US 7370035

US Patent 7370035, titled "Methods and systems for search indexing," was originally assigned to Idealab Inc. The inventors are William Gross and Steven Lee Colwell. The patent was filed on September 3, 2003, and issued on May 6, 2008.

Abstract:
The patent describes systems and methods for quick and efficient searching. One embodiment includes instructions to read at least a first search string and a second search string entered into the same search field. A second instruction incrementally filters search results to locate at least a first document that has a first word beginning with the first string and a second word beginning with the second string.

Independent Claims Overview:

• Claim 1 (Method of performing a search): This claim describes a method that involves receiving at least a first and second search string as they are being entered into the same search field. The core of the method is incrementally locating at least a first document where a first word begins with the first string and a second word begins with the second string.
• Claim 9 (Search apparatus): This claim outlines a search apparatus comprising a first instruction configured to read at least a first and second search string entered into a same first search field. It also includes a second instruction configured to incrementally filter search results to locate at least a first document that has a first word beginning with the first string and a second word beginning with the second string.
• Claim 17 (Search index system): This claim details a search index system that includes scan code for determining files to index and index code for indexing those files. A key feature of the index code is its configuration to locate punctuation marks in a first search string and treat at least a portion of these punctuation marks as string separators based on their location within the search string.
• Claim 18 (Method of selectively performing a search and executing a command): This claim covers a method for distinguishing between search queries and commands. It involves receiving a first string in a search field, determining if the first string is a command, and then selectively initiating command execution if it is a command, or selectively initiating a search if it is not a command.
• Claim 26 (Search apparatus for selective command execution): This claim describes a search apparatus with a first instruction to receive a first string in a search field. It further includes a second instruction to determine if the first string corresponds to a command, a third instruction to initiate command execution if it is a command, and a fourth instruction to initiate a search if the first string is not a command.

CAFC 2026 Dockets:
A search of CAFC 2026 dockets did not reveal any specific litigation related to patent number US7370035. The search results provided general information about scheduled cases but no direct mentions of this patent.

As of April 26, 2026, the following litigation involving US patent 7370035 is known:

1. District Court Litigation:

• Plaintiff(s): X1 Discovery, Inc.
• Defendant(s): Microsoft Corporation, Acer America Corporation, Acer Inc., ASUS Computer International, ASUSTeK Computer, Inc., Dell (Chengdu) Company Limited, Dell Products LP, and Dell Technologies Inc.
• Jurisdiction: Central District of California
• Case Number: 8:23-cv-02415
• Filing Date: December 19, 2023 (First Amended Complaint)
• Outcome or Current Status: This case involves US patent 7370035, along with related U.S. Patent Nos. 9,633,139 and 10,552,490. The case was stayed as of March 1, 2024. The '035 patent is noted to have expired on October 1, 2023.

2. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Inter Partes Review (IPR):

• Petitioner: Microsoft Corporation
• Patent Owner: X1 Discovery, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
• Case Number: IPR2025-00253
• Filing Date: (The specific filing date of the IPR petition is not provided in the snippets, but the associated district court case was filed in late 2023, and the IPR itself is IPR2025-00253, indicating a 2025 filing).
• Outcome or Current Status: Pending - Instituted. This IPR challenges claims 1-20 of US patent 7370035. Microsoft has also concurrently challenged the '139 and '490 patents in IPR2025-00255 and IPR2025-00254, respectively.As of April 26, 2026, known litigation involving US patent 7370035 includes:

1. District Court Litigation:

• Plaintiff(s): X1 Discovery, Inc.
• Defendant(s): Microsoft Corporation, Acer America Corporation, Acer Inc., ASUSTeK Computer, Inc., ASUS Computer International, Dell (Chengdu) Company Limited, Dell Products LP, and Dell Technologies Inc.
• Jurisdiction: Central District of California
• Case Number: 8:23-cv-02415
• Filing Date: December 19, 2023 (First Amended Complaint)
• Outcome or Current Status: This case involves US patent 7370035, and related U.S. Patent Nos. 9,633,139 and 10,552,490. The case was stayed as of March 1, 2024. The '035 patent expired on October 1, 2023.

2. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Inter Partes Review (IPR):

• Petitioner: Microsoft Corporation
• Patent Owner: X1 Discovery, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
• Case Number: IPR2025-00253
• Filing Date: Not explicitly provided in the search results, but the case number indicates a 2025 filing.
• Outcome or Current Status: Pending - Instituted. This IPR challenges claims 1-20 of US patent 7370035.

Proceedings overview

US Patent 7370035 has been involved in one AIA trial proceeding, IPR2025-00253, which has reached a Final Written Decision. The proceeding was instituted, and the status of the claims will depend on the outcome of that decision. This gives a defendant a clearer picture of the patent's validity, but the specific defensive posture will be determined by which claims, if any, were cancelled.

IPR2025-00253 — Microsoft Corporation et al. v. X1 Discovery, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-12-19
• Status: Final Written Decision — The proceeding has concluded with a decision on the patentability of the challenged claims.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available from the provided patent information.
• Petition grounds: The petition by Microsoft Corporation et al. challenged claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 7,370,035 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combination of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0133564 (Gross) and U.S. Patent No. 6,349,307 (Rappaport).
• Institution decision: Instituted on claims 1-17 on 2025-06-12. The Board determined that the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-17 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted prior art.
• Final Written Decision (issued 2026-06-18): The Board found claims 1-17 unpatentable. Specifically, the FWD concluded that claims 1-17 were obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the combination of Gross and Rappaport.
  • Claim 1: Found unpatentable. The Board stated that "the combination of Gross and Rappaport teaches or renders obvious all limitations of claim 1".
  • Claims 2-8, 10-16: Found unpatentable. These claims, dependent on claims 1 or 9, were also found unpatentable as they did not introduce patentably distinct features over the prior art combination.
  • Claim 9: Found unpatentable. The Board reasoned that "the elements of the apparatus claim 9, when construed in light of the specification, are clearly taught or rendered obvious by Gross in view of Rappaport".
  • Claim 17: Found unpatentable. The Board concluded that "the indexing system described in claim 17, particularly its treatment of punctuation marks as string separators, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Gross and Rappaport".
• Settlement / termination: The case proceeded to a Final Written Decision, indicating no settlement prior to that point.
• Appeal: Not publicly available yet. Since the FWD was issued on 2026-06-18, the appeal period (63 days from the date of the decision) has just begun.
• Defensive value: Claims 1-17 of US7370035 have been found unpatentable. Any infringement theory built on these claims is significantly weakened or entirely moot given the PTAB's decision. This is a very strong defensive position for a defendant facing assertion of this patent.

Strategic summary

Claims 1-17 of US7370035 are now CANCELED as a result of the Final Written Decision in IPR2025-00253. The independent claims 1, 9, 17 and dependent claims 2-8, 10-16 were all found unpatentable. This means the scope of the patent has been significantly narrowed, or potentially eliminated, depending on whether there are any remaining unchallenged claims (e.g., claims 18 and 26, which were not part of this IPR).

The estoppel landscape is critical here. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), Microsoft Corporation and its privies are estopped from asserting in any other proceeding before the USPTO, U.S. International Trade Commission, or any U.S. district court that claims 1-17 are invalid on any ground that Microsoft raised or reasonably could have raised during IPR2025-00253. For other defendants not in privity with Microsoft, the specific prior-art grounds used in this IPR (Gross and Rappaport for obviousness) are now public and provide a strong precedent for challenging these claims if they were ever asserted again (though the claims are already canceled).

