Google Doodle File History

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
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($)
Basic Filing:
Pages:
Claims:
Miscellaneous-Filing:
Petition:
Patent-Appeals-and-Interference:
Post-Allowance-and-Post-Issuance:
Utility Appl issue fee 1501 1 1510 1510
Extension-of-Time:
Sub-Total in
USD($)
Miscellaneous:
Total in USD ($) 1510

Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt
EFSID: 9446492
International Application Number:
Confirmation Number: 9916
Title of Invention: SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ENTICING USERS TO ACCESS A WEB SITE
Customer Number: 44989
Filer: Paul Harrity/Brooke Fredrick
Filer Authorized By: Paul Harrity
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,
By: IPaul A. Harrity, Reg. No. 39,5741

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

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
P.O. Box 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

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
P.o. Box 1450
www.uspto.gov
09/843,923 04/30/2001 Sergey Brin 0026-0002 9916
EXAMINER
44989 7590 11117/2010
AILES, BENJAMIN A
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:

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.
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)
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

P.o. Box 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
** 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
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
Reexamination
Examiner Art Unit
Ailes, Benjamin A 2142
CLAIM DATE
Final Original 11/07/2007 11/10/2010
37 A -
38 A -
39 A -
40 A -
41 A -

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)
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

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

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

P.o. Box 1450
www.uspto.gov
09/843,923 04/3012001 Sergey Brin 0026-0002 9916
44989 7590 09/23/2010

EXAMINER
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)

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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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

would have taught or suggested instructions for modifying the standard
9
Appeal 2009-000777
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
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
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
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)

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
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

SUITE 600
FAIRFAX, VA 22030
13
P.o. Box 1450
www.uspto.gov
09/843,923 04/3012001 Sergey Brin 0026-0002 9916
44989 7590 10/24/2008

EXAMINER
SUIlE 600
FAIRFAX, VA 22030
2442
10/24/2008 PAPER
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

Page 1

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

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

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 re Patent Application of )
)
SergeyBRIN ) Group Art Unit: 2142
)
Application No.: 09/843,923 ) Examiner: AILES, B
)
)
ENTICING USERS TO ACCESS A )
WEBSITE )
STATUS INOUIRY

Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
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.
HARRITY SNYDER, L.L.P.
By: IPaul A. Harrity, Reg. No. 39,5741

Paul A. Harrity
Reg. No. 39,574

Suite 600
(571) 432-0800
Date: August 1,2008

EFSID: 3710133
Title of Invention: Systems and methods for enticing users to access a web site
Filer: Paul Harrity/Sara Dodge
Receipt Date: 01-AUG-2008
Time Stamp: 16:38:32
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
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.

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 Ortice
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
SUITE 600
FAIRFAX, VA 22030
2142
01/18/2008 PAPER
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
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. .
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

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES
)
Sergey BRIN ) MIS: Appeal Brief - Patents
)
Application No.: 09/843,923 ) Group Art Unit: 2142
)
Filed: April 30, 2001 ) Examiner: B. Ailes
)
WEB SITE )

Customer Window, Mail Stop Appeal Brief - Patents
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
case of obviousness with regard to claim 29.
4. Claim 31.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
HARRITY SNYDER, LLP
IPaul A. Harrity, Reg No 395741

Paul A. Harrity
Reg. No. 39,574
Date: January 14, 2008
Suite 600
(571) 432-0800
- 11 -
EFSID: 2709208
Filer: Paul Harrity/Melissa Garrison
Receipt Date: 14-JAN-2008
File Listing:
Document File Size(Bytes) Multi Pages
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:


in due course.

P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria. Virginia 22313·1450
www.uspto.gov
09/843,923 04/30/2001 Sergey Brio 0026-0002 9916
44989 7590 11/16/2007

EXAMINER
HARRITY SNYDER, LLP
SUITE 600
FAIRFAX, VA 22030
2142
11/16/2007 PAPER
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

I 1

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 ...

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

... .,
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
· .~

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.
unrelated to what is being displayed by the icon image. Therefore, in view of Yahoo!" if
way.); and
I" ' '.

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).
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).
•• • <~

09/843,923
Art Unit: 2142
page comprising the use of a graphical icon image (Le. an advertisement banner)
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
•

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).
, '.

09/843,923
Art Unit: 2142
for display to a user on a web page.. Further, it would have been obvious to associate
\

09/843,923
Art Unit: 2142
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
Wolff, the use of different images is clearly taught as a motivation in the prior art
seasonal use (col. 2, II. 27-28).
09/843,923
Art Unit: 2142
to one of ordinary skill in the art to enable the teachings 9f Wolff wherein the ability to
•

09/843,923
Art Unit: 2142
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
...

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
.
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:
09/843,923
Art Unit: 2142
replacing the standard company logo with the special event logo (Yahoo!, page is
from 12/23/1996).
• >

09/843,923
Art Unit: 2142
images to user that are deemed clickable by Wolff and Yahoo! for teaching the use of
Wolff, the use of different images is Clearly taught as a motivation in the prior art
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
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).
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.
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.
be displayed to a user on a web page was ol~ and well known in the art. It would have
(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
· .
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
..

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
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
09/843,923
Art Unit: 2142
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
09/843,923
Art Unit: 2142
9. Appellant argues with respect to claims 28 and 36 that neither Wolff nor
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
,

09/843,923
Art Unit: 2142
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
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.
Benjamin A. Ailes ~~
Conferees:
Andrew Caldwell
QrnMuJC~
ANDREW CALDWELL
SUPERVISORY PATENT EXAMINER
~-
~~ARDONE
, ..~

Reexamination
Examiner Art Unit

I I II II I I I Ailes, Benjamin A 2142
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
Reexamination
II
Examiner Art Unit
11111 I II III II Ailes, Benjamin A 2142
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

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES
)
SergeyBRIN ) ATTN: APPEAL BRIEF - PATENTS
)
Application No.: 09/843,923 ) Group Art Unit: 2142
)
Filed: April 30, 2001 ) Examiner: B. Ailes
)
WEB SITE )

Customer Window, Mail Stop Appeal Brief - Patents
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
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
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
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
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
page 13, lines 9-16).
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).
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
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
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.
(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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
instructions for providing the document relating to the special event or the search results relating
to the special event based on the user selection.
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
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
4. Claim 29.
one or more animated images.
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
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.
5. Claim 31.
information associated with a holiday.
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
Yahoo logo), which might have been manually modified by a web site operator. Thus, the
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
For at least these reasons, it is respectfully submitted that claims 28 and 36 are patentable
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.
The Examiner alleged that Wolff discloses invoking a search fore web pages relating to a
- 24-
APPEAL BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
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.
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.
- 25 -
APPEAL BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
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
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.
disclose or suggest the combination of features recited in claim 22 for at least reasons similar to
reasons given with regard to claim 18.
B. The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Based on Wolff (U.S. Patent No.
(www.archive.org/web/19961223150621/http://www8.Yahoo.com. dated
- 26-
APPEAL BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
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.
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
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.
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
IPaul A. Harrityl
Paul A. Harrity
Reg. No. 39,574
Date: July 9, 2007
Suite 600
(571) 432-0800
- 29-
APPEAL BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
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;
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.
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
22. The method of claim 37, further comprising:
associating one or more search terms relating to the special event; and
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.
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
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 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
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
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.
instructions for modifying the standard company logo with at least one of video or audio
data.
instructions for modifying the standard company logo with information associated with a
holiday.
- 33 -
APPEAL BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
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:
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.
replacing the standard company logo with the special event logo.
37. A method, comprising:
- 34 -
APPEAL BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
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;
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
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:
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
X. EVIDENCE APPENDIX
None
- 36 -
APPEAL BRIEF PATENT
Serial No. 09/843,923
XI. RELATED PROCEEDINGS APPENDIX
None
- 37 -
Filer: Paul Harrity/Julia Cummings
Utility Filing Fees
Sub-Total in
USD($)
Basic Filing:
Pages:
Claims:
Miscellaneous-Fi Ii ng:
Petition:
Patent-Appeals-and-l nterference:
Filing a brief in support of an appeal 1402 1 500 500
Post -Allowance-and -Post -Issu ance:
Extension-of-Time:
Sub-Total in
USD($)
Miscellaneous:

EFSID: 1952104
Receipt Date: 09-JUL-2007

Deposit Account
File Listing:
Document File Size(Bytes)
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:


in due course.

Patent
)
Sergey Brin ) Group Art Unit: 2142
)
)
)
WEBSITE )
NOTICE OF APPEAL

Customer Service Window, Mail Stop AF
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
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.
By: IPaul A. Harritvl

Paul A. Harrity
Reg. No. 39,574
Suite 600
(571) 432-0800
Date: May 8, 2007
Patent
)
)
)
)
ENTICING USERS TO ACCESS )
A WEB SITE )
PETITION FOR ONE MONTH EXTENSION OF TIME

Customer Service Window, Mail Stop Amendment
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
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
required by this paper that are not accounted for above, and to credit any overpayment, to
Deposit Account No. 50-1070.
By: IPaul A. Harrity!

Paul A. Harrity
Reg. No. 39,574

Suite 600
(571) 432-0800
Date: May 8, 2007
Utility Filing Fees
Sub-Total in
USD($)
Basic Filing:
Pages:
Claims:
Petition:
Patent-Appeals-and-l nterference:
Notice of appeal 1401 1 500 500
Extension-of-Time:
Sub-Total in
USD($)
Extension - 1 month with $0 paid 1251 1 120 120
Miscellaneous:

EFSID: 1754046
Receipt Date: 08-MAY-2007
Application Type: Utility

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:


in due course.

Add=s: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313·1450
www.uspto.gov .
09/843,923 04130/2001 Sergey Brin 0026·0002 9916
44989 7590 0210712007

EXAMINER
HARRITY SNYDER, LLP
SUITE 600
FAIRFAX, VA 22030
2142
SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD OF RESPONSE MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
3 MONTHS 02/07/2007 PAPER
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


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
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
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
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
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
-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
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
'the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
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).
Art Unit: 2142
wherein the icon image is uploaded for display to a user on a web page. A .keyword

images for seasonal and one time use (column 2, II. 27-28). It would have been obvious.
Art Unit: 2142
images to user-that are deemed clickable by Wolff and Yahoo! for teaching the use of
. 13. Regarding claim 19, Wolff and Yahoo! teach the method wherein the modifying a
14. Regarding claims 21, Wolff and Yahoo! teach the method wherein the special
event includes a holiday (Yahoo!).

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
way.); and
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);

Art Unit: 2142
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
special event logo (Yahoo!, the addition of the reindeer to the standard logo creates a
modified logo).
wherein the icon image is uploaded for oisplay to a user on a web page. A keyword
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
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,
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)
Art Unit: 2142
the "search term" -to relate to the graphical icon image as taught by Wolff because the
One of ordinary skill would not find it desirable to provide search results that are totally.
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
Art Unit: 2142
seasonal use (co/. 2, I/. 27-28).
company logo that can be lTiodified to become a special event logo. However, in related
images for seasonal and one time use (column 2, I/. 27-28). It would have been obvious
Art Unit: 2142
service being represented by use of the icon image anq when a use interacts (clicks) on
an image is altered in some sort of way,· the keyword associated with the image should
way. One or ordinary skill in the a.rt at the time of the applicant's invention would have
Art Unit: 2142
seasonal use (col. 2, 11.27-28).
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
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);
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).
Art Unit: 2142
to one of ordinary skill in the art to enable the'teachings of Wolff wherein the ability to
Art Unit: 2142
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
corresponds to the image in some sort of way.); and
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).

Art Unit: 2142
search includes:
invoking a search of the Internet (col. 9, II. 3-7).
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.

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.
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.
supervisor, Andrew Caldwell can be reached on (571 )272-3868. The fax phone number
Status information for unpublished applications is -available through Private PAIR only.
system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
baa
Reexamination
Notice of References Cited
Examiner Art Unit
Page 1 of 1
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

* 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
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
u.S. Patent and Trademark Office Part of Paper No. 20070202

Index of Claims Reexamination
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
(@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"
(@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

PATENT
)
)
)
)
WEB SITE )

Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
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
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:
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
2
PATENT
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
23. (original) The method of claim 18, wherein the uploading the special event logo
includes:
24. (previously presented) The method of claim 18, wherein the invoking a search
includes:
logo includes:
3
PATENT
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:
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 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:
4
PATENT
event.
28. (previously presented) A method, comprising:
logo;
instructions for creating a special event logo include:
5
PATENT
data.
holiday.
32. (previously presented) The server of claim 27, wherein the processor is further
configured to:
logo.
configured to:
34. (previously presented) The method of claim 18, wherein uploading the special
event logo includes:
6
PATENT
instructions for uploading the special event logo include:
web page.
37. (currently amended) A method, comprising:
selection; and
38. (previously presented) The method of claim 37, wherein one or more search
terms are associated with the special event logo; and
7
PATENT
39. (previously presented) The method of claim 37, wherein the presenting a special
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
to the special event based on the user selection.
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
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.
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
15
PATENT
comprises a memory configured to store instructions and a processor configured to execute the
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.
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
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;
selection; and presenting results based on the invoked search.
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.
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
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
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.
By: /Paul A. Harrity/

Paul A. Harrity
Reg. No. 39,574
Date: November 22,2006

Suite 600
(571) 432-0800
18
EFSID: 1331304
Receipt Date: 22-NOV-2006
"---------------
File Listing:
Document Multi Pages
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:


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&.;
P.O. Box 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

SUITE 600 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
FAIRFAX, VA 22030 2142
DATE MAILED: 08/23/2006
PTO-90C (Rev. 10/03)


-- 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,
Extensions of time may be available under. the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, maya reply be timely filed
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).
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.
4)~ Claim(s) 18-39 is/are pending in the application.
6)~ Claim(s) 18-39 is/are rejected.
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).
11)0 The oath or declaration is objected to by the Examiner. Note the attached Office Action or form PTO·152.

J
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
Attachment(s)
1) cgJ Notice of References Cited (PTO-892j 4) 0 Interview Summary (PT0-413)
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

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.
3. Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are
moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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
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
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).
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).
special event includes a holiday (Yahoo).

Art Unit: 2142
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);
12. Regarding claim 25, Wolff and Yahoo teach the method wherein the modifying a
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
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
· .

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).

......

