Obviousness

Obviousness Analysis of US Patent 10180952 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

US Patent 10180952 (hereinafter "the '952 patent") claims a search engine that indexes web content with user content, particularly by leveraging user submissions, ratings, and comments to influence search results. The core inventive concept, as articulated in the patent's background, aims to address the limitation of conventional search engines whose algorithms "may not accurately reflect the interest of users on the web."

A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) in the field of search engines and web technologies at the time of the invention (priority date March 14, 2011) would have been motivated to combine existing technologies to enhance search relevance by directly incorporating user feedback. The independent claims (Claim 1, Claim 7, and Claim 14) of the '952 patent can be rendered obvious by combining elements found in the following prior art references:

Combination of Prior Art References

The following combination of prior art references would make the claims of US10180952 obvious:

1. US20080215589A1 to Getingate, Inc. ("Getingate"): Discloses a "System, Method, and Computer-Readable Medium for Collection and Distribution of User-Supplied Comments Associated with Network and Local Content."
2. US20040019611A1 to Pearse ("Pearse"): Discloses a "Web snippets capture, storage and retrieval system and method."
3. US20080021880A1 to Ren ("Ren"): Discloses a "Method and system for highlighting and adding commentary to network web page content."
4. US6718365B1 to International Business Machines Corporation ("IBM"): Discloses a "Method, system, and program for ordering search results using an importance weighting."
5. US7174346B1 to Google, Inc. ("Google"): Discloses a "System and method for searching an extended database."

Obviousness Rationale for Independent Claim 1

Claim 1 of the '952 patent describes a method for a server computer to provide a user interface for submitting information about third-party content, indexing and ranking that content based on the submission and user ratings, and then using this to generate search results. Each element of Claim 1 is present in the identified prior art, and a PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine them.

Claim 1 Breakdown and Prior Art Disclosure:

• "providing, by a server computer, a first user interface operating on the first client computer and displaying 3rd party content on the first client computer, wherein the first user interface is separate from a main window of a web browser, and wherein the first user interface automatically selects a portion of the 3rd party content and displays the portion of the 3rd party content within the first user interface based on settings received from the user via the user interface to display selected portions of the 3rd party content;"

  • Separate User Interface: Ren discloses a "method and system for highlighting and adding commentary to network web page content." To highlight and add commentary to web content without modifying the original page, a separate user interface, such as a pop-up window or sidebar (often implemented via a browser plugin, as described in the '952 patent), would be an obvious choice. Similarly, US20070118794A1 (Hollander) discloses a "Shared annotation system and method," which would also typically involve a user interface separate from the main browser window for inputting and viewing annotations.
  • Automatically Selecting and Displaying a Portion: Pearse describes a "web snippets capture, storage and retrieval system and method," explicitly teaching the capture of portions of web content (snippets).
  • Based on User Settings: It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to incorporate user-configurable settings into any automated content selection or display mechanism. For instance, a system capturing snippets (Pearse) could logically be enhanced to allow a user to specify how those snippets are defined (ee.g., "first N sentences," "first image," etc.) to improve the relevance or utility of the displayed portion. The '952 patent itself notes that "the user of the client computer 105 can provide settings as to what the user interface 150 will display when web content 135 is displayed".

• "receiving, by the server computer, a submission associated with the 3rd party content from the first user via the first user interface;"

  • Getingate explicitly teaches the "collection... of User-Supplied Comments Associated with Network and Local Content." These user-supplied comments represent a "submission associated with the 3rd party content." Ren's system for adding commentary also involves receiving user submissions.

• "indexing, by the server computer, the 3rd party content based on the submission from the first user;"

  • Getingate's system for "Collection and Distribution of User-Supplied Comments" implies that these comments and their associated content are stored and retrievable, which is a form of indexing. Furthermore, US6199081B1 (Microsoft) teaches "Automatic tagging of documents," which is a method of indexing content. It would be obvious to apply user-supplied information (comments, tags, ratings) as a basis for indexing.

• "ranking, by the server computer, the 3rd party content based on a rating of the 3rd party content submitted from the first user;"

  • IBM teaches a "Method, system, and program for ordering search results using an importance weighting." Given that Getingate provides a mechanism for collecting user-supplied information (which could include implicit or explicit ratings), it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to use such user feedback as an "importance weighting" factor for ranking content, thereby influencing search results. The '952 patent's concept of "like, dislike, or neutral" ratings increasing a content's "score" directly aligns with IBM's "importance weighting."