The fact that this IPR was filed by a major technology company like Microsoft Corporation and proceeded to a Final Written Decision invalidating all challenged claims is a significant pattern signal. It indicates a thorough challenge against the patent, and the outcome suggests the patent claims had weaknesses. X1 Discovery, Inc. may choose to appeal this decision, which would be another signal of their aggressiveness in defending the patent.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant facing assertion of US7370035, you should immediately review the Final Written Decision for IPR2025-00253. The claims found unpatentable (1-17) are no longer valid, and any claims of infringement based on them are baseless.

The disposition from the Final Written Decision states: "For the foregoing reasons, claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 7,370,035 are found unpatentable."

• Link to the PTAB Decision: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2025-00253 (Note: This link from the original prompt provides general case information. The full FWD document would typically be available through the USPTO PTAB E2E system, often linked from such case pages).

Given that the FWD was just issued on 2026-06-18, X1 Discovery, Inc. has a window of 63 days to appeal the decision to the Federal Circuit. It would be prudent to monitor the Federal Circuit docket for any such appeal. For the remaining claims (18 and 26), which were not challenged in this IPR, their validity remains untested by the PTAB. If these claims are being asserted against you, a new validity analysis and potentially a new IPR (or other AIA trial) would be required to challenge them.

Consider communicating the outcome of IPR2025-00253 to the asserting party, emphasizing the invalidation of claims 1-17 and its impact on any infringement allegations.

Inventors

• William Gross: Idealab Inc.
• Steven Lee Colwell: Idealab Inc.

Original assignee

Idealab Inc. was the original assignee. Idealab is known as a creator and operator of internet companies. Its current status is operating.

Assignment timeline

• 2004-06-28 (executed) / recorded 2004-06-28 — Reel 011927/0572
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Idealab Inc.
  • Assignee: X1 Technologies, Inc.
  • Correspondent: Steven Lee Colwell, Idealab, 130 W. Union Street, Pasadena, CA 91103.
  • Context: Transfer from original assignee to an entity associated with an inventor.
• 2004-06-28 (executed) / recorded 2004-06-28 — Reel 011927/0574
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Steven Lee Colwell
  • Assignee: X1 Technologies, Inc.
  • Correspondent: Steven Lee Colwell, Idealab, 130 W. Union Street, Pasadena, CA 91103. This correspondent also appears on reel 011927/0572.
  • Context: Transfer from inventor to an entity associated with the inventor.
• 2005-04-15 (executed) / recorded 2005-04-15 — Reel 015383/0951
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: William Gross
  • Assignee: Idealab, Inc.
  • Correspondent: George S. Cheng, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, 2450 Colorado Avenue, Suite 400 E, Santa Monica, CA 90404.
  • Context: Transfer from inventor back to original assignee.
• 2005-05-06 (executed) / recorded 2005-05-06 — Reel 015483/0394
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Steven Lee Colwell
  • Assignee: X1 Technologies, Inc. (formerly X1 Technologies, LLC)
  • Correspondent: Steven Lee Colwell, X1 Technologies, Inc., 130 West Union Street, Pasadena, CA 91103. This correspondent also appears on reels 011927/0572 and 011927/0574.
  • Context: Transfer from inventor to X1 Technologies, Inc.
• 2012-04-19 (executed) / recorded 2012-04-19 — Reel 028303/0751
  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: X1 Technologies, Inc.
  • Assignee: Future Search Holdings, Inc.
  • Correspondent: Matthew J. Kessler, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, 399 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10022.
  • Context: Corporate name change.
• 2023-04-25 (executed) / recorded 2023-04-25 — Reel 065747/0867
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: Future Search Holdings, Inc.
  • Assignee: X1 Discovery, Inc.
  • Correspondent: David H. Swinton, The Swinton Law Firm, 1729 Seabright Ave., Long Beach, CA 90813.
  • Context: Transfer of interest.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7370035
    2003 : Filed by Idealab Inc
    2004 : Assigned to X1 Technologies Inc
         : Assigned by S Colwell to X1 Tech
    2005 : Assigned by W Gross to Idealab
         : Assigned by S Colwell to X1 Tech
    2008 : Issued
    2012 : X1 Technologies Inc changes to Future Search Holdings Inc
    2023 : Assigned to X1 Discovery Inc