Art Unit: 2142
Conclusion
examiner. should be dir~cted to Benjamin A. Ailes whose telephone number is (571 )272-
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
Reexamination
Examiner Art Unit
Page 1 of 1
u.s. PATENT DOCUMENTS
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-
* Country Code·Number-Kind Code MM-YYYY Country Name Classification
0
P
R
S
T
* 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
III I~ III II 09/843.923 BRIN, SERGEY
I Examiner Art Unit
" Benjamin A. Ailes
SEARCH NOTES
2142
SEARCHED
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
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Par1 of Paper No. 20060821

I I ~I I I IIII II I
Examiner Art Unit
(Through numeral)
.J Rejected - Cancelled N Non-Elected A Appeal

~ <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
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·
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
,
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?)
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?)
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
File 347:JAPIO Dec 1976-2005/Dec(Updated 060404)
File 350:Derwent WPIX 1963-2006/UO,UM &UP=200627
(c) 2006 Thomson Derwent
.,
BRAND? OR ICON OR ICONS OR IMAGE OR TRADEMARK?
TRADEMARK?)
S3 52181 Sl:S2(SN) (MODIF? OR REVIS??? OR REMODEL? OR ADAPT? OR CHAN-
S4 39251 Sl:S2(SN) (UPDATE? ? OR TRANSFORM? OR ALTER??? OR REFORMAT?
SS 143 Sl:S2(SN) (RE() (CREATE? ? OR CREATING? OR CREATION? OR DECO-
DOING OR DESIGN?))
S6 2270 S3:SS(10N) (EVENT? ? OR OCCASION? OR PARTY? OR PARTIES OR F-
S7 128 S3:SS(10N) (SEARCH? OR RESEARCH? OR RETRIEV? OR INQUIR? OR -
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-
S10 7504 S3:SS(10N) (DELIVER? OR SEND??? OR SENT OR UPLOAD? OR DISTR-
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
File 347:JAPIO Dec 1976-200S/Dec(Updated 060404)
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-
83 113362 Sl:S2(50N).(LOGO?? OR STANDARD? (2N) LOGO?? OR BANNER? ? OR S-
85 23800 S3(50N) (UPDATE? ? OR TRANSFORM? OR ALTER??? OR REFORMAT? OR
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-
89 839 87(50N) (COMBIN? OR CONJUNCT? OR PARTNER? OR COUPL? OR JOIN?
811 214 88:S9(100N) (SEARCH? OR RESEARCH? OR RETRIEV? OR INQUIR? OR
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
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
•

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-
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?»
IES OR FUNCTION? ? OR ANNlVERSAR? OR HOLIDAY?)
Sll 1134 S4:S6(50N) (SEARCH? OR RESEARCH? OR RETRIEV? OR INQUIR? OR -
S12 55 Sll(100N) (EMBED? OR FIT OR FITS OR FITTED OR FITTING OR BU-
S13 7 S12(100N) (DELIVER? OR SEND??? OR SENT OR UPLOAD? OR DISTRI-
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
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
File 583:Gale Group Globalbase(TM) 1986-2002/0ec 13
TRADEMARK? )
S3 97172 Sl:S2(5N) (MODIF? OR REVIS??? OR REMODEL? OR ADAPT? OR CHAN-
S4 95057 Sl:S2(5N) (UPDATE? ? OR TRANSFORM? OR ALTER??? OR REFORMAT?
S5 156 Sl:S2(5N) (RE() (CREATE? ? OR CREATING? OR CREATION? OR DECO-
DOING OR DESIGN?»
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-
811 8622 S3:S5 AND 86
812 28 Sll AND S9
813 3 S12 AND S10
814 18 S12:S13 NOT PY>2000
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
File 35:Dissertation Abs Online 1861-2006/Mar
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
File 111:TGG Natl.Newspaper Index (SM) 1979-2006/Apr 19
File 144:Pascal 1973-2006/Apr W1
(c) 2006 INIST/CNRS
File 256:TeclnfoSource 82-2006/May
(c) 2006 Info.Sources Inc
File 434:SciSearch(R) Cited Ref Sci 1974-1989/Dec
File 583:Gale Group Globalbase(TM) 1986-2002/Dec 13
~
~
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-
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?»
IES OR FUNCTION? ? OR ANNlVERSAR? OR HOLIDAY?)
Sll 3539 S10(100N) (EMBED? OR FIT OR FITS OR FITTED OR FITTING OR BU-
S12 1538 Sll(100N) (DELIVER? OR SEND??? OR SENT OR UPLOAD? OR DISTRI-
S13 87 S4:S6(10N)S8:S9(10N)Sll(10N)S12
S15 26 S14 NOT PD>2000
S2 673134 Sl(5N) (MODIF? OR REVIS??? OR REMODEL? OR ADAPT? OR CHANGE?
S3 452506 Sl(5N) (UPDATE? ? OR TRANSFORM? OR ALTER??? OR REFORMAT? OR
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?»
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?)
S9 0 S2:S4(10N)S5(10N)S6(10N)S7
S10 7 S7 NOT PD>2000
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
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
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
S31 80 S30 NOT PD>2000
File 9:Business & Industry(R) Jul/1994-2006/Apr 26
File 13:BAMP 2006/Apr W3
File 15:ABI/lnform(R) 1971-2006/Apr 27
File 16:Gale Group PROMT(R) 1990-2006/Apr 27
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
File 88:Gale Group Business A.R.T.S. 1976-2006/Apr 20
~
File 98:General Sci Abs 1984-2004/Dec
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
File 275:Gale Group Computer DB(TM) 1983-2006/Apr 26
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
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
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
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.

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
First Named Inventor: Sergey Brin
Utility Filing Fees
Sub-Total in
USD($)
Basic Filing:
Pages:
Claims:
Petition:
Patent-Appeals-and-I nterference:
Extension-of-Time:
Sub-Total in
USD($)
Miscellaneous:
Request for continued examination 1801 1 790 790

EFSID: 1049503
Receipt Date: 17-MAY-2006

Deposit Account
File Listing:
Document Multi
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:


of 35 U.S.C. 371 and other applicable requirements a Form PCT/OO/EO/903 indicating acceptance of the
in due course.
PATENT
)
SergeyBrin ) Group Art Unit: 2142
)
'Application No.: 09/843,923 . ) Examiner: B. Ailes
)
Filed: April 30, 2001 .)
)
or. SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR )
WEBSITE )

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.

P.o. Box 1450
Alexnndri•• Virgini. 22313·1450
www.uspto.gov
09/843,923 04/30/2001 Sergey Brio 0026-0002 9916
44989 7590 05/11/2006 EXAMINER
HARRITY SNYDER, LLP AILES, BENJAMIN A

SUITE 600
PTO-90C (Rev. 10/03)

~.
..
Advisory Action 09/843,923 BRIN, SERGEY
Before the Filing of an Appeal Brief Examiner Art Unit
•• 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
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: _ _.

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
)
)
'Application No.: 09/843,923 ) Examiner: B. Ailes
)
Filed: April 30, 2001 . )
)
or: SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR )
WEB SITE )

Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
In response to the fmal Office Action, dated February 22,2006, and pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
'Remarks begin on page 9 of tins paper.

UNITED STA~ DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
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*
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
)
SergeyBrin ) Group Art Unit 2142
)
)
)
WEBSITE )

Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
In response to the final Office Action, dated February 22,2006, and pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
Amendments to the Claims begin on page 2 ofthis paper.

PATENT
Listing of Claims:
1-17. (canceled)
18. (currently amended) A method for enticing users to access a web page,
comprising:
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
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
includes:
24. (previously presented) The method of claim 18, wherein the invoking a search
includes:
3
PATENT
25. (original) The method of claim 18, wherein the modifYing a standard company
logo includes:
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
comprising:
special event;
logo, the link or search results relating to the special event;
instructions for providing the link or search results associated with the special event logo.
4
PATENT
event.
identifying a standard company logo associated with a web site~
logo;
invoking a search relating to the special event based on the one or more search tenus in
5
PATENT
U.S. Patent Application No. 09/843 l923
data.
holiday.
32. (previously presented) The server of claim 27 l wherein the processor is further
configured to~
logo.
33. (previously presented) The server of claim 32l wherein the processor is further
configured to~
generate a search query based on the one or more search terms l
perform a search based on the search queryl and
34. (previously presented) The method of claim 18, wherein uploading the special
6
PATENT
instructions for uploading the special event logo include:
web page.
37. (previously presented) A method, comprising:
invoking a search relating to the special event in response to the received selection; and
38. (previously presented) The method of claim 37, wherein one or more search
terms are associated with the special event logo; and
7
PATENT
Docket No. 0026~0002
39. (previously presented) The method of claim 37, wherein the presenting a special
8
PATENT
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
company logo with one or more animated images. Neither Wolff nor Unold et al. discloses or
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
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
Wolff and Unold et al.
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
combination of features.
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
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
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
15
PATENT
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.
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
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.
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
Neither Wolff nor Unold et aI., whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination,
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
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
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.
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
features recited in claims l8~20. Claim 28 is~ therefore~ patentable over Wolff and Unold et aL~
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.
features recited in claim 18. Claim 37 is, therefore~ patentable over Wolff and Unold et aI.,
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
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
application.
19
PATENT
To the extent necessary, a petition for an extension of time under 37 C.P.R. § 1.136 is
By: IPau! A. Harrity!

Paul A. Harrity
Reg. No. 39,574
Date: April 24, 2006

Suite 600
(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:
3. From: To:
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
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
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
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
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
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
EFSID: 1029015
Receipt Date: 24-APR-2006
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:


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)

\ .
Interview Summary
Examiner Art Unit
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
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

SUITE 600
PTO·90C (Rev. 10/03)


Period for Reply
A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE ~ MONTH(S) OR THIRTY (30) DAYS,
- Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, maya reply be timely filed
- 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).
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.
4)[2] Claim(s) 18-39 is/are pending in the application.
6)[2] Claim(s) 18-39 is/are rejected.
Application Papers
Replacement drawing sheet(s) inclUding the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).

application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
Attachment(s)
1) 0 Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) 4) 0 Interview Summary (PT0-413)
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
Art Unit: 2142
DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is in response to correspondence filed 22 November 2005.
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
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
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
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.
as claim 19.
as claim 20.
as claim 21.
as claim 22.
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.)
as claim 34.
Art Unit: 2142
as claim 34.
as claim 23.
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.

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.

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).

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.
examiner should be directed to Benjamin A. Ailes whose telephone number is (571 )272-
Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
baa
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

; ...
(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

IIII III IIII I

Examiner Art Unit
Beniamin A. Ailes 2142
SEARCH NOTES
SEARCHED
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
u.S. Patent and Trademark Office Part of Paper No. 20060218

EAST Search History
# 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
)
)
)
)
WEB SITE )

Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
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:

PATENT
Listing of Claims:
1-17. (canceled)
18. (currently amended) A method for enticing users to access a web page,
comprising:
associating one or more search terms with the special event logo;
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.
logo includes:
animated images.
2
PATENT
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.
includes:
24. (currently amended) The method of claim 18, wherein the flreyiaiag seat'eh
resllits invoking a search includes:
logo includes:
3
PATENT
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;
logo;
detennine a home page for a web page on the network,
modify the standard company logo with special event infonnation corresponding
event.
4
PATENT
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.
data.
5
PATENT
holiday.
configured to:
logo.
configured to:
34. (new) The method of claim 18, wherein uploading the special event logo
includes:
35. (new) The computer-readable medium of claim 26, wherein the instructions for
uploading the special event logo include:
web page.
6
PATENT
36. (new) The method of claim 28, further comprising:
37. (new) A method, comprising:
invoking a search relating to the special event in response to the received selection; and
38. (new) The method of claim 37, wherein one or more search terms are associated
with the special event logo; and
39. (new) The method of claim 37, wherein the presenting a special event logo
includes:
7
PATENT
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
company logo with one or more animated images. Neither Wolff nor Unold et ai. discloses or
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
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.
with at least one of video or audio data. Neither Wolff nor Unold et al. discloses or suggests this
combination of features.
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
is unreasonable to equate a digital sign device to a company logo since they are two very
different things.
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.
14
, I
PATENT
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
16
, , I I
PATENT
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
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.
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
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
HARRITY & SNYDER, L.L.P.
Paul A. Harrity
Reg. No. 39,574
Date: November 22, 2005
11240 Waples Mill Road

