Obviousness

To analyze the obviousness of US patent 10585959 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we will consider the prior art references explicitly mentioned or derived from the "Prior Art" sections of the patent itself. The priority date for US10585959 is June 17, 2011. Therefore, any references with a priority date on or before this date are relevant for an obviousness analysis.

The "CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS" and "Applications Claiming Priority" sections of US10585959 list several related applications that share the same June 17, 2011 priority date. These applications represent the applicant's own earlier work and disclose subject matter relevant to the claims of US10585959. For this analysis, we will consider:

• Reference 1 (Ref. 1): U.S. Utility patent application Ser. No. 13/163,614, filed on June 17, 2011, and titled "Automatic Webpage Characterization and Search Results Annotation" (which matured into US9104765B2). This is the earliest application in the priority chain.
• Reference 2 (Ref. 2): U.S. Utility patent application Ser. No. 16/199,192, filed on November 25, 2018, and titled "Internet Search Results Annotation for Missing Search Terms in Referenced Webpages and Descendant Webpages" (which matured into US10437900B2). This is a parent application to US10585959 and shares the same priority date.

Analysis of Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103

A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) in the field of Internet search and data processing, at the time of the invention (June 17, 2011), would have been motivated to combine or modify the teachings of these prior art references to arrive at the claimed invention of US10585959.

Claim 1 Obviousness Combination: Reference 1 + General Knowledge

Claim 1 of US10585959 recites:
"A system for providing annotated Internet search results suitable for display to a user of a computing device connected to an Internet, wherein the system comprises: one or more servers comprising one or more processors...wherein the system receives a search request...comprising one or more search term elements; wherein in response...the system causes an Internet search to be performed...wherein the system transmits...information comprising at least one automatically annotated Internet search result...wherein the automatically annotated Internet search result is provided for display...as a search result grouping referencing a webpage...wherein the search result grouping comprises an annotation...wherein the annotation is provided in response to a presence or absence of the one or more search term elements in the referenced webpage; wherein the annotation is automatically placed...so that it is associated with the automatically annotated Internet search result; and wherein the annotation comprises one or more search term elements missing in the referenced webpage and provides an indication that the automatically annotated Internet search result is less relevant with regard to what the user seeks."

Explanation of Obviousness:
Reference 1, US13/163,614, is titled "Automatic Webpage Characterization and Search Results Annotation". This title clearly teaches the core concepts of automatically characterizing webpages and annotating search results. A PHOSITA would understand that "webpage characterization" involves analyzing various attributes of a webpage's content.

The background section of US10585959 itself highlights a persistent problem in the art: "A user may find that a webpage located at a URL link provided on a search results page not only contains irrelevant information given their intended search, it also doesn't contain the search terms that they had specified." It further notes, "Knowing in advance which webpages contain which search term elements would be useful to aid the user in minimizing lost time and frustration." This clearly identifies a known problem and a desired solution within the field.

A PHOSITA, aware of the teachings of Reference 1 (automatic webpage characterization and search results annotation) and the known problem of search results lacking all specified search terms, would be logically motivated to apply the webpage characterization functionality to determine the "presence or absence of the one or more search term elements in the referenced webpage." It would be a straightforward design choice to then use the "annotation" functionality taught by Reference 1 to display this characterization (i.e., indicate missing search terms) adjacent to the search result grouping. Such an annotation, by its very nature, would serve to "provide an indication that the automatically annotated Internet search result is less relevant with regard to what the user seeks," directly addressing the problem of irrelevant results and wasted user time.

Therefore, Claim 1 would be obvious as it represents a logical application and refinement of the automatic webpage characterization and annotation system taught by US13/163,614, driven by the well-understood need to improve the relevance and efficiency of Internet search results.

Claim 2 Obviousness Combination: Reference 1 + Reference 2

Claim 2 of US10585959 recites:
"The system of claim 1, wherein the annotation is provided also in response to a presence or absence of the one or more search term elements in one or more descendant webpages of the referenced webpage, and wherein each descendant of the referenced webpage is a webpage linked directly one level from the referenced webpage."

Explanation of Obviousness:
Building upon the obviousness of Claim 1, Claim 2 introduces the additional limitation that the annotation is also based on the presence or absence of search terms in "one or more descendant webpages".

Reference 2, US16/199,192, is directly titled "Internet search results annotation for missing search terms in referenced webpages and descendant webpages". This title explicitly discloses the concept of annotating search results for missing terms not only in the referenced webpage but also in its descendant webpages. Since Reference 2 shares the same priority date as US10585959, its disclosure would be available as prior art for any subject matter not covered by the earliest common priority. Even if considered within the same family, its explicit title demonstrates that extending the analysis to descendant webpages was a known and addressed aspect of search result annotation.

Furthermore, the background of US10585959 itself acknowledges the relevance of descendant pages: "Sometimes a subset of search term elements will be contained in a webpage located at a search result URL link while other specified search term elements are located in descendent webpages of the webpage located at the search result URL link. Thus, the descendent webpage may still at times be useful to the user." The patent further details scenarios, such as publication sites, where "the remainder of the search terms appear in a descendant page which is the full document that requires payment or registration."

A PHOSITA, having the knowledge of Reference 1 (automatic webpage characterization and annotation) and recognizing that relevant search terms might reside in descendant pages (as highlighted in the problem statement of US10585959), would be motivated to extend the webpage characterization process to include these descendant pages. Reference 2 provides a clear teaching that this extension was already contemplated and explicitly titled. The motivation would be to provide a more comprehensive and accurate assessment of a search result's relevance to the user, thereby further reducing wasted time and improving the search experience, especially in cases where the primary page acts as a gateway to more complete information.

Therefore, Claim 2 would be obvious as it represents a straightforward and motivated extension of the annotation system taught by US13/163,614, further informed by the recognition of the importance of descendant webpages for search term presence, as explicitly taught by US16/199,192 and discussed in the immediate patent's background.