company logo with one or more

animated images.

20. (previously presented) The method of claim 18, wherein the modifying a standard

company logo includes:

creating the special event logo by modifying the standard company logo with at least one

of video or audio data.

2
PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

21. (original) The method of claim 18, wherein the special event includes a holiday.

22. (original) The method of claim 18, wherein the associating one or more search

terms includes:

identifying one or more search terms relating to the special event.

23. (original) The method of claim 18, wherein the uploading the special event logo

includes:

displaying the special event logo on the web page during the special event.

24. (previously presented) The method of claim 18, wherein the providing search

results includes:

generating a search query using the one or more search terms,

using the search query to search at least one of a network, an index, or a directory, and

obtaining search results based on the search.

25. (original) The method of claim 18, wherein the modifying a standard company

logo includes:

determining a home page for the web page on a network,

identifying the standard company logo on the home page, and

modifying the standard company logo with special event information to create the special

event logo.

3
PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

26. (previously presented) A computer-readable medium that stores instructions

executable by one or more processors to perform a method for attracting users to a web page,

comprising:

instructions for creating a special event logo by modifying a standard company logo;

instructions for associating at least one of a link or search results with the special event

logo;

instructions for uploading the special event logo to the web page;

instructions for receiving a user selection of the special event logo; and

instructions for providing the link or search results associated with the special event logo.

27. (original) A server connected to a network, comprising:

a memory configured to store instructions; and

a processor configured to execute the instructions to:

determine a home page for a web page on the network,

identify a standard company logo on the home page,

modify the standard company logo with special event information corresponding

to a special event to create a special event logo, and

replace the standard company logo with the special event logo during the special

event.

4
PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

28. (new) A method, comprising:

identifying a standard company logo associated with a web site;

modifying the standard company logo with at least one of image, video, or audio data

relating to a special event to create a special event logo;

associating one or more search terms with the special event logo;

detecting a selection associated with the special event logo; and

providing search results relating to the special event in response to the detected selection.

29. (new) The computer-readable medium of claim 26, wherein the instructions for

creating a special event logo include:

instructions for modifying the standard company logo with one or more animated images.

30. (new) The computer-readable medium of claim 26, wherein the instructions for

creating a special event logo include:

instructions for modifying the standard company logo with at least one of video or audio

data.

31. (new) The computer-readable medium of claim 26, wherein the instructions for

creating a special event logo include:

instructions for modifying the standard company logo with information associated with a

holiday.

5
PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

32. (new) The server of claim 27, wherein the processor is further configured to:

associate one or more search terms relating to the special event with the special event

logo.

33. (new) The server of claim 32, wherein the processor is further configured to:

detect a selection associated with the special event logo,

generate a search query based on the one or more search terms,

perform a search based on the search query, and

provide a result of the search.

6
PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843,923
Docket No. 0026-0002

REMARKS

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("Patent Office") issued a restriction requirement

under 35 U.S.C. § 121.

By this Amendment and Response to the Restriction Requirement, Applicant cancels

claims 1-17 without prejudice or disclaimer and reserves the right to pursue these claims in a

divisional application. Applicant also adds new claims 28-3