Suite 300
(571) 432-0800
18
Patent

,~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

Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
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.
~~~5~89843923
450.08 OP
By: --'---"'-"""""'=--_-==----+_ _~_ _____'~-

Suite 300
(571) 432-0800
Ir().{~
paZ
Attorney's Docket No. 0020:0002
l
)
)
)
)
For.: SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR )
A WEB SITE )
AMENDMENT/REPLY TRANSMITTAL LETTER

Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street'
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
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.
Page 3
By~Qep\=3)
Paul A. Harrity
Reg. No. 39,574

Suite 300
(571) 432-0800
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
SUITE 300
PTO-90C (Rev. 10/03)

T Application No. Applicant(s)
I 09/843,923 BRIN, SERGEY

Benjamin A Ailes 2142
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.
Status
1)~ Responsive to communication(s) filed on 02 Mav 2005.
2a)0 This action is FINAL. 2b)~ This action is non-final.
closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
4)~ Claim(s) 18-33 is/are pending in the application.
6)~ Claim(s) 18-33 is/are rejected.
Application Papers
. Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).

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:
Attachment(s)
1) ~ Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) 4) 0 Interview Summary (PT0-413)
3) 0 Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO-1449 or PTO/SB/08) 5) 0 Notice of Informal Patent Application (PTO-152)
U.S. Patent and Trademar1< Office

.(.0 ()
Art Unit: 2142
DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is in response to the Amendment and Response to Restriction
Requirement filed 02 May 2005.
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
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
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
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.
as claims 18 and 25.
as claim 19.
14. ·Claim 30 contains similar subject matter and is rejected under the same rationale
as claim 20.
as claim 21.
as claim 22.
as claim 24.
18. Applicant's arguments filed 02 May 2005 have been considered but are moot in
view of the new ground(s) of rejection.

Art Unit: 2142
Conclusion
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.
3899. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30-5, First Friday Off.

Art Unit: 2142
you have questions on. access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
L~~
WTRIZ PRtETO
baa
PA1MARY EXAtJnNER
Reexamination
Examiner Art Unit
Page 1 of 1

* 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-

* Country Code-Number-Kind Code MM-VYVY Country Name Classification
T
.A copy of this reference IS not bemg furnished with this Office action. (See MPEP § 707.05(a).)
u.s. Patent ard Trademark Office
I I IIII IIIIII ~ I
Examiner Art Unit
(Through numeral)
Rejected - Non-Elected Appeal
"
= Allowed +
Cancelled
Restricted
N
I Interference
A
0 Objected

: .
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

I I IIII I I I I Examiner
Benjamin A. Ailes
Art Unit
2142
SEARCH NOTES
SEARCHED
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
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

.'
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

# 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
displaY$3 same (season$2 or USPAT;
holida$2) EPO
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
)
Sergey Brin ) Group Art Unit: ~142
)
)
)
A WEB SITE )
AMENDMENTIREPLY TRANSMITTAL LETTER

Randolph Building
40 I Dulany Street
Sir:
D A Petition for Extension of Time is also enclosed.

D A request for Entry and Consideration of Submission under 37 C.F.R. § 1.129(a)

is also enclosed.
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

Previously
Paid For
Total Minus x $50.00 = 0
Claims
Ind. Minus x $200.00 = 0
Claims
Total Amendment Fee 0
TOTAL ADDITIONAL FEE DUE FOR THIS AMENDMENT 0
Page 3
By: ~O<t=\ ;-
Paul A. Harrity
Reg. No. 39,574

Suite 300
(571) 432-0800
Date: May 2, 2005
PATENT
'M"Y 0 2 - ~
-<> ~
~~ 'J:-~ IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
:t!4 TRAOtY-"
)
)
)
)
WEB SITE )

Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
AMENDMENT AND RESPONSE TO RESTRICTION REQUIREMENT
In response to the Restriction Requirement, dated April 21, 2005, please amend this
application as follows:

PATENT
Listing of Claims:
1-17. (canceled)
18. (original) A method for enticing users to access a web page, comprising:
providing search results relating to the special event in response to the user selection.
logo includes:
animated images.
2
PATENT
22. (original) The method of claim 18, wherein the associating one or more search
terms includes:
includes:
24. (previously presented) The method of claim 18, wherein the providing search
results includes:
logo includes:
event logo.
3
PATENT
26. (previously presented) A computer-readable medium that stores instructions
comprising:
logo;
event.
4
PATENT
28. (new) A method, comprising:
providing search results relating to the special event in response to the detected selection.
creating a special event logo include:
data.
holiday.
5
PATENT
32. (new) The server of claim 27, wherein the processor is further configured to:
logo.
33. (new) The server of claim 32, wherein the processor is further configured to:
6
PATENT
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 28-33. Claims 18-33 are pending.
With regard to the restriction requirement, the Patent Office required restriction to one of
the following inventions: Group I corresponding to claims 1-17 allegedly drawn to uploading a
story line to a web site, which is classified in class 709, subclass 218; and Group II
corresponding to claims 18-27 allegedly drawn to providing search results associated with a
special event logo that the user selected, which is classified in class 709, subclass 228. The
Patent Office alleged that the inventions of Groups I and II are related as subcombinations
disclosed as usable together in a single combination.
Applicant selects Group II without traverse. Applicant submits that new claims 28-33
recite some features similar to features recited in the claims of Group II. Therefore, claims 28-33
should be included in and examined with the claims of Group II.
In view of the foregoing, favorable examination of pending claims 18-33 is respectfully
requested.
7
PATENT
To the extent necessary, a petition for an extension oftime under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136 is
induding extension of time fees, to Deposit Account No. 50-1070 and please credit any excess
BY:Ts~~Paul A. Harrity
Reg. No. 39,574
Date: May 2, 2005

Suite 300
(571) 432-0800
8
----------- --------...
PA1ENT APPUCAnON FEE DI;TERMINAnON RECORD
. ..
.plication or Docket Number
.r . ' - Effective October 1, 2000 .

~
CLAIMS AS FILED· PART I OlHERTHAN

Column 1 " '111 _ OR SMALL ENnrI
TOTAL ClAIMS RATE FEE RATE FEE
FOR NUU8EA FIlED NUU8EA EXTRA 8ASICFEI 355.00 710.00
TOTAL CHARGEABlE ClAIMS xs. OR X$1IJ::a.
INDEPENDENT ClAIMS minus 3 ... XAO::o. OR xao-
MULTIPLE DEPENDENT CLAIM PRESENT
o +t3Ss OR +270=
. TOTAL OR.. TOTAL ...._ ...
. '. OTHERTHAN
OR-· SMALL ENTITY
ADD" ADOI-.
RATE TlONAL ···~TE 1J~
FEE
)(So. OR ·)$1..
X40a . OR X8()a
+t35- OR <tl270=.
.JOTAL OR Aoorr. FEE..._ ....
ADDIT.FEE
ADOI- : .. : ADD1·
RATE lJONI'L RATE nOHAL'
FEE
'X$~ OR XS18=
X~.:. ., 0 R X80a
+135- 10R +270-
TOTAL
ADDIT.FEE
.. OR·~.FE:~_ _..
PRESENT ADO" ADD":

EXTRA RATE TIONAL flAlE naNAL
FEE
Total • Minus.. • )(S.Da OR )($18=.
Ind pendIIn1 • MInus - a
)(40- OR .X80=
RRST PAESENTAnON OF MUlTIPLE DEPENDENT ClAIM ,
+135-
,
•
TOTAL
ADDIT.FEE
PIt8IlI8IId T........ oaa. u.s. DEJlIlIImIENI' OFCOMIIEACI!

'VAL GI"Ck'" 110 'OIlIDUD
crJ
P.O. Box 1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATIORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMAnON NO.
09/843,923 04/30/2001 Sergey Brin 0026-0002 9916
44989 7590 04/2112005 EXAMINER
HARRITY & SNYDER, LLP AILES. BENJAMIN A

SUITE 300
PTO·90C (Rev. 10/03)


•• The MAILING DATE 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 1 MONTH(S) FROM
after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication. .
• If the period for reply specified above is less than thirty (30) days, a reply within the statutory minimum of thirty (30) days will be considered timely.
Status
1)1:8:] Responsive to communication(s) filed on 22 November 2004.

2a)0 This action is FINAL. 2b)1:8:] This action is non-final.
closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
. 4)1:8:] Claim(s) 1-27 is/are pending in the application.
6)0 Claim(s) _ _ is/are rejected.
8)12:$;} Claim(s) 1-27 are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
Application Papers
11)0 The oath or declaration is objected to\ by the Examiner. Note the attached Office Action or form PTO-152.

Attachment(s)
1) 0 Notice of References Cited (PT0-892) 4) 0 Interview Summary (PT0-413)
3) 0 Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO-1449 or PTO/SB/Oa) 5) 0 Notice of Informal Patent Application (PTO-152)

~TOl-326(R".'-04) Office Action Summary Part of Paper No.lMail Date 04132005
Art Unit: 2142
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
1. Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-17, drawn to uploading a story line to a web site, classified in
class 709, subclass 218.
II. Claims 18-27, drawn to providing search results associated with a special
event logo that the user selected, classified in class 709, subclass 228.
The inventions are distinct, each from the other because of the following reasons:
2. Inventions I and II are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together
in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct from each other if they are
shown to be separately usable. In the instant case, invention I has separate utility such
as dynamically uploading different images to a web site, while invention II has separate
utility such as predefined search results for a link. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
3. Because these inventions are distinct for the reasons given above and the
search required for Group I is not required for Group II, restriction for examination
purposes as indicated is proper.
4. Because these inventions are distinct for the reasons given above and the
search required for Group II is not required for Group I, restriction for examination
purposes as indicated is proper.
5. Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must
include an election of the invention to be examined even though the requirement be
traversed (37 CFR 1.143).

~ . •' w

Art Unit: 2142
3899. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30-5, First Friday Off.
supervisor, Jack B. Harvey can be reached on (571 )272-3896. The fax phone number
Benjamin Ailes
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2142
III I III III I I 09/843,923

Examiner
Benjamin A. Ailes
BRIN, SERGEY
Art Unit
2142
SEARCH NOTES
SEARCHED
Jason Cardone - Primary Examiner -

Assisted with Election/Restriction 4/13/2005 BAA
requirement.

Index of Claims
III III IIII ~I I

Examiner Art Unit
(Through numeral)
..j Rejected - Cancelled N Non-Elected A Appeal

(ij ..,. II) iQ iQ
(ij (ij (ij
'6> ~ ~
I:: I:: I::
I:: I:: '6> I:: '6>
u::: '1::
co ~ u::: (5 u::: (5
0
I~) ,; + 51 101
2 v + 52 102
3 ,; + 53 103
4 ,; + 54 104
5 ,; + 55 105
6 ,; + 56 106
7 ,; + 57 107
8 v + 58 108
9 ,; + 59 109
10 ,; + 60 110
[UT) v + 61 111
K1~ ,; + 62 112
13 v + 63 113
lL4J v + 64 114
('15) ,; + 65 115
16 ,; + 66 116
17 ,; + 67 117
(18) ,; + 68 118
19 ,; + 69 119
20 ,; + 70 120
21 v + 71 121
22 v + 72 122
23 ,; + 73 123
24 v + 74 124
25 v + 75 125
2& v + 76 126
f'l.7) v + 77 127
28 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
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

Address: COM\1ISSIONER FOR PATENTS
p.o. Box 1450
Alexandria, \rupjnia 22313-1-150
www.uspto.gov
APPUCATION NUMBER PA1ENT NUMBER GROUP ART UNIT FH-E WRAPPER LOCATION
09/843,923 2142 06BO
Change of Address/Power of Attorney
The following fields have been set to Customer Number 44989 on
• Correspondence Address
• Power of Attorney
The address of record for Customer Number 44989 is:

HARRITY & SNYDER, LLP
SUITE 300
FAIRFAX, VA 22030
The Practitioners of record for Customer Number 44989 are:
PTO INSTRUCTIONS:
Please take the following action when the correspondence address has been changed to a customer
number:
1) Add 'ADDRESS CHANGE TO CUSTOMER NUMBER' on the next available content line of
the File Jacket.
2) Put a line through the old address on the File Jacket and enter the Customer Number as the
new address.
3) File this Notice in the File Jacket.
Please take the following action when the correspondence address has NOT been changed:
1) File this Notice in the File Jacket
Patent
)
)
)
)
A WEB SITE )
AMENDMENT/REPLY TRANSMITTAL LETTER

220 20 th Street S.
Customer Window, Mail Stop Amendment
Crystal Plaza Two, Lobby, Room IB03
Arlington, Virginia 22202
Sir:
D A Petition for Extension of Time is also enclosed.

o A request for Entry and Consideration of Submission under 37 C.F.R. § 1.129(a)

is also enclosed.
'I
... ',,'
. ,\.e
.P'I
/ t
AmendmentJReply Transmittal Letter

Page 2
IZI' No additional claim fee is required.

o An additional claim fee is required, and is calculated as shown below:
AMENDED CLAIMS

Previously
Paid For
Total Minus x $18.00 = 0
Claims
Ind. Minus x $ 88.00::;; 0
Claims
Total Amendment Fee 0
TOTAL ADDITIONAL FEE DUE FOR THIS AMENDMENT 0
AmendmentJReply Transmittal Letter
Page 3
By:B Qt\%-
~
Paul A. Harrity
Reg. No. 39,574

Suite 300
(571) 432-0800
PATENT
)
)
)
)
)
WEB SITE )

220 20th Street South
Customer Window, Mail Stop Amendment
Crystal Plaza Two, Lobby, Room IB03
Arlington, Virginia 22202
AMENDMENT
In response to the non-final Office Action dated August 23,2004, please amend the
above-identified application as follows:

PATENT
Listing of Claims:
1. (Original) A method for enticing users to access a web page, comprising:
uploading a first image in a story line to the web page; and
periodically uploading successive images, following the first image, to the web page
according to the story line.
2. (Original) The method of claim 1, further comprising:
generating a plurality of images that tell a story according to the story line, the images
including the first image and the successive images; and
storing the images on a server associated with the web page.
3. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the first image and the successive
images include animated images.
4. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein each of the first image and the
successive images includes a series of animated images.
5. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the uploading includes:
presenting the first image for viewing over a network; and
wherein the periodically uploading includes:
2
PATENT
presenting the successive images for viewing over the network.
6. (Original) The method of claim 5, wherein the presenting the first image
includes:
displaying the first image on the web page; and
wherein the presenting the successive images includes:
displaying the successive images on the web page.
7. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 6, wherein the first image and the
successive images are displayed near or with at least one of a company's logo [[and]] or an
advertisement.
8. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the periodically uploading includes:
uploading the successive images after each predetermined period of time.
9. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the periodically uploading includes:
uploading the successive images after random periods oftime.
10. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the first image and the successive
images include video images.
11. (Original) A system for attracting users to a web page, comprising:
3
PATENT
means for uploading a first image in a story line to the web page; and
means for periodically uploading successive images, following the first image, to the web
page according to the story line.
12. (Original) 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 uploading an initial object in a story line to the web page; and
instructions for periodically uploading successive objects, following the initial object, to
the web page according to the story line.
13. (Currently Amended) The computer-readable medium of claim 12, wherein the
initial and successive objects include at least one of animated images, video images, [[and]] or
audio information.
14. (Original) A server, comprising:
upload an initial object in a story line to a site on a network, and
periodically upload successive objects, following the initial object, to the site
according to the story line to entice users to return to the site.
15. (Original) A method for attracting users to a site on a network, comprising:
4
PATENT
receiving a plurality of images that tell a story according to a story line; and
successively displaying the images on the site according to the story line.
16. (Original) The method of claim 15, wherein the successively displaying includes:
displaying a first one ofthe images on the site for a predetermined amount of
time, and
displaying next ones of the images on the site after each predetermined amount of
time.
17. (Original) The method of claim 15, wherein the successively displaying includes:
displaying a first one of the images on the site for a first amount oftime, and
displaying next ones of the images on the site for random amounts of time after
the first amount of time.
18. (Original) A method for enticing users to access a web page, comprising:
19. (Original) The method of claim 18, wherein the modifying a standard company
5
PATENT
logo includes:
animated images.
20. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 18, wherein the modifying a standard
of video [[and]] 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:
23. (Original) The method of claim 18, wherein the uploading the special event logo
includes:
24. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 18, wherein the providing search
results includes:
6
PATENT
using the search query to search at least one of a network, an index, [[and]] or a directory,
and
25. (Original) The method of claim 18, wherein the modifying a standard company
logo includes:
event logo.
26. (Currently Amended) A computer-readable medium that stores instructions
comprising:
instructions for associating at least one of a link [[and]] or search results with the special
event logo;
27. (Original) A server connected to a network, comprising:
7
PATENT
event.
8
PATENT
REMARKS
In the non-final Office Action, the Examiner rejected claims 1-8, 10-16, 18-21,23, and
25-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Freiberger et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,034,652);
rejected claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Freiberger et al. in view of
Mukherjea et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,317,740); rejected claim 24 under 35 U.S.c. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Freiberger et al. in view of Coden et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,873,080); and
rejected claims 9 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Freiberger et al. in view
of Glazman et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,264,555).
By this Amendment, Applicant amends claims 7, 13,20,24, and 26 to improve form.
Applicant respectfully traverses the Examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
Claims 1-27 remain pending.
In paragraphs 2-25 of the Office Action, the Examiner rejected claims 1-8, 10-16, 18-21,
23, and 25-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as allegedly anticipated by Freiberger et al. Applicant
respectfully traverses the rejection.
A proper rejection under 35 U.S.c. § 102 requires that a single reference teach every
aspect of the claimed invention either expressly or impliedly. Any feature not directly taught
must be inherently present. In other words, the identical invention must be shown in as complete
detail as contained in the claim. See M.P.E.P. § 2131. Freiberger et al. does not disclose or
suggest the combination of features recited in claims 1-8, 10-16, 18-21,23, and 25-27.
Independent claim 1, for example, recites a method for enticing users to access a web
page, comprising uploading a first image in a story line to the web page; and periodically
9
1 . Ii, 'Y
PATENT
uploading successive images, following the first image, to the web page according to the story
line.
Freiberger et al. does not disclose or suggest the combination of features recited in claim
1. For example, Freiberger et al. does not disclose or suggest uploading a first image in a story
line to a web page. Instead, Freiberger et al. discloses presenting information to a person in the
vicinity of a display device in a manner that engages the peripheral attention of the person (col. 2,
lines 2-4). Freiberger et al. discloses that the information is embodied as one or more sets of
content data that represent sensory data that is either video or audio data (col. 2, lines 20-22).
Freiberger et al. also discloses that images generated from the content data are displayed
automatically in a predetermined manner without user intervention (col. 2, lines 38-41).
Nowhere does Freiberger et al. disclose or suggest that an image in a story line is uploaded to a
web site, as required by claim 1.
The Examiner alleged that Freiberger et al. discloses uploading an image and cited
column 2, lines 28-34, of Freiberger et al. for support (Office Action, paragraph 4). Applicant
submits that the Examiner has not addressed the features of claim 1. Claim 1 does not merely
recite uploading an image, but instead recites uploading an image in a story line to a web site.
The disclosure of Freiberger et al. is deficient in at least two respects: (1) nowhere does
Freiberger et al. disclose or suggest that the images or content data that are presented to the user
are part of a story line; and (2) nowhere does Freiberger et al. disclose or suggest uploading the
images or content data to a web page, as both required by claim 1.
With regard to (1), Freiberger et al. discloses that video data that might be used as the
content data includes advertisements, moving and still videos (e.g., nature scenes, pictures of
10
PATENT
family members, MTV music segments, or video from a camera monitoring a specified location),
financial data, or news summaries (col. 7, lines 28-35). Nowhere does Freiberger et al. disclose
or suggest that the content data includes a first image in a story line, as required by claim 1.
With regard to (2), Freiberger et al. discloses that the content data is obtained by a content
display system and stored in a database in memory of the computer used to implement the
content display system (col. 21, lines 20-24). Freiberger et al. discloses that the content display
systems are implemented on user computers to provide the content data to the user (col. 2, lines
28-34; and col. 13, lines 43-48). Nowhere does Freiberger et al. disclose or suggest that the
content data is uploaded to a web page, as required by claim 1.
Freiberger et al. also does not disclose or suggest periodically uploading successive
images, following the first image, to the web page according to the story line, as further required
by claim 1. The Examiner alleged that Freiberger et al. discloses periodically uploading
successive images and cited column 2, lines 28-34, of Freiberger et al. for support (Office
Action, paragraph 4). Applicant again submits that the Examiner has not addressed the features
of claim 1. Claim 1 does not merely recite periodically uploading successive images, but instead
recites periodically uploading successive images, following the first image, to the web page
according to the story line. As explained above, Freiberger et al. does not disclose uploading
images to a web page according to a story line.
For at least these reasons, Applicant submits that claim 1 is not anticipated by Freiberger
et al. Claims 2-8 and 10 depend from claim 1 and are, therefore, not anticipated by Freiberger et
al. for at least the reasons given with regard to claim 1. Claims 2-8 and 10 are also not
anticipated by Freiberger et al. for reasons of their own.
11
PATENT
Claim 2, for example, recites generating a plurality of images that tell a story according to
the story line, where the images include the first image and the successive images; and storing
the images on a server associated with the web page. Freiberger et al. does not disclose or
suggest this combination of features.
The Examiner alleged that Freiberger et al. discloses generating a plurality of images and
storing the images on a server and cited column 3, lines 63·65, column 2, lines 22-25, and
submits that the Examiner has not addressed the features of claim 2. Claim 2 does not merely
recite generating a plurality of images and storing the images on a server, but instead recites
generating a plurality of images that tell a stOry according to the stOry line, where the images
include the first image and the successive images; and storing the images on a server associated
with the web page. In addition, the sections of Freiberger et al. identified by the Examiner do not
At column 3, lines 63-65, Freiberger et al. discloses "The content display system uses the
provided set of instructions to selectively display on the display device an image or images
generated from the provided content data." Nowhere in this section, or elsewhere, does
Freiberger et al. disclose or suggest generating a plurality of images that tell a story according to
a story line, as required by claim 2.
At column 2, lines 22-25, Freiberger et al. discloses "Each set of content data is
formulated by a content provider and made available for use by an attention manager according
to the invention." Nowhere in this section, or elsewhere, does Freiberger et al. disclose or
suggest storing the images on a server associated with a web page, as required by claim 2.
12
t f ".
PATENT
At column 14, lines 12-14, Freiberger et al. discloses "The application manager 201,
content providing systems 202 and content display systems 203 can be implemented using
appropriately programmed digital computers." Nowhere in this section, or elsewhere, does
Freiberger et al. disclose or suggest storing the images on a server associated with a web page, as
For at least these additional reasons, Applicant submits that claim 2 is not anticipated by
Freiberger et al.
Claim 7 recites that the first image and the successive images are displayed near or with
at least one of a company's logo or an advertisement. Freiberger et al. does not disclose or
suggest this combination of features.
The Examiner alleged that Freiberger et al. discloses displaying a first image and
successive images near or with at least one of a company's logo and an advertisement and cited
disagrees.
At column 7, lines 26-30, Freiberger et al. discloses "The kinds of content data that can
be used with the attention manager are virtually limitless. For example, video data that might be
used as content data includes data that can be used to generate advertisements of interest to the
user ...." In other words, Freiberger et al. discloses that the content data may be advertisement
data. Contrary to the Examiner's allegation, this does not mean or suggest that the content data is
displayed near or with an advertisement, as would be required by claim 7, but instead that it is an
advertisement itself.
13
PATENT
The Examiner further alleged that "[a]lthough Freiberger teaches the use of an
advertisement, he does not teach the use of a company logo. However, the use of a company
logo in conjunction with an advertisement is deemed to be inherent" (Office Action, paragraph
10). The Examiner's "inherency" argument falls short of meeting the burden of proof required to
establish a rejection based on inherency.
According to M.P.E.P. § 2112, the fact that a certain result or characteristic may occur or
be present in the prior art is not sufficient to establish the inherency of that result or
characteristic. In relying upon the theory of inherency, the Examiner must provide a basis in fact
and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent
characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art. Inherency cannot be
established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a
given set of circumstances is not sufficient. In this case, the Examiner's allegation does not meet
the requisite burden of proof to establish inherency.
For at least these additional reasons, Applicant submits that claim 7 is not anticipated by
Freiberger et al.
Independent claims 11, 12, 14, and 15 recite features similar to features recited in claim 1.
Claims 11, 12, 14, and 15 are, therefore, not anticipated by Freiberger et al. for reasons similar to
reasons given with regard to claim 1. Claims 13 and 16 depend from claims 12 and 15,
respectively, and are, therefore, not anticipated by Freiberger et al. for at least the reasons given
with regard to claims 12 and 15.
Independent claim 18 recites 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;
14
PATENT
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.
18. For example, Freiberger et al. does not disclose or suggest modifying a standard company
logo for a special event to create a special event logo.
The Examiner alleged that Freiberger et al. discloses modifying a standard company logo
for a special event and cited column 7, lines 26-35, of Freiberger et al. for support (Office
Action, paragraph 18). Applicant disagrees.
At column 7, lines 26-35, Freiberger et al. discloses:
The kinds of content data that can be used with the attention manager are virtually
limitless. For example, video data that might be used as content data includes data that can
be used to generate advertisements of interest to the user, moving and still video images
which can be real-time or pre-recorded (e.g., nature scenes, pictures of family members,
MTV music segments, or video from a camera monitoring a specified location, such as ski
slopes or a traffic intersection, for conditions at that location), financial data (e.g., stock
ticker infonnation) or news summaries.
Nowhere in this section, or elsewhere, does Freiberger et al. disclose or remotely suggest