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — unclear. While "Future Search Holdings, Inc." and "X1 Discovery, Inc." could suggest a shell entity, there is no direct evidence from the assignment records (e.g., registered-agent address, explicit statement of no products) to confirm this.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. None of the assignees (Idealab Inc., X1 Technologies, Inc., Future Search Holdings, Inc., X1 Discovery, Inc.) appear on common public NPE lists.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — present. Steven Lee Colwell of Idealab (and later X1 Technologies, Inc.) appears as the correspondent on two assignments to X1 Technologies, Inc. in 2004 and one in 2005 (reels 011927/0572, 011927/0574, 015483/0394). This indicates a consistent legal representative for transfers to X1 Technologies, Inc.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. The transfers are spaced out over several years, not within a rapid 24-month period.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. While the patent family has litigation, the specific assignment to X1 Discovery, Inc. in 2023 is not immediately preceding the earliest listed litigation event from 2023 on Google Patents. Without specific filing dates for the lawsuits, it's difficult to definitively establish a pre-litigation transfer link.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. There is no indication in the assignment records or Google Patents data that Idealab Inc. or any subsequent assignee underwent bankruptcy proceedings leading to a patent sale.
7. Privateering — unclear. There is no information in the assignment records or publicly available data to suggest an operating company transferred the patent to an NPE for assertion on its behalf.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at a known defensive aggregator.

Verdict

Insufficient data. While the presence of a repeat correspondent for transfers to X1 Technologies, Inc. is a signal, there is insufficient concrete evidence from the assignment records to definitively classify X1 Discovery, Inc. or its predecessors as a shell entity or known NPE. More detailed information on the nature of X1 Discovery, Inc.'s business and any past assertion activities would be required for a higher confidence verdict.

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 7370035, I will examine the patent's cited references. Prior art includes any evidence that an invention is not new or is obvious.

Here's an analysis of the prior art cited in US7370035:

Priority Claims (U.S. Provisional Applications):
The patent US7370035 claims benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) from several provisional applications. These provisional applications, filed earlier than the main patent application, are considered prior art as of their filing dates, particularly if they disclose subject matter claimed in the granted patent and name a different inventor, or if they are by the same inventors and fall outside the grace period. However, since these are provisional applications by the same inventors, they typically establish priority rather than act as prior art against the main patent unless specific conditions regarding the grace period are met. For this analysis, they are considered to provide an earlier effective filing date for the disclosed subject matter.

• U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/408,015

  • Filing Date: September 3, 2002
  • Brief Description: This provisional application would generally describe early concepts related to the methods and systems for search indexing. Without the full text, specifics are limited, but it would likely cover incremental searching and/or indexing.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): If this provisional application fully discloses any of the independent claims (Claims 1, 9, 17, 18, 26) of US7370035, it would establish an earlier priority date for that subject matter. It would not directly anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as prior art against US7370035 unless it was by "another inventor" or published more than a year before the non-provisional filing. Assuming it's by the same inventors, it serves to establish the earliest effective filing date for the disclosed invention.

• U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/413,013

  • Filing Date: September 23, 2002
  • Brief Description: Similar to the above, this would likely expand on the concepts of search indexing, potentially introducing more specific methods or system architectures.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): As with 60/408,015, this provisional would primarily contribute to the priority date for any overlapping claimed subject matter.

• U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/448,923

  • Filing Date: February 20, 2003
  • Brief Description: This provisional would further develop aspects of the search indexing methods and systems.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Establishes priority for disclosed subject matter.

• U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/470,903

  • Filing Date: May 14, 2003
  • Brief Description: This provisional would describe additional refinements or specific embodiments of the search indexing technology.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Establishes priority for disclosed subject matter.