• "receiving, by the server computer, a search query from a second client computer operated by a second user;"

  • Google discloses a "System and method for searching an extended database," which inherently involves receiving search queries from users. This is a fundamental aspect of any search engine.

• "in response to receiving the search query, selecting, by the server computer and based on the indexing and the ranking of the 3rd party content, a set of search results that include an identification of the 3rd party content; and"

  • The combination of a search system (Google) with a system for indexing based on user input (Getingate, Microsoft) and ranking based on importance weighting (IBM) directly leads to selecting search results based on this combined information. This is the logical outcome of integrating user feedback into a search engine.

• "transmitting, by the server computer, the set of search results to the second client computer."

  • This is a standard functionality of any search engine, as taught by Google.

Motivation to Combine

A PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine these prior art references to address the recognized deficiency of conventional search engines, as articulated in the '952 patent: that they "may not accurately reflect the interest of users on the web."

1. Improving Search Relevance: The primary motivation would be to enhance the relevance and utility of search results. While general search engines existed (Google), they often relied on algorithmic ranking. Incorporating direct "human input" (as the '952 patent calls it) through user comments and ratings (Getingate, Ren) into the indexing (Getingate, Microsoft) and ranking process (IBM) would be an obvious way to achieve this goal.
2. Facilitating User Contribution: To make user contributions practical, a convenient mechanism is needed. Providing a user interface separate from the main browser window (implied by Ren's highlighting/commentary or Hollander's annotation systems) would allow users to interact with third-party content without disrupting their browsing experience.
3. Streamlining Submission: To encourage user submissions, automating parts of the process would be desirable. Pearse's system for capturing web snippets would provide an obvious way to automatically populate a portion of the third-party content into the separate user interface. Allowing users to configure what portion is automatically selected is a logical extension to cater to user preferences and further streamline the submission process.
4. Leveraging User Data for Ranking: Once user-generated content (comments, ratings) is collected and indexed, it is a straightforward engineering choice to use this valuable "human input" to inform the "importance weighting" for search result ordering (IBM). The '952 patent states, "the human input affects the search results in real time," and "the more people recommend a web page, the higher it shows up on a related search," directly illustrating this motivation.

Obviousness of Dependent Claims

Claims 2-6 and 8-13 are dependent claims that add further details, such as the 3rd party content being "web content" (Claim 2), ranking based on "ratings of the content from other users" (Claim 3), rating types like "like, dislike, and neutral" (Claim 4), indexing based on "keywords" (Claim 5), and inclusion of a "user comment" (Claim 6). These refinements are also rendered obvious:

• Web Content: The prior art references (Getingate, Ren, Pearse, Google) all inherently deal with "web content" or "network content," making this a trivial distinction.
• Ratings from Other Users: Once a system collects ratings from a first user (as per the combination above), extending it to collect and aggregate ratings from "other users" is an obvious step in building a community-driven ranking system. Getingate's "Collection and Distribution of User-Supplied Comments" supports this aggregation from multiple users.
• Like, Dislike, Neutral: These are common and obvious forms of user ratings. If a system incorporates "importance weighting" (IBM) based on user feedback, implementing specific rating types like "like," "dislike," or "neutral" is a routine design choice for collecting that feedback. The '952 patent itself describes positive and negative ratings contributing different scores, an obvious implementation of "importance weighting."
• Keywords and User Comments: Getingate covers "user-supplied comments." Microsoft teaches "Automatic tagging of documents," which is directly analogous to using "keywords." It would be obvious to allow users to provide keywords or comments as part of their submission to further enhance indexing and searchability.

Obviousness of Claims 7 and 14

Claims 7 and 14 recite a "computing device" and a "non-transitory computer readable storage medium," respectively, embodying the same method steps as Claim 1. If the method itself is obvious, then the corresponding apparatus (computing device) configured to perform the method, and the computer-readable storage medium storing instructions for the method, are likewise obvious to a PHOSITA. Implementing known methods on a generic computer is a fundamental engineering task.

In conclusion, the '952 patent's claims describe an aggregation of individually known techniques—user interfaces separate from main browser windows, automated content snippet capture, user-supplied content and annotations, importance-based ranking, and standard search engine functionality—combined in a manner that would have been obvious to a PHOSITA seeking to improve search relevance through direct user engagement. The motivation for such a combination is clearly presented within the '952 patent itself, addressing the shortcomings of purely algorithmic search engines.