modifying a standard company logo for a special event to create a special event logo, as required
by claim 18.
The Examiner also alleged that a "company logo modified for a special event is still
considered a type of content data described by the prior art" (Office Action, paragraph 18).
Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner's allegation is flawed. For example, claim 18
does not merely recite a special event logo, but instead recites modifying a standard company
logo for a special event to create a special event logo. Freiberger et al. does not disclose or
remotely suggest this feature of claim 18. Further, the Examiner's allegation that a special event
15
PATENT
logo falls under the content data disclosed by Freiberger et al. finds absolutely no support in the
Freiberger et al. disclosure.
Freiberger et al. also does not disclose or suggest associating one or more search terms
with the special event logo, as further recited in claim 18. The Examiner alleged that Freiberger
et al. discloses associating one or more search terms and cited column 27, lines 25-30, of
Freiberger et al. for support (Office Action, paragraph 18). Applicant disagrees.
Links can be established to any of a variety of infonnation sources and types of

infonnation sources. Typically, the link will be made to an infonnation source that
provides infonnation that is related to the content data which was being displayed when
the link was established;
Nowhere in this section, or elsewhere, does Freiberger et al. disclose or suggest associating one
or more search terms with a special event logo, as required by claim 18.
The Examiner also alleged that "[i]n order for information resources to be obtained, some
sort of information must be associated with the special event logo. Therefore, having
information associated with a special event logo is deemed inherent and the association of a
search term with the special event logo is considered an advantageous way of associating
information with a special event logo" (Office Action, paragraph 18). Applicant submits that the
Examiner's allegations find no support in the disclosure of Freiberger et al.
As explained above, Freiberger et al. does not disclose or suggest modifying a standard
company logo for a special event to create a special event logo. Therefore, Freiberger et al.
cannot disclose or suggest associating anything with a special event logo. Further, the
Examiner's allegation that having information associated with a special event logo is deemed
inherent falls short of meeting the burden of proof that is required to establish inherency. The
16
PATENT
Examiner is invited to read M.P.E.P. § 2112 to discover what is required for an allegation based
on inherency. Also, the Examiner's allegation that associating a search term with a special event
logo is an advantageous way of associating information with a special event logo is a conclusory
statement with no support in fact.
Freiberger et al. also does not disclose or suggest uploading a special event logo to a web
page, as further recited in claim 18. The Examiner alleged that Freiberger et al. discloses
uploading a special event logo and cited column 2, lines 28-34, of Freiberger et al. for support
(Office Action, paragraph 18). Applicant disagrees.
Once one or more sets of content data has been acquired, a content display system
integrates scheduling information for all sets of content data to produce a schedule
according to which an image or images corresponding to the sets of content data are
displayed on a display device associated with the content display system.
Nowhere in this section, or elsewhere, does Freiberger et al. disclose or suggest uploading
content data, let alone a special event logo, to a web page, as required by claim 18. Instead,
Freiberger et al. discloses that the content data is obtained by a content display system and stored
in a database in memory of the computer used to implement the content display system (col. 21,
lines 20-24).
Freiberger et al. also does not disclose or suggest providing search results relating to the
special event in response to a user selection of the special event logo, as further recited in claim
18. The Examiner alleged that Freiberger et al. discloses providing search results relating to the
special event and cited column 27, lines 25-30, of Freiberger et al. for support (Office Action,
paragraph 18). Applicant disagrees.
17
PATENT
Column 27, lines 25-30, of Freiberger et al. has been reproduced above. Nowhere in this
section, or elsewhere, does Freiberger et al. disclose or remotely suggest providing search results
relating to the special event in response to a user selection of the special event logo, as required
by claim 18.
et al. Claims 19-21,23, and 25 depend from claim 18 and are, therefore, not anticipated by
Freiberger et al. for at least the reasons given with regard to claim 18.
Independent claim 26 recites features similar to features recited in claim 18. Claim 26 is,
therefore, not anticipated by Freiberger et al. for reasons similar to reasons given with regard t6
claim 18.
Independent claim 27 recites a server connected to a network that 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.
27. For example, Freiberger et al. does not disclose or suggest a processor configured 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, or replace the standard company logo with the special
event logo during the special event. The Examiner alleged that Freiberger et al. discloses a
18
PATENT
processor configured to perform these features and cited column 14, lines 19-20, of Freiberger et
al. for support (Office Action, paragraph 25). Applicant disagrees.
At column 14, lines 19-20, Freiberger et al. discloses "a processing device (such as a
conventional microprocessor) .... " Nowhere in this section, or elsewhere, does Freiberger et al.
disclose or even remotely suggest a processor configured 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, or replace the standard company logo with the special event logo during the special
event, as required by claim 27.
The Examiner also alleged that "[r]eferring again to the package file presented by
Freiberger (column 21, lines 21-55), he teaches the use ofa package file in order to execute
updates to his system. Included in the package file is a network address (column 21, lines 33-35)
and update instructions for the content data (column 21, lines 50-55)" (Office Action, paragraph
25). Applicant submits that the Examiner's allegations do not address any of the features of
claim 18 and, therefore, are insufficient to establish a proper case of anticipation with regard to
claim 27.
In paragraphs 27 and 28 of the Office Action, the Examiner rejected claim 22 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as allegedly unpatentable over Freiberger et al. in view of Mukherjea et al.
Applicant traverses the rejection.
19
PATENT
Claim 22 depends from claim 18. Without acquiescing in the Examiner's rejection,
Applicant submits that the disclosure of Mukheriea et al. does not cure the deficiencies in the
disclosure of Freiberger et al. identified above with regard to claim 18. Therefore, claim 22 is
patentable over Freiberger et al. and Mukherjea et al., whether taken alone or in any reasonable
combination, for at least the reasons given with regard to claim 18.
In paragraphs 29 and 30 of the Office Action, the Examiner rejected claim 24 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as allegedly unpatentable over Freiberger et al. in view of Coden et al. Applicant
traverses the rejection.
Claim 24 depends from claim 18. Without acquiescing in the Examiner's rejection,
Applicant submits that the disclosure of Coden et al. does not cure the deficiencies in the
disclosure of Freiberger et al. identified above with regard to claim 18. Therefore, claim 24 is
patentable over Freiberger et al. and Coden et al., whether taken alone or in any reasonable
combination, for at least the reasons given with regard to claim 18.
In paragraphs 31 and 32 of the Office Action, the Examiner rejected claims 9 and 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as allegedly unpatentable over Freiberger et al. in view of Glazman et
al. Applicant traverses the rejection.
Claims 9 and 17 depend from claims 1 and 15, respectively. Without acquiescing in the
Examiner's rejection, Applicant submits that the disclosure of Glazman et al. does not cure the
deficiencies in the disclosure of Freiberger et al. identified above with regard to claims 1 and 15.
Therefore, claims 9 and 17 are patentable over Freiberger et al. and Glazman et al., whether
taken alone or in any reasonable combination, for at least the reasons given with regard to claims
1 and 15.
20
PATENT
Examiner's reconsideration of the application and the timely allowance of claims 1-27.
To the extent necessary, a petition for an extension oftime under 35 C.F.R. 1.136 is
including extension oftime fees, to Deposit Account No. 50-1070 and please credit any excess
By:
:§H5?f=\£?;
Reg. No. 39,574
Date: November 22,2004

Suite 300
(571) 432-0800
21
t
~
-------------------------.
PATENT APPLICAnON FEE DETERMINAnON RECORD
..- • Effective October 1, 2000

~
~ SMALL EtrnTY OTHER THAN

yYPE c:::::J OR SMALL ENTITY
TOTAL CLAIMS FEE
RATE RATE FEE
FOR NUMSERRLED NUMBER EXTRA BASIC FEE 355.00 710.00
TOTAL CHARGEABLE CLAIMS X$9= OR X$18=
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS minus 3 = X40=, OR X8D:
MULTIPLE DEPENDENT ClAIM PRESENT
o +135= OR +270=
TOrAl OR:.TOTAL a..-_--1

. OTHERTHAN
OR,· SMALL ENTITY
ADDI- ADDI- .
RATE TlONAL ··'RATE nONAL
~i=EE
FEE
X$9a OR X$18=
X40a ' OR X8D:

~--+----I
+135- OR +270=·
JOTAl.
ADDIT. FEE
OR'ADOIT.TOTAl
FEEa..-_.....
PRESENT.•
ADD1- ..... ADDI-
EXTRA RATE TIONAL RATE nONAL
Total • Minus .. • ')($9-

FEE
OR )($18=
FEE
Ind pendent Minus... =

X40-.;. .' OR X8O= .
ARST PRESENTATION OF MULTIPLE DEPENDENT CLAIM 1----1----1
+135- OR +270=
TOTAl. .
ADDIT.FEE
,
OR ·~T. FEE...._ _4
L PRESENT ADDI- ADDI- :

EXTRA RATE TIONAL ~TE TlONAL
FEE FEE
Total Minus •• = )($.9= OR X$18=.
I
Ind pendent • Minus'" =

X40e OR X80=
ARST PRESENTATION OF MUlTIPLE DEPENDENT CLAIM , 1--~I__-__rI
+1~ OR +270=
,,
• If It! entry In column 1 Is lesslhan the entry In coJumn 2. wrtte V In column 3. TOTAL "''''!!T~O!'!!!TAl.!'!'"Io--''''
.. If the '\oOghest Number Pre'Jlously Pai:J Fo'" IN THIS SPACE Is Jess than 20. ntar "20.. ACDIT.FEE OR ADOJT: FEE ....--04
"'If \he "HlghesI Number PrevIously Paid Fot' IN THIS SPACE Is Jess Ihan 3, enter ~.
The ~gheSt Number Previously Paid ~ (ToIaI or Indep ndent) Is the highest nwnb r found In Ihe appropriate box In column , •
o FORM PTOo87S PallInlI1Jld TI1IdemaIll 0IIiclI. u.s. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

(Rev. lIIOD) 'U.S.GPO:~CD
This Page is Inserted by IFW Indexing and Scanning
Operations and is not part of the Official Record
BEST AVAILABLE IMAGE;S
Defective images within this document are accurate representatIons ofthe original
documents submitted by the applicant.
Defects in the images include but are not limited to the items checked:
o BLACK BORDERS
o IMAGE CUT OFF AT TOP, BOTTOM OR SIDES
o FADED TEXT OR DRAWING
o BLURRED OR ILLEGmLE TEXT OR DRAWING
o SKEWED/SLANTED IMAGES
o COLOR OR BLACK AND WIDTE PHOTOGRAPHS
o GRAY SCALE DOCUMENTS
o LINES OR MARKS ON ORIGINAL DOCUMENT
o REFERENCE(S) OR EXHmIT(S) SUBMITTED ARE POOR QUALITY
o OTHER: -~~------------------
IMAGES ARE BEST AVAILABLE COPY.

As rescanning these documents will not correct the image
problems checked, please do not report these problems to
the IFW Image Problem Mailbox..
_U_N_IT_E_D_ST_A_T_E_S_P_A_T_E_N_T_A_N_D_T_R_A_D_E_M_A_R_K_O_F_FI_C_E =====-:-::-===~==~~.
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS I
P.O. Box 1450
/ www.uspto.gov
09/843,923 04/3012001 Sergey Brin 0026-0002 9916
44989 7590 0812312004 EXAMINER
HARRITY & SNYDER, LLP AILES, BENJAMIN A

SUITE 300
FAIRFAX, V A 22030 2142
PTO-90C (Rev. 10/03)



Period for Reply
A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE J. MONTH(S) FROM
- If the period for reply specified above is less than thirty (30) days, a reply within the statutory minimum of. thirty (30) days will be considered timely.
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).
Status
1)[8] Responsive to communication(s) filed on 30 Apri/ 2001.

2a)0 This action is FINAL. 2b)[8] This action is non-final.
4)[8] Claim(s) 1-27 is/are pending in the application.
6)[8] Claim(s) 1-27 is/are rejected.
Application Papers
10)[2J The drawing(s) filed on 30 Apri/2001 is/are: a)[2J 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):

12)0 Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
a)O All b)D Some * c)O None of:
application from the International Bureau (peT Rule 17.2(a».
Attachment(s)
1) [8J Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) 4) 0 Interview Summary (PTO-413)
3) J&:! Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO-1449 or PTO/SB/08) 5) 0 Notice of Informal Patent Application (PTO-152)

Art Unit: 2142
DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-27 have been examined.
2. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35
U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this
Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section
122(b). by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or
(2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before
the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under
the treaty defined in section 351 (a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an
application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United
States and was published under Article 21 (2) of such treaty in the English language.
3. Claims 1-8,10-16,18-21,23 and 25-27 are rejected under 35
U.S;C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Freiberger (U.S. 6,034,652).
4. As per claims 1 and 11, Freiberger teaches a method/system for enticing
users to access a web page, comprising:
-uploading a first image... (column 2, lines 28-34).
-periodically uploading successive images... (column 2, lines 28-34).
5. As per claim 2 in accordance with claim 1, Freiberger teaches further,
-the generation of a plurality of images... (column 3, lines 63-65).
-the storing of images on a server. .. (column 2, lines 22-25, and column
14, lines 12-14).
The content provider mentioned in the prior art ads as the server for the
attention manager, or the client. It is deemed inherent for the content provider
Art Unit: 2142
server to include space to store the content being this is where the content data
is provided.
6. As per claim 3 in accordance with claim 1, Freiberger teaches the first
image and the successive images include animated images (column 6, lines 56-
64)
image and the successive images include a series of animated images (column
, 6, lines 56-64).
8. As per claim 5 in accordance with claim 1, Freiberger teaches the
uploading process including:
-presenting the first image ... (column 14, lines 36-42).
-presenting the successive images... (column 14, lines 36-42).
Content providing systems communicate with the content display systems,
meaning the content providers (the servers) send the content display system (the
client) the images for viewing.