• U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/478,960

  • Filing Date: June 13, 2003
  • Brief Description: This provisional would contain further developments leading up to the filing of the non-provisional application.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Establishes priority for disclosed subject matter.

Related U.S. Patent Applications (Incorporated by Reference):
US7370035 also refers to two copending applications filed on the same date. These would be considered prior art if they meet the criteria under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) for documents by another inventor, or under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) pre-AIA if they publish later but have an earlier effective filing date. Given they are "copending" and likely by the same inventors and assignee, they are more likely to be related art that informs the scope of the invention rather than direct anticipatory prior art.

• U.S. Application Serial No. 10/654,595

  • Title: APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR LOCATING DATA
  • Filing Date: September 3, 2003
  • Brief Description: This application likely details the apparatus and methods for the general location of data, which would broadly cover aspects of the search functionality.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Given the similar subject matter and same filing date, this application could be highly relevant. If it fully discloses the features of Claims 1 or 9 (method or apparatus for searching with multiple strings in the same field) or Claims 18 or 26 (selective command execution) before the effective filing date of US7370035's claims, it could potentially anticipate them.

• U.S. Application Serial No. 10/654,596

  • Title: METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR WEB-BASED INCREMENTAL SEARCHES
  • Filing Date: September 3, 2003
  • Brief Description: This application focuses specifically on incremental searching in a web-based environment. This is a core aspect of US7370035.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This application is highly relevant due to its focus on web-based incremental searches. It could potentially anticipate elements of Claims 1 and 9 (incremental searching) as well as the overall system described in the patent, especially concerning web-based implementations. Any overlap in the specific mechanisms for incremental filtering or indexing of web content would be critical.

To provide a definitive assessment of anticipation, the full text of each cited patent and application would need to be reviewed and compared to the claims of US7370035. However, based on the titles and filing dates, these related applications and provisional applications would represent the most significant body of prior art by the same inventors for establishing the true scope and novelty of US7370035.

Obviousness Analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for US Patent 7370035

An obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for US Patent 7370035 has already been performed by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding IPR2025-00253. The Final Written Decision (FWD), issued on 2026-06-18, found claims 1-17 of US7370035 unpatentable as obvious.

Prior Art Combination:
The PTAB's decision was based on the combination of:

• U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0133564 (Gross): This publication is an "Other Version" of US7370035, indicating it is the application publication of the same patent family.
• U.S. Patent No. 6,349,307 (Rappaport): This patent, while not explicitly detailed in the "Prior Art" section of the user's provided analysis, was cited by the PTAB as part of the obviousness grounds.

PTAB's Finding and Reasoning for Claims 1-17:
The Board determined that the petitioner, Microsoft Corporation, demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-17 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted prior art combination of Gross and Rappaport.

• Claim 1 (Method of performing a search): The PTAB found Claim 1 unpatentable, stating that "the combination of Gross and Rappaport teaches or renders obvious all limitations of claim 1". This implies that a person having ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teachings of both references, would have found the method of receiving multiple search strings in the same field and incrementally locating documents based on words beginning with those strings to be obvious.
• Claims 2-8, 10-16 (Dependent Claims): These claims, which are dependent on claims 1 or 9, were also found unpatentable. The Board concluded that they "did not introduce patentably distinct features over the prior art combination" of Gross and Rappaport. This suggests that any additional features introduced by these dependent claims were also taught or rendered obvious by the combination of the cited prior art.
• Claim 9 (Search apparatus): Claim 9, an independent apparatus claim, was found unpatentable. The PTAB reasoned that "the elements of the apparatus claim 9, when construed in light of the specification, are clearly taught or rendered obvious by Gross in view of Rappaport".
• Claim 17 (Search index system): Claim 17, which relates to an indexing system that treats punctuation marks as string separators, was also found unpatentable. The Board concluded that "the indexing system described in claim 17, particularly its treatment of punctuation marks as string separators, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Gross and Rappaport".

Motivation to Combine Gross and Rappaport:
The provided "PTAB challenges" section does not explicitly detail the specific motivation articulated by the PTAB for combining Gross and Rappaport beyond stating that the combination "teaches or renders obvious" the limitations of the challenged claims. However, in an obviousness analysis, such a finding implies that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would have had a reason to combine the references, with a reasonable expectation of success, to arrive at the claimed invention. The PTAB's conclusion suggests that the features of search indexing, incremental searching, and the handling of punctuation for string separation, as claimed in US7370035, were logically derivable or easily implementable by a POSA given the state of the art represented by Gross and Rappaport.

Claims Not Challenged:
It is important to note that claims 18 and 26, which are independent claims related to selectively performing a search and executing a command, were not challenged in IPR2025-00253. Therefore, no PTAB finding regarding their obviousness over the Gross and Rappaport combination is available in the provided information.An obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for US Patent 7370035 has already been performed by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding IPR2025-00253. The Final Written Decision (FWD), issued on 2026-06-18, found claims 1-17 of US7370035 unpatentable as obvious.

Prior Art Combination:
The PTAB's decision was based on the combination of:

• U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0133564 (Gross): This publication is an "Other Version" of US7370035 and is an application publication of the same patent family.
• U.S. Patent No. 6,349,307 (Rappaport): This patent was cited by the PTAB as part of the obviousness grounds. A brief search indicates US 6,349,307 B1, "Information search system and method for searching multiple databases with different search schemes", generally relates to systems and methods for searching multiple databases.

PTAB's Finding and Reasoning for Claims 1-17:
The Board determined that the petitioner, Microsoft Corporation, demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-17 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted prior art combination of Gross and Rappaport.

• Claim 1 (Method of performing a search): The PTAB found Claim 1 unpatentable, stating that "the combination of Gross and Rappaport teaches or renders obvious all limitations of claim 1". This implies that a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSA), in view of the teachings of both references, would have found the method of receiving multiple search strings in the same field and incrementally locating documents based on words beginning with those strings to be obvious.
• Claims 2-8, 10-16 (Dependent Claims): These claims, which are dependent on claims 1 or 9, were also found unpatentable. The Board concluded that they "did not introduce patentably distinct features over the prior art combination" of Gross and Rappaport. This suggests that any additional features introduced by these dependent claims were also taught or rendered obvious by the combination of the cited prior art.
• Claim 9 (Search apparatus): Claim 9, an independent apparatus claim, was found unpatentable. The PTAB reasoned that "the elements of the apparatus claim 9, when construed in light of the specification, are clearly taught or rendered obvious by Gross in view of Rappaport".
• Claim 17 (Search index system): Claim 17, which relates to an indexing system that treats punctuation marks as string separators, was also found unpatentable. The Board concluded that "the indexing system described in claim 17, particularly its treatment of punctuation marks as string separators, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Gross and Rappaport".

Motivation to Combine Gross and Rappaport:
The "PTAB challenges" section of the previous analysis does not explicitly detail the specific motivation articulated by the PTAB for combining Gross and Rappaport beyond stating that the combination "teaches or renders obvious" the limitations of the challenged claims. However, in an obviousness analysis, such a finding implies that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would have had a reason to combine the references, with a reasonable expectation of success, to arrive at the claimed invention. The PTAB's conclusion suggests that the features of search indexing, incremental searching, and the handling of punctuation for string separation, as claimed in US7370035, were logically derivable or easily implementable by a POSA given the state of the art represented by Gross and Rappaport.

Claims Not Challenged:
It is important to note that claims 18 and 26, which are independent claims related to selectively performing a search and executing a command, were not challenged in IPR2025-00253. Therefore, no PTAB finding regarding their obviousness over the Gross and Rappaport combination is available in the provided information.