presenting of the first image including:
-displaying the first image... (column 2, lines 28-34).
-displaying the successive images... (column 2, lines 28-34).
10. As per claim 7 in accordance with claim 6, Freiberger teaches a method
wherein the first image and the successive images are displayed near or with at
least one of a company's logo and an advertisement (column 7, lines 26-30).

Art Unit: 2142
Although Freiberger teaches the use of an advertisement, he does not
teach the use of a company logo. However, the use of a company logo in
conjunction with an advertisement is deemed to be inherent.
periodically uploading including:
-uploading the successive images after each predetermined ... (column 2,
lines 38-42).
image and the successive images including video images (column 6, lines 57-
64).
13. As per claim 12, Freiberger discloses a computer-readable medium that
stores instructions to perform a method, comprising:
-instructions for uploading an initial object. .. (column 3, lines 63-65).
-instructions for periodically uploading successive objects... (column 3,
lines 63-65).
14. As per claim 13 in accordance with claim 12, Freiberger teaches the use
of a computer-readable medium where the initial and successive objects include
at least one of animated images, video images, and audio information (Column 6,
lines 56-64).
15. As per claim 14, Freiberger teaches a server comprising:
-a memory... (column 14, lines 20-21).
-a processor (column 14, lines 19-20) configured to:
-upload an initial object... (column 14, lines 36-44).

Art Unit: 2142
-periodically upload successive objects ... (column 14, lines 36-44)..
16. As per claim 15, Freiberger teaches a method for attracting users to a site
on a network, comprising:
-receiving a plurality of images... (column 4, lines 32-34).
-successively displaying the images... (column 4, 47-55).
17. As per claim 16 in accordance with claim 15, Freiberger teaches a
successively displaying including:
-displaying a first one of the images... (column 2, lines 39-41 ).
-displaying next ones of the images... (column 2, lines 39-41).
18. As per claim 18, Freiberger teaches:
-modifying a standard company logo for a special event... (column 7, lines
26-35).
A company logo modified for a special event is still considered a type of
content data described by the prior art.
-associating one or more search terms ... (column 27, lines 25-30).
In order for information resources to be obtained, some sort of information
must be associated with the special event logo. Therefore, having information
associated with a special event logo is deemed to be inherent and the
association of a search term with the special event logo is considered to be an
advantageous way of associating information with a special event logo.
-uploading the special event logo... (column 2, lines 28-34).
-receiving a user selection ... (column 27, lines 30-32).

Art Unit: 2142
-providing search results relating to the special event... (column 27, lines
25-30).
19. As per claim 19 in accordance with claim 18, Freiberger teaches:
-creating the special event logo by modifying the standard company logo
with one ore more animated images (column 6, lines 56-64).
20. As per claim 20 in accordance with claim 18, Freiberger teaches:
-creating the special event logo by modifying the standard company logo
with at least one of video and audio data (column 6, lines 56-64).
21. As per claim 21 in accordance with claim 18, Freiberger teaches wherein
the special event includes a holiday.
Although holiday is not explicitly stated, the scope of the prior art
language, "the kinds of content data that can be used ... are virtually limitless,"
would inherently include a holiday as a category for content data.
uploading of the special event logo including:
-displaying the special event logo on the web page... (column 4, lines 47-
55).
modifying of a standard logo including:
-determining a home page ... (column 21, lines 33-35).
-identifying the standard company logo... (column 21, lines 50-55).
-modifying the standard company logo... (column 21 lines 50-55).

Art Unit: 2142
Freiberger teaches the use of what he calls a package file in order to
make updates to certain data content. One key characteristic of the package file
is the association with a network address, which can include a home page.
Computer graphics are known to evolve over the years to become more pleasing
to the human eye. A package file used by Freiberger in order to make updates to
image files would be a valuable tool.
24. As per claim 26, Freiberger teaches the use of a computer-readable
medium that stores instructions (column 21, lines 20-25) executable by one or
more processors (column 14, lines 19-20) to perform methods, comprising:
-instructions for creating a special event logo... (column 21, lines 25-28).
-instructions for associating at least one of... (column 27, lines 18 and 25-
30).
-instructions for uploading the special event logo... (column 21, lines 54-
55).
-instructions for receiving a user selection ... (column 27, lines 30-32).
-instructions for providing the link or search results ... (column 27, ines 25-
30).
Freiberger discloses the use of a package file which can be used to
update content data. Included in this package file are instructions on what needs
to be updated where and how this data is to be updated. A package file is an
easy way to execute an update to the content data in an organized manner.
25. As per claim 27, Freiberger teaches the use of a server connected to a
network, comprising:
Art Unit: 2142
-a memory... (column 14, lines 20-21).
-a processor (column 14, lines 19-20) configured to execute instructions
to:
-determine a home page ...
-identify a standard company logo...
-modify the standard company logo...
-replace the standard company logo...
Referring again to the package file presented by Freiberger (column 21,
lines 21-55), he teaches the use of a package file in order to execute updates to
his system. Included in the package file is a network address (column 21, lines
33-35) and update instructions for the content data (column 21, lines 50-55).
26. 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.
27. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Freiberger (U.S. 6,034,652) in view of Mukherjea et al (6,317,740).
28. Freiberger fails to teach a method wherein the special event logo is
identified by a search term. However, Mukherjea et al discloses the use of a
search term relating to a special event logo (column 4, lines 34-36). It would
Art Unit: 2142
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant's
invention to associate a keyword search term with a special event logo in order to
make image searches more useful and effective.
29. Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Freiberger (U.S. 6,034,652) in view of Coden et al. (U.S. 5,873,080).
30. Freiberger fails to teach a search engine method when searching using a
key word. However, Coden et al. disclose a search engine that:
-generates a search query... (column 3, lines 33-36).
-uses the search query to search ... (column 3, lines 26-30 and 33-36).
-obtains the search results ... (column 3, lines 33-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
applicant's invention to associate a search engine as disclosed by Coden et al. in
order to make searching for media resourceful.
31. Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Freiberger (U.S. 6,034,652) in view of Glazman et al. (U.S.
6,264,555).
32. Freiberger fails to teach the periodically uploading of images after random
periods of time. However, Glazman et al. discloses a display apparatus which
displays images, including text, video displays, graphics, animations, live action
video, or any other material capable of display on a video display. Glazman et al.
disclose the displaying of these images done at random times (column 4, lines
17-20 and 22-28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
. ,
Art Unit: 2142
the time of applicant's invention to use random time parameters when displaying
images in order to entice users to view a webpage more frequently.
Conclusion
Gorbet et al. (U.S. 6,072,480) disclose a method and apparatus for
controlling composition and performance of soundtracks to accompany a slide
show.
Qureshi et al. (U.S. 6,396,500) disclose a method and system for
generating and displaying a slide show with animations and transitions in a
browser.
Helfman (U.S. 6,119,135) discloses a method for passively browsing the
Internet using images extracted from web pages.
Vanechanos, Jr. (U.S. 5,884,309) discloses an order entry system for the
Internet.
Dunlap et al. (U.S. 6,560,637) disclose a web-enabled presentation device
. and methods of use thereof.
Reber et al. (U.S. 5,995,105) disclose methods and systems for providing
a resource in an electronic network.
Rakavy et al. (U.S. 5,913,040) disclose a method and apparatus for
transmitting and displaying information between a remote network and a local
computer.
Art Unit: 2142
Gill et al.(U.S. 6,081,262) disclose a method and apparatus for generating
multi-media presentations.
Paulson (U.S. 2002/0044103 A1) discloses a pre-lane display software
system for retail stores.
Pirani et al (U .S. 5,105,184) disclose methods for displaying and
integrating commercial advertisements with computer software.
Mano et al (U.S. 5,978,807) disclose an apparatus for and method of
automatically downloading and storing Internet web pages.
Dom et al (U.S. 6,166,735) disclose a video story board user interface for
selective downloading and displaying of desired portions of remote-stored video
data objects.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from
the examiner should be directed to Benjamin A. Ailes whose telephone number is
703-305-0447. The examiner can normally be ~eached on Monday-Friday (8:00-
5:00).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the
examiner's supervisor, Jack Harvey can be reached at (703) 305-9705. The fax
phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is
assigned is (703)308-5358.
· ' .
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).
Communications via Internet e-mail regarding this application, other than
those under 35 U.S.C. 132 or which otherwise require a signature, may be used
by the applicant and should be addressed to [benjamin.ailes@uspto.gov]."
All Internet e-mail communications will be made of record in the
application file. PTO employees do not engage in Internet communications
where there exists a possibility that sensitive information could be identified or
exchanged unless the record includes a properly signed express waiver of the
confidentiality requirements of 35 U.S.C. 122. This is more clearly set forth in the
Interim Internet Usage Policy published in the Official Gazette of the Patent and
Trademark on February 25, 1997 at 1195 OG 89.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application
or proceeding should be directed to Group receptionist whose telephone number
is (703)305-3900.
baa
CJJn
~;B.HARVEY
SHEET - OF
IIII~I~IIII~II~II~IIII~IIIII J~
AnORNEY'S OKT No. ApPLICATION No.
0026·0002 UnassiQned p
INFORMATION
a.11~
ApPLICANT(S)
26615
-:11~.{;
DISCLOSURE PAlmI IIJoJEl4I.l.KOFl'lCl!
Sergey BRIN
FILING DATE GROUP
CITATION April 30. 2001 Unassigned
:i~
.~
PTO·1449
EXAMINER'S FILING
INITIALS PATENT NO. DATE NAME CLASS SUBCLASS DATE
FOREIGN· PATENT,DOCUMENTS
EXAMINER'S Translation
INITIALS PATENT NO. DATE COUNTRY CLASS SUBCLASS Yes No
OTHER DOCUMENTS (Includin~ Author. Title. Date. Pertinent Pages. Etc.)

Google;' Google Holiday Logos; www.google,com/holidaylogos; pages 1-8; 2001 (print
gil!! date).
fJ/lA Google; Mentalplex; www.google.com/holidaylogos; pages 1-4; April 1. 2000.
ge/i/dr:,,, II, 'I£'5 ~;;;:// -

EXAMINER DATE CONSIDERED
151/7/0'/
EXAMINER: Initial if reference considered, whether or not citation is in conformance with MPEP 609; draw line through citation if not in
conformance and not considered. Include copy of this form with next communication to applicant(s).
Best Available Copy

Reexamination
Examiner Art Unit
Page 1 of 2
A US-6,034,652 A 03-2000 Freiberger et al. 345/730
B US-6,317,740 B1 11-2001 Mukherjea et al. 707/4
C US-5,873,080 A 02-1999 Coden et al. 707/3
D US-6,396,500 B1 05-2002 Qureshi et al. 345/473
E US-6,119,135 A 09-2000 Helfman, Jonathan Isaac 715/513
F US-5,884,309 A 03-1999 Vanechanos, Jr., Steven L. 707/10
G US-6,560,637 B1 05-2003 Dunlap et al. 709/204
H US-5,995,1 05 A 11-1999 Reber et al. 345/835
I US-5,913,040 A 06-1999 Rakavy et al. 709/232
J US-6,081,262 A 06-2000 Gill etal. 715/500.1
K US-2002/00441 03 A1 04-2002 PAULSON, ROGER LEE 345/1.1
L US-5,105,184 A 04-1992 Pirani et al. 345/629
M US-5,978,807 A 11-1999 Mano et al. 707/10

* Country Code-Number-Kind Code MM-YYYY Country Name Classification
T
NON-PATENT DOCUMENTS
*A copy of this reference IS not bemg furnished with this Office action. (See MPEP § 707.05(a).)
U.s. Palent and Trademark Office
PTO~892 (Rev. 01-2001) Notice of References Cited Part of Paper No. 1
Best Available Copy

--------------~ -~--~~--~---~--_._- ._-------~---
Reexamination
Examiner Art Unit
Page 2 of 2
\

* . Country Code-Number-Kind Code MM-YYYY Name Classification
A US-6,166,735 A 12-2000 Dam etal. 345/749
B US-6,264,555 B1 07-2001 Glazman et al. 463/1
C US-6,072,480 A 06-2000 Gorbet et al. 345/730

D US-
E US-
F US-
G US-
H US-
I US-
J US-
K US-
L US-
M US-

* Country Code-Number-Kind Code MM-YYYY Country Name Classification
Q .
R
.A copy of this reference IS not bemg furnished with this Office actIOn. (See MPEP § 707.05(a).)
u.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Best Avai\ab\e COpy

• COM HI yOR PATENTS
UNITED STATES PATENT AND "rnADEMARK OFfiCE
WI.$H'''C1OH. D.C. 20231
fILE COpy
WWW.USplo.gO\l
Imlml~lmIIUDM~~Dm~~mODImI CONFIRMATION NO. 9916

Bib Data Sheet
FILING DATE ATTORNEY

SERIAL NUMBER CLASS GROUP ART UNIT
04/30/2001 DOCKET NO.
09/843,923 709 2152
RULE 0026-0002
1.o.~Io'Ln';.ANI~
1>- CONTINUING DATA _•• ********"-""-,,,,**-...,,

THIS APPlN CLAIMS BENEFIT OF 60/200,957 05/01/2000
1*. FOREIGN APPLICATIONS ..................""
IF REQUIRED, FOREIGN FILING LICENSE GRANTED

** 06/21/2001
Foreign Priority claimed [J yes lila no STATE OR SHEETS TOTAL INDEPENDENT
\l5 USC 119 (a-d) conditions [J yes IS] no Cl Met after
met
COUNTRY DRAWING CLAIMS CLAIMS
_AlIOwan/L- CA 10 27 8
Verified and Z~'~ --~ ~ 81/1
~cknowledged Examiner's Signature Initials
IA
HARRITY & SNYDER, l.l.P.

Suite 300
Fairfax ,VA 22030
ITITLE
I[J All Fees

I
I[J 1.16 Fees (Filing)
I
FILING FEE FEES: Authority has been given in Paper o 1.17 Fees ( Processing Ext. of
RECEIVED No. to charge/credit DEPOSIT ACCOUNT time)
1236 No. for following:
ICl1.18 Fees (Issue)
I
ICl Other
I
ICl Credit
I
Best AvaUabie Copy

Index of Claims
Examiner Art Unit
1111I11111111111111 Benjamin A Ailes 2142
(Through numeral)
..J Rejected N Non-Elected Appeal
Cancelled A
= Allowed Restricted I Interference o Objected
Claim Date Claim Date I Claim Date

I
roc
.
roc
.... "m
u::: '1::
0
In ,j 51 101
'2" ,j 52 102
1--__+_='53:-+--+--+--+-+-+-+-+-t--r t---t-~+-+-+-I--If---I_+-+-+-1
l 103
3 ,j
4 ,j ~ 104
5 ,j 55 105
6 ,j 56 106
7 ,j 57 107
8 ,j 58 108
9 ,j 59 109
110
111
q2 ,j 62 112
1 3 , j · 63 113
~) ,j
r-----h(~fr5))'&t-,j.-+--+--+---+---+---+--+--+--+ J
1 , _ _+--:6:-:;4-1--1--1--+-+-+-+-+-+-1'
65
114
115
16 ,j f----f--::-::-+--+--+--+--+--+--+-+-+-i 116
66
17 ,j 67 117
\j 8 ,j 8 +-+-+-+_+-+-+-+-1--1 ,'I--__+_~+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_1
1---+--::6-::- 118
111 ,j 69 119
20 ,j 70 120
21 ,j r--+--,--71'--+--+--+--+---+---+---+--+--+---1 ,.,,'r--+-~-+--+--+--+-+-+-+-+-+-i
121
22 ,j 122
1--__+_,:,:72:-+__+___+_-+--+--+--+--I--+--1 '1--__+_=+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_1
23 ,j 73 123
24 ,j 74 124
25 ,j 1--__+_,:,:75:-+__+___+_+-+--+--+--1--1--1 . . r--+-~-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-i
125
I\W ,j 76 126
il(27)) ,j 77 127
28 78 128
r--+-=29=-+--+--+--+--+---+--+--+--+---1 r--+-='79=-+--+--+--+---+---+---+--+--+---1l---r::';-::-+-+-+-+-+-+-l-l-f---I
1
129
I 130
8°7-+__+_+-+--+-+-+_+-+-i.·•• ·.J·.-----1r--;-::-7+-+-+-+-f--+-+__+___+_--J
r--+--=-30'--+--+--+--+---+---+--+--+--+---1 ' 1---+-::-
31 81 ."'" 131
~ ~ 132
33 83 133
~ [ M 134
35 85 135
~ ~ 136
TI ~ 137
~ ~ 138
r--+--=--39=-+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+---1.·· 1---+--::-::-+_+_+_+_+-+-+-+-+-I,.I--t--:-::-=-t-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+----j
89 139
r--+-=--l--l-f--l---l------1---f---f---f--{ ,' 1---+-77--l--l--l-I--I------1I------1---f---f--i ,.. I--+-:-:-::--I---+--+--+--+-+-+--+--+-----j
140
1---+--:-:;°:-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-1--11--1 ,.I--__+_~90;--+-+-++-+--+--+--+--+-_i . . , 1------t~7+--+-+__+___+_++-+--+---l
4 1
r--+-4-,-:1-+--+--+-+-+-+-+--1------11------11.,... 91 '•.•. ,.. 141

42 I'· 92.'f-_+--:-:-::-l-+_+_+-+-+-+-+-+----j 142
1----+--=':43=-+--+---+--+--+---+--+--+--+---1 93 .•••••• 143
44
1--__+_-:-::-+__+_+-+--+--+--+--+--iH ." '1----+--=--94=-+-+--+--+--+---+--+--+--+---1 ,..... r--+:;-;-;:-r---r---+-+_+_+_+_+_+_1 144
45 95 145
146
r--+--,-:46=-+--+---+--+--+---+--+--+--+---1 1-_t---:::96:-+-__+_-+-+--+--+--+--+--+-++--+--.;-~f---I_+-+-+-+-+__+_-+---l
1
r--t-4-;-;7:-t--+--+-+-+-+-t-t---l1--l·' ·., 97 147

I--+-;-;-;;+---+--+-+-+--1-+-l-H
148
,. , r--+-~+--+--t--t-+--+--+--+--f-j
4
1--+49 -;-:8:-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-1--11--1 ".'".'. 98
99 149
1 O 150
'--------'---5"-'0----'----'----'---'-------'------'----'---~'---'1... L _ L:.::-,,-0L-L--'---'----'----'----''----'----'----'' "'L----'--'--=-'-'--'-...L.--l-..l.-.L.-.L.-L-L-J
Best AvaUable Copy

Search Notes
IIII III IIII IIIII I Examiner
Beniamin A Ailes
Art Unit
2142
SEARCH NOTES
SEARCHED
345 730 8/17/2004 BAA

PLUS Search 8/11/2004 BAA
345 473 8/17/2004 BAA
709 204 8/17/2004 BAA
709 216 8/17/2004 BAA EAST 8/17/2004 BAA
345 730 8/17/2004 BAA
345 738 8/17/2004 BAA
IEEE Explore 8/10/2004 BAA
ACM Portal 8/10/2004 BAA
Best Avanab~e Copy

Operations and is not part of the Official Record
BEST AVAILA8LE IMAGES
Defective images within this document are accurate representations of the original
o BLACK BORDERS
o BLURRED OR ILLEGffiLE TEXT OR DRAWING
o COLOR OR BLACK AND WHITE PHOTOGRAPHS
o REFERENCE(S) OR EXHffiIT(S) SUBMITTED ARE POOR QUALITY
o OTHER: -----~---------------

problems checked, please do not report these problems to
the IFW Image Problem Mailbox.
,,
L Number Hits Search Text DB Time stamp

1 634251 image diplay USPAT; 2004/08/17 09:32
US-PGPUB
2 10685 (image diplay) and (random with time) USPAT; 2004/08/17 09:33
US-PGPUB
3 6258 ((image diplay) and (random with time)) USPAT; 2004/08/17 09:33
and @ay<2000 US~PGPUB
4 682 (((image diplay) and (random with time)) USPAT; 2004/08/17 09:33
and @ay<2000) and internet US-PGPUB
5 105 ((((image diplay) and (random with time)) USPAT; 2004/08/17 09:38,--
and @ay<2000) and internet) and 709.clas. US-PGPUB
6 751 (image diplay) and (random adj time) USPAT; 2004/08/17 09:39
US-PGPUB
7 o ((image diplay) and (random adj time)) and USPAT; 2004/08/17 09:39
((random adj diplay) with time) US-PGPUB
8 9 (image diplay) and ((random adj display) USPAT; 2004/08/17 09:40
with time) US-PGPUB
9 44994 image adj display USPAT; 2004/08/17 09:41
US-PGPUB
10 o (image adj display) and (((image diplay) USPAT; 2004/08/17 09:41
and (random adj time)) and ((random adj US-PGPUB
diplay) with time))
11 4 (image adj display) and ((random adj USPAT; 2004/08/17 09:50
display) with time) US-PGPUB
12 130 (image adj display) and (random with USPAT; 2004/08/17 09:57
display with time) and @ay<2000 US-PGPUB
13 137205 (image adj display) and 709.clas. internet USPAT; 2004/08/17 09:58
US-PGPUB
14 609 (image adj display) and 709.clas. and USPAT; 2004/08/17 09:58
(internet or Internet or web$4) US-PGPUB
15 258 ((image adj display) and 709.clas. and USPAT; 2004/08/17 09:58
(internet or Internet or web$4)) and US-PGPUB
random
16 102 (((image adj display) and 709.clas. and USPAT; 2004/08/17 10:09
(internet or Internet or web$4)) and US-PGPUB
random) and @ay<2000
17 72 345/730.ccls. USPAT; 2004/08/17 10:09
US-PGPUB
18 30 345/730.ccls. and random USPAT; 2004/08/17 10:10
US-PGPUB
19 13 (345/730.ccls. and random) and @ay<2000 USPAT; 2004/08/17 10:30
US-PGPUB
20 o 345/730.ccls. and (random adj diplay) USPAT; 2004/08/17 10:31
US-PGPUB
21 o 345/730.ccls. and (random with diplay) USPAT; 2004/08/17 10:31
US-PGPUB
22 71 345/730.ccls. and (random adk display) USPAT; 2004/08/17 10:31
US-PGPUB
23 o 345/730.ccls. and (random adj display) USPAT; 2004/08/17 10:31
US-PGPUB
24 7 345/730.ccls. and (random with display) USPAT; 2004/08/17 10:32
US-PGPUB
25 2019 (internet or Internet) and (object adj USPAT; 2004/08/17 10:33
display) US-PGPUB
26 2019 ((internet or Internet) and (object adj USPAT; 2004/08/17 10:33
display)) and @ay<20000501 US-PGPUB
27 686 ((internet or Internet) and (object adj USPAT; 2004/08/17 10:33
display)) and @ad<20000501 US-PGPUB
28 350 (((internet or Internet) and (object adj USPAT; 2004/08/17 10:33
display)) and @ad<20000501) and random US-PGPUB
29 334 ((((internet or Internet) and (object adj USPAT; 2004/08/17 10:37
display)) and @ad<20000501) and random) US-PGPUB
and time
30 25 (((((internet or Internet) and (object adj USPAT; 2004/08/17 13:47
display)) and @ad<20000501) and random) US-PGPUB
and time) and (random with time)
31 1 6034652.pn. USPAT; 2004/08/17 13:47
US-PGPUB
1 5105184.pn. USPAT; 2004/08/12 08:44
US-PGPUB
313259 (web$4 or $nternet) and (stor$ or news) USPAT; 2004/08/12 08:45
US-PGPUB
Search H1story 8/17/04 2.42.34 PM Page 1
C:\APPS\EAST\Workspaces\09843923b.wsp
9692 ((web$4 or $nternet) and (stor$ or news)) USPAT; 2004/08/12 08:45
and reel US-PGPUB
6614 (((web$4 or $nternet) and (stor$ or news)) USPAT; 2004/08/12 08:46
and reel) and @ad<20000501 US-PGPUB
34 ((((web$4 or $nternet) and (stor$ or USPAT; 2004/08/12 08:51
news)) and reel) and @ad<20000501) and US-PGPUB
(upload or refresh or select) and (image
adj display)
71 ((((web$4 or $nternet) and (stor$ or USPAT; 2004/08/12 08:52
news)) and reel) and @ad<20000501) and US-PGPUB
logo
136672 Internet USPAT; 2004/08/12 08:52
\ US-PGPUB
4790 Internet and logo USPAT; 2004/08/12 08:53
US-PGPUB
221 Internet and (logo near advertis$) USPAT; 2004/08/12 08:53
US-PGPUB
170 (Internet and (logo near advertis$)) and USPAT; 2004/08/12 08:54
(image or imaging) US-PGPUB
47 ((Internet and (logo near advertis$)) and USPAT; 2004/08/12 08:54
(image or imaging)) and @ad<20000501 US-PGPUB
8262 search adj engine USPAT; 2004/08/16 15:12
US-PGPUB
2466 (search adj engine) and @ay<2000 USPAT; 2004/08/16 15:13
US-PGPUB
1850 ((search adj engine) and @ay<2000) and USPAT; 2004/08/16 15:13
internet US-PGPUB
1344 (((search adj engine) and @ay<2000) and USPAT; 2004/08/16 15:13
internet) and generate US-PGPUB
909 ((((search adj engine) and @ay<2000) and USPAT; 2004/08/16 15:13
internet) and generate) and query US-PGPUB
791 (((( (search adj engine) and @ay<2000) and USPAT; 2004/08/16 15:13
internet) and generate) and query) and US-PGPUB
display
758 ((((((search adj engine) and @ay<2000) and USPAT; 2004/08/16 15:15
internet) and generate) and query) and US-PGPUB
display) and resultS
112 logo and search and (search adj engine) USPAT; 2004/08/16 15:50
and 709.clas. US-PGPUB
80 image adj search adj engine USPAT; 2004/08/16 15:50
US-PGPUB
38 (image adj search adj engine) and @ay<2000 USPAT; 2004/08/16 17:19
US-PGPUB·
2778 search adj query USPAT; 2004/08/16 17:19
US-PGPUB
2639 (search adj query) and (network or index USPAT; 2004/08/16 17:20
or directory) US-PGPUB
1452 ( (search adj query) and (network or index USPAT; 2004/08/16 17:22
or directory)) and (search adj result$l) US-PGPUB
570 (((search adj query) and (network or index USPAT; 2004/08/16 17:22
or directory)) and (search adj result$I)) US-PGPUB
and @ay<2001
403 ((((search adj query) and (network or USPAT; 2004/08/16 17:23
index or directory)) and (search adj US-PGPUB
result$I)) and @ay<2001) and (search adj
engine) )
23 (((( (search adj query) and (network or USPAT; 2004/08/16 18:03
index or directory)) and (search adj US-PGPUB
result$I)) and @ay<2001) and (search adj
engine)) and (image adj search)
1013651 image display USPAT; 2004/08/16 18:03
US-PGPUB
44921 image adj display USPAT; 2004/08/16 18:03
US-PGPUB
25 (image adj .display) and (random adj USPAT; 2004/08/16 18:04
display) US-PGPUB

C:\APPS\EAST\workspaces\09843923b.wsp
- 439 internet and 709/216 USPAT; 2004/08/10 08:15
US-PGPUB
- 439 internet and 709/216 USPAT; 2004/08/10 08:15
US-PGPUB
- 0 storyline and 709.clas USPAT; 2004/08/10 08:15
US-PGPUB
- 0 story$ and 709.clas USPAT; 2004/08/10 08:15
US-PGPUB
- 559 story$ and 709.clas. USPAT; 2004/08/10 08:15
US-PGPUB

C:\APPS\EAST\workspaces\09843923a.wsp
- 0 (("5329447" USPAT; 2004/08/10 08:15
"4128536" US-PGPUB
"4276260"
"4300172"
"4328237"
"4383434"
"4426251"
"4426225"
"4432957"
"4443685"
"4461920"
"4466407"
"4479956"
"4486436"
"4486363"
"4495629"
"4494858"
"4496046"
"4506781"
"4520082"
"4522607"
"4554166"
"4568764"
"4612332"
"4755180"
"4770295"
"4781924" I
"4782669"
"4785920"
"4789793"
"4791143"
"4797683"
"4814181"
"4819597"
"4831723"
"4835234"
"4835731"
"4836317"
"4837027"
"4846827"
"4849370"
"4855478"
"4857546"
"4874397"
"4879810"
"4880047"
"4880631"
"4880904"
"4888253"
"4889616") .pn.
("4892697"
"4893799"
"4903653"
"4913560"
"4924763"
"4926496"
"4927704"
"4928128"
"4928310"
"4928482"
"4933391"
"4933836"
"4934499"
"4935648"
"4936839"
"4937844"
"4939437"
"4940969"
"4945019"
"4947241"
"4946859"
"4949013"
II ,..,,.."' ..... I ..... "
~earch HiE tory 8 ~'~~%%_ib2~~:30 PM Page 2

~: \APPS\El ST\Worksp a~~~3e23a.wsp
"4962532"
... ...
~~ .. -~-
- 180 internet with story USPAT; 2004/08/10 08:15
US-PGPUB
- 302 internet with story USPAT; 2004/08/10 08:15
US-PGPUB
- 2151 dynamic and internet and logo USPAT; 2004/08/10 08:15
US-PGPUB
- 6 story and (internet and 709/216) USPAT; 2004/08/10 08:15
US-PGPUB
- 858 709/216 USPAT; 2004/08/10 08:16
US-PGPUB
- 9 storyline and 709.clas. USPAT; 2004/08/10 08:16
US-PGPUB
- 431 (story$ and 709.clas.) and webS USPAT; 2004/08/10 08:16
US-PGPUB

C:\APPS\EAST\Workspaces\09843923a.wsp
- 100 ("5329447" USPAT; 2004/08/10 08:16
"4128536" US-PGPUB
"4276260"
"4300172"
"4328237"
"4383434"
"4426251"
"4426225"
"4432957"
"4443685"
"4461920"
"4466407"
"4479956"
"4486436"
"4486363"
"4495629"
"4494858"
"4496046"
"4506781"
"4520082"
"4522607"
"4554166"
"4568764"
"4612332"
"4755180"
"4770295"
"4781924"
"4782669"
"4785920"
"4789793"
"4791143"
"4797683"
"4814181"
"4819597"
"4831723"
"4835234"
"4835731"
"4836317"
"4837027"
"4846827"
"4849370"
"4855478"
"4857546"
"4874397"
"4879810"
"4880047"
"4880631"
"4880904"
"4888253"
"4889616") .pn.
( "4892697"
"4893799"
"4903653"
"4913560"
"4924763"
"4926496"
"4927704"
"4928128"
"4928310"
"4928482"
"4933391"
"4933836"
"4934499"
"4935648"
"4936839"
"4937844"
"4939437"
"4940969"
"4945019"
"4947241"
"4946859"
"4949013"
" ,"c"" ,..,,,
~earch Hi! tory 8 J,'~'J15~tb:2"\,3 : 30 PM Page 4
Ie: \APPS\El ST\Worksp o~~~)e23a.wsp
"4962532"
... _~~-~- ..
,
;,
- 1 (("5329447" USPAT; 2004/08/10 08:16

"4128536" US-PGPUB
"4276260"
"4300172"
"4328237"
"4383434"
"4426251"
"4426225"
"4432957"
"4443685"
"4461920"
"4466407"
"4479956"
"4486436"
"4486363"
"4495629"
"4494858"
I
"4496046"
"4506781"
"4520082"
"4522607"
"4554166"
"4568764"
"4612332"
"4755180"
"4770295"
"4781924"
"4782669"
"4785920"
"4789793"
"4791143"
"4797683"
"4814181"
"4819597"
"4831723"
"4835234"
"4835731"
"4836317"
"4837027"
"4846827"
"4849370"
"4855478"
"4857546"
"4874397"
"4879810"
"4880047"
"4880631"
"4880904"
"4888253"
"4889616") . pn.
("4892697"
"4893799"
"4903653"
"4913560"
"4924763"
"4926496"
"4927704"
"4928128"
"4928310"
"4928482"
"4933391"
"4933836"
"4934499"
"4935648"
"4936839"
"4937844"
"4939437"
"4940969"
"4945019"
"4947241"
"4946859"
"4949013"
" ,,,,,.-,-, ,-,,,
fSearch HiE tory 8 1"I,fQ~~2D2~,3 : 3 0 PM Page 5
C: \APPS\EJ ST\Worksp a~~)e23a.wsp
"4962532"
... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ..
- 11 ( ("5329447" USPAT; 2004/08/10 08:16
"4128536" US-PGPUB
"4276260"
"4300172"
"4328237"
"4383434"
"4426251"
"4426225"
"4432957"
"4443685"
"4461920"
"4466407"
"4479956"
"4486436"
"4486363"
"4495629"
"4494858"
"4496046"
"4506781"
"4520082"
"4522607"
"4554166"
"4568764 "
"4612332"
"4755180"
"4770295"
"4781924"
"4782669"
"4785920"
"4789793"
"4791143"
"4797683"
"4814181"
"4819597"
"4831723"
"4835234"
"4835731"
"4836317"
"4837027 "
"4846827" ,
0 "4849370"
"4855478"
"4857546"
"4874397"
"4879810"
"4880047"
"4880631"
"4880904"
"4888253"
"4889616") .pn.
("4892697"
"4893799"
"4903653"
"4913560"
"4924763"
"4926496"
"4927704"
"4928128"
"4928310"
"4928482"
"4933391"
"4933836"
"4934499"
"4935648"
';4936839"
"4937844 "
"4939437"
"4940969"
"4945019"
"4947241"
"4946859"
"4949013"
" nc'1 ......... "
Search HiE tory 8 J,;'l9q;~ ?O=z'\;3 : 3 0 PM Page 6
(': \APPS\El ST\Worksp a~~~3e23a.wsp
"4962532"
... ----~_ ..
,
I
63 internet and entice and 709.clas. USPAT; 2004/08/10 08:16

US-PGPUB
18 internet with entice USPAT; 2004/08/10 08:16
US-PGPUB
87 (internet with story) and @py<2002 USPAT; 2004/08/10 08:16
US-PGPUB
17 (dynamic and internet and logo) and USPAT; 2004/08/10 08:16
company and google US-PGPUB
147 (dynamic and internet and logo) and USPAT; 2004/08/10 08:16
company and @py<2001 US-PGPUB
33 internet with company with logo USPAT; 2004/08/10 08:16
US-PGPUB
222 webS with upload with image USPAT; 2004/08/10 08:23
US-PGPUB
447 webS same upload same image USPAT; 2004/08/10 08:24
US-PGPUB
12 (web$ same upload same image) and @py<2001 USPAT; 2004/08/10 08:29
US-PGPUB
633655 display or upload USPAT; 2004/08/10 08:29
US-PGPUB
4920 image and story USPAT; 2004/08/10 08:29
US-PGPUB
3902 (display or upload) and (image and story) USPAT; 2004/08/10 08:30
US-PGPUB
44 ((display or upload) and (image and USPAT; 2004/08/10 08:30
story)) and entice US-PGPUB
story)) and @py<2001 US-PGPUB
story)) and (web or website or webpage) US-PGPUB
400 (((display or upload) and (image and USPAT; 2004/08/10 08:47
story)) and (web or website or webpage)) US-PGPUB
, and @py<2002
o ((company adj logo) or advertis$) and (web USPAT; 2004/08/10 08:51
or website or webpage) and @pd<05112002 US-PGPUB
5115 ((company adj logo) or advertis$) and (web USPAT; 2004/08/10 08:52
or website or webpage) and @py<2002 US-PGPUB
736 (( (company adj logo) or advertis$) and USPAT; 2004/08/10 08:52
(web or website or webpage) and @py<2002) US-PGPUB
and 709.clas.
324 (server and client) and (company adj logo) USPAT; 2004/08/10 13:22
US-PGPUB
55 ((server and client) and (companyadj USPAT; 2004/08/10 15:24
logo)) and @py<2002 US-PGPUB
1 6396500.pn. USPAT; 2004/08/10 15:25
US-PGPUB
50846 345.clas. USPAT; 2004/08/11 11:06
US-PGPUB
1026 logo and 345.clas. USPAT; 2004/08/11 11:07
US-PGPUB
559 (logo and 345.clas.) and @ad<20000501 USPAT; 2004/08/11 11:07
US-PGPUB
479 ((logo and 345.clas.) and @ad<20000501) USPAT; 2004/08/11 11:07
and image US-PGPUB
468 (((logo and 345.clas.) and @ad<20000501) USPAT; 2004/08/11 11:07
and image) and display US-PGPUB
216 (( ((logo and 345.clas.) and @ad<20000501) USPAT; 2004/08/11 11:07
and image) and display) and internet US-PGPUB
131 (( (((logo and 345.clas.) and @ad<20000501) USPAT; 2004/08/11 12:26
and image) and display) and internet) and US-PGPUB
(refresh$ or uploa$ or replac$)
2 6483512.pn. or 6661419.pn. USPAT; 2004/08/11 12:34
US-PGPUB
26 (image adj viewer) with internet USPAT; 2004/08/11 12:40
US-PGPUB
2413 (image and (view$ or see or slideS)) with USPAT; 2004/08/11 12:41
internet US-PGPUB
676 ((image and (view$ or see or slideS)) with USPAT; 2004/08/11 12:41
internet) and @ad<20000501 US-PGPUB
128 (( (image and (view$ or see or slide$)) USPAT; 2004/08/11 12:43
with internet) and @ad<20000501) and US-PGPUB
345.clas.
Search Hlstory 8/17/04 2:43:30 PM Page 7
C:\APPS\EAST\workspaces\09843923a.wsp
168 (slideshow or slide$l) and webpage USPATi 2004/08/11 12:43
US-PGPUB
40 ((slideshow or slide$l) and webpage) and USPATi 2004/08/11 12:55
@ad<20000501 US-PGPUB
297 345/738.ccls. USPATi 2004/08/11 12:55
US-PGPUB
3 345/738.ccls. and slideshow USPATi 2004/08/11 12:56
US-PGPUB
89 345/738.ccls. and @ad<20000501 USPATi 2004/08/11 12:56
US-PGPUB
72 345/730.ccls. USPATi 2004/08/11 12:57
US-PGPUB
37 345/730.ccls. and internet USPATi 2004/0B/l1 13:00
US-PGPUB
61236 345.clas. animation USPATi 2004/08/11 13:01
US-PGPUB
4453 345.clas. and animation USPATi 2004/08/11 13:01
US-PGPUB
14843 animation USPATi 2004/08/11 13:01
US-PGPUB
40704 (web or internet or hypertext or html) USPATi 2004/08/11 13:02
near2 (file$l or page$1 or docurnent$l) US-PGPUB
1543 animation same ((web or internet or USPATi 2004/08/11 13:03
hypertext or html) near2 (file$l or page$l US-PGPUB
or docurnent$l)}
101494 (next or successive or second) with USPATi 2004/08/11 13:04
(screen$l or page$l) US-PGPUB
730 (animation same ((web or internet or USPATi 2004/08/11 13:06
or docurnent$l})) and ((next or successive
or second) with (screen$l or page$l))
615 (animation same, ((web or internet or USPATi 2004/08/11 13:06
or docurnent$l))) and @ad<20000501
272 ((animation same ((web or internet or USPATi 2004/08/11 13:07
or docurnent$l))) and ((next or successive
or second) with (screen$l or page$l))) and
@ad<20000501
258 slideshow USPATi 2004/08/11 13:07
US-PGPUB
117 ((web or internet or hypertext or html) USPATi 2004/08/11 13:08
near2 (file$1 or page$l or docurnent$l)) US-PGPUB
and slideshow
22 (((web or internet or hypertext or html) USPATi 2004/08/11 13:36
near2 (file$l or page$l or docurnent$1}) US-PGPUB
and slideshow} and @ad<20000501
144 webpage and logo and company USPATi 2004/08/11 13:39
US-PGPUB
14843 animation USPATi 2004/08/11 13:39
US-PGPUB
329487 web or internet 0E hypertext or html USPATi 2004/08/11 13:40
US-PGPUB
7155 animation and (web or internet or USPATi 2004/08/11 13:40
hypertext or html) US-PGPUB
2508 (animation and (web or internet or USPATi 2004/08/11 13:42
hypertext or html)} and @ad<20000501 US-PGPUB
2439 ((animation and (web or internet or USPATi 2004/08/11 13:42
hypertext or html)} and @ad<20000501) and US-PGPUB
time
1999 (( (animation and (web or internet or USPATi 2004/08/11 13:43
hypertext or html)) and @ad<20000501) and US-PGPUB
time) and image
1840 ((((animation and (web or internet or USPATi 2004/08/11 13:45
time) and image) and (refresh$ or replac$
or uploa$ or downloa$ or loa$ or sav$)
1036 (((((animation and (web or internet or USPATi 2004/08/11 13:45
hypertext or html)} and @ad<20000501) and US-PGPUB
or uploa$ or downloa$ or loa$ or sav$))
and (345.clas. or 709.clas.)
Search Hlstory 8/17/04 2:43:30 PM Page B
C:\APPS\EAST\Workspaces\09B43923a.wsp
1029 ((((((animation and (web or internet or USPAT; 2004/08/11 13:46
hypertext or htm1)} and @ad<20000501) and US-PGPUB
time} and image} and (refresh$ or rep1ac$
and (345.clas. or 709.clas.)} and computer
1003 (( (((((animation and (web or internet or USPAT; 2004/08/11 13:49
hypertext or html}) and @ad<20000501) and US-PGPUB
time} and image) and (refresh$ or replac$
or uploa$ or downloa$ or loa$ or sav$})
and (345.clas. or 709.clas.)} and
computer) and display
673 ((((((((animation and (web or internet or USPAT; 2004/08/11 13:50
hypertext or html)} and @ad<20000501} and US-PGPUB
or uploa$ or downloa$ or loa$ or sav$)}
computer} and display} and 345.clas.
400 ((((((((animation and (web or internet or USPAT; 2004/08/11 13:50
hypertext or html}) and @ad<20000501) and US-PGPUB
time} and image) and (refresh$ or replac$
computer) and display) and 709.clas.
107 ((((((( (animation and (web or internet or USPAT; 2004/08/11 13:50
computer) and display} and logo

C:\APPS\EAST\Workspaces\09843923a.wsp
Operations and is not part of the Official R.ecord
BEST AVAILABLE IMAGES
Defective images within this document are accurate represe:ntatious oftheariginal

o BLACK BORDERS
o BLURRED OR ILLEGffiLE TEXT OR DRAWING
o COLOR OR BLACK AND WHITE PHOTOGRAPHS
o REFERENCE(S) OR EXHmIT(S) SUBMITTED ARE POOR QUALITY
Q OTHER: ~~ _

problems checked 9 please do not report these problems to
the IFW Image Problem Mailbox.
1 13541 animation USPAT; 2004/08/1014:09
US-PGPUB
2 40594 (web or internet or hypertext or html) near2 (file$1 or page$1 USPAT; 2004/08/10 14: 10
or document$1) US-PGPUB
3 1336 animation same «web or internet or hypertext or html) near2 USPAT; 2004/08/10 14: 10
(file$1 or page$1 or document$1» US-PGPUB
4 98248 (next or successive or second) with (screen$1 or page$1) USPAT; 2004/08/1014:11
US-PGPUB
5 641 (animation same «web or internet or hypertext or html) near2 USPAT; 2004/08/10 14: 11
(file$1 or page$1 or document$1))) and «next or successive or US-PGPUB
second) with (screen$1 or page$1))
6 887 (animation same «web or internet or hypertext or html) near2 USPAT; 2004/08/1014:11
(file$1 or page$1 or document$1))) and @ad<20010430 US-PGPUB
7 451 «animation same «web or internet or hypertext or html) near2 USPAT; 2004/08/1014:12
(file$1 or page$1 or document$1))) and «next or successive or US-PGPUB
second) with (screen$1 or page$1))) and @ad<20010430
8 45 (animation same «web or internet or hypertext or html) near2 USPAT; 2004/08/1014:11
(file$1 or page$1 or document$1))) same «next or successive US-PGPUB
or second) with (screen$1 or page$1))
9 31 «animation same «web or internet or hypertext or html) near2 USPAT; 2004/08/1014:21
(file$1 or page$1 or document$1))) same «next or successive US-PGPUB
or second) with (screen$1 or page$1))) and @ad<20010430
10 241 slideshow USPAT; 2004/08/1014:21
US-PGPUB
11 108 «web or internet or hypertext or html) near2 (file$1 or page$1 USPAT; 2004/08/1014:21
or document$1» and slideshow US-PGPUB
12 44 «(web or internet or hypertext or html) near2 (file$1 or page$1 USPAT; 2004/08/1014:21
or document$1)) and slideshow) and@ad<20010430 US-PGPUB
Search History 8/101042:52:51 PM Page 1

C:\APPS\EAST\Workspaces\Default EAST Workspace (Flat Panel).wsp
------ - ---
Search Results Page 1 of2
IEEE HOME I SEARCH IEEE I SHOP I WEB ACCOUNT I CONTACT IEEE +IEEE
MembershIp PubllcatwnstServices SteHldards Conferences Careers/Jobs
~,
;,~ ~E EE "~plore<~l
<5 ~ , " ;W ,"',," , ",' RELEASE 1.11
Welcome
Help fAQ Terms IEEE Peer Review 19.. i,~~~ill~!; » Se,
WelcQmc to IEEE Xplore'"
o Home Your search matched 4 of 1060766 documents.

o IWhat Can
Aooess1
A maximum of 500 results are displayed, 15 to a page, sorted by Relevanct
Descending order.
OLog-out
Refine This Search:
Tables of Contents
You may refine your search by editing the current search expression or enteri
o. &M3gazines
Journals new one in the text box .
li':'l.~~.~. ~~.~~>",,~~~:~n~~IOg()
o Proceedings
Conferel]OO Ci Check to search within this result set
0- Standards Resu Its Key:
Search lNL = Journal or Magazine CNF = Conference STD = Standard
o ByAUfhor
o-Ba. 1 Content layer progressive coding of digital maps
o Advanced Forchhammer, 5.; Jensen, O.R.;

Image Processing, IEEE Transactions on , Volume: 11 , Issue: 12 , Dec. 2002
Member Services Pages: 1349 - 1356
D-JolnlEEE [Abstract] [PDJ:_fJtll-Text (819 KB)] IEEEJNL

0- Establish IEEE.
WebAcoount 2 Classifying images collected on the World Wide Web
Q-AcceSSthe Oliveira, CJ.S.; De Albuquerque Araujo, A.; Severiano, CA., Jr.; Ribeiro Gon
IEEE Member D.;
Digital Library Computer Graphics and Image Processing, 2002. Proceedings. XV Brazilian
Symposium on , 7-10 Oct. 2002
Pages:327 - 334
o IEEE
AccessthB
Entmprlse [At2.stfi:'lc.:H [PDF Full-Text (l858 KB)] IEEE CNF
file Cab met
3 Proposal of a classifier of images collected in the World Wide Web
Oliveira, Cl.S.; de A Araujo, A.; Severiano, c.A., Jr.; Gomes, D.R.;
Computer Graphics and Image Processing, 2001 Proceedings of XIV Brazilian
Symposium on , 15-18 Oct. 2001
Pages:395
[Abstract] [PDF Full-Text (67 KB)] IEEE CNF
4 Content progressive coding of limited bits/pixel images

Jensen, O.R.; Forchhammer, S.;
Multimedia Signal Processing, 1999 IEEE 3rd Workshop on , 13-15 Sept. 199~
Pages:419 - 424
[Abstract] [PDF Full-Text (409 KB)] IEEE CNF
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/search/searchresult.j sp?SortField=Score&SortOrder=desc&ResultC... 8/10104

Search Results Page 2 of2
JjQmg I J"Q9.:QJJt 1Journals I Conference Proceedings I Standards 1Search by Author 1~asif;J?~llJ.!<.1:! I 8~ty'gng§f;LS.gerytll Join IEEE I Web Account I·
New this week I OPAC Linking Information 1Your Feedback 1Technical Support I Email Alerting I No Robots Please 1Release Notes I IEEE Online
Publications I Help 1E6Q.1 Terms I Back to Top
Copyright © 2004 IEEE - All rights reserved
http://ieeexplore. ieee.orgi search!searchresult.j sp?SortField=Score&SortOrder=desc&ResultC... 8/10104

~ ~- .Results (page 1): image and web and company and logo Page 1 of6
§JIP'§!<Ijp'_~ (Full Service) B~gj§!~r (Limited Service, Free) Login
; PORTAL.
~L
Search: (i) The ACM Digital Library 0 The Guide
US Patent & Trademark Office Ii l11C1 9E! .C1 n(j ""'E!b Clndc()l11panyandl()9°
r E~J~.QR§ck R~P9..rt.9.. ..R.rQRI~m. §?lL~f?.91iQ!l
§l,JrY~y~
Terms used image and web and company and logo Found 15,185 of 140,980
Sort results by I~:I:~~.~~:. lI. • Save results to a Binder Try an· !\.c,tv_a.nC:::§J.JS§C3[c:::b
Try this search in The ACM Guide
Display results l:xpa~gedf?rrn lm I1l Search Tips
[J Open results in a new
window
Results 1 - 20 of 200 Result page: 12 .~. 1: :5. Q ze 9 10 I1§Xt
Best 200 shown Relevance scale 0 \;;j. iii.
1 QQmQ~tlti'lE:LggV:Qn19g~Qnth~VVQrIQVV:iQ~-'l.V~p.:~_W~Qm9~§t~r~.§g1Jjg~ •
Merrill E. Warkentin
October 1995 ACM SIGAPP Applied Computing Review, Volume 3 Issue 2
Full text available: 'Illt<:!f(ZZ9,Q1K6) Additional Information: IlJJLGiteJiQQ. ~bs1mg. jm:l~xJ~Im~
As the importance of the World Wide Web continues to grow, firms are seeking innovative
ways to leverage the technology for competitive advantage. Firms are implementing web-
based systems for internal and external information dissemination and for digital
interactivity, including commerce. This paper highlights some of these uses of the web and
addresses managerial and technical considerations when initiating a web site project, both
on the server side and client side of the web. The focus is on ...
Keywords: digital commerce, internet security, intranet, web design, web server
2 User interface requirements for authentication of communication •

Audun J0sang, Mary Anne Patton
February 2003 Proceedings of the Fourth Australian user interface conference on User
interfaces 2003 - Volume 18
Full text available: III
pdf(375.46 KB) Additional Information: full citation, abstract, references, index terms
Authentication is a security service that consists of verifying that someone's identity is as
claimed. There are a number of challenges to presenting information from the authentication
process to the user in a way that is meaningful and ensures security. We show examples
where authentication requirements are not met, due to user behaviour and properties of
existing user interfaces, and suggest some solutions to these problems.
Keywords: authentication, non-repudiation, security, usability, user interface
3 Applying Tufte's principles of information design to creating effective Web sites

Beverly B. Zimmermann
October 1997 Proceedings of the 15th annual international conference on Computer
docu mentation
Full text available: .~Q.9f(9f~9..§~~_Km Additional Information: flJlLgiJ;:lJiQJl, r~I~mng~§, jmt~xJ~.J.m~
http://portal.acm.org/results.cfm?coll==ACM&dl==ACM&CFID==25397107&CFTOKEN=533... 8/10/04
.Results (page 1): image and web and company and logo Page 2 of6
Keywords: document design, home pages, informationdesign, web page design
4 Developing trust in internet commerce ..

I1demaro Araujo, Ivan Araujo
October 2003 Proceedings of the 2003 conference of the Centre for Advanced Studies
conference on Collaborative research
Full text available: "_QQf(14Q,4~K6} Additional Information: ML<,.itatioD. QQ.$lntGt. f~f?mnyes, !.D..Q.~.~J~[m.~
Since the success of Web-based businesses depends essentially on their customers,
consumers' trust is critical for Internet commerce. This article outlines essential issues that
may affect customers' trust on Web sites or vendors. It also discusses key elements that can
be used to improve the visitors' sense of trustworthiness on Web sites.
5 CEPE 2000: An ethical evaluation of web site linking •

Richard A. Spinello
December 2000 ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, Volume 30 Issue 4
Full text available: 11 pdf(908.05 KB) Additional Information: full citation, abstract. references
As the World Wide Web has grown in popularity, the propriety of linking to other web sites
has achieved some prominence as an important moral and legal issue. Hyperlinks represent
the essence of Web-based activity, since they facilitate navigation in a unique and efficient
fashion. But the pervasive activity of linking has generated notable controversies. While
most sites welcome and support incoming links, others block them or seek to license them
in some way. Particularly problematic are so-ca ...
6 ItlEu)erf~cL~~g[Cb_~_Og_io~j~J1QtJ;lnQJJgh:_Cl__$tl.tqy_QfQrjeot~eILr:lgJ2ehgyiQLjrr<:lj rected ..
search
Jaime Teevan, Christine Alvarado, Mark S. Ackerman, David R. Karger
April2004 Proceedings of the 2004 conference on Human factors in computing
systems
Full text available: IIp.gK?.~.?J~ ...KI2} Additional Information: f!JJ.LcitQtiQ.IJ.. QP$tf1=lC!. mf?ft::lIJ.C?$, iD..Qt::l.~J?fm$
This paper presents a modified diary study that investigated how people performed
personally motivated searches in their email, in their files, and on the Web. Although earlier
studies of directed search focused on keyword search, most of the search behavior we
observed did not involve keyword search. Instead of jumping directly to their information
target using keywords, our participants navigated to their target with small, local steps
using their contextual knowledge as a guide, even when the ...
Keywords: context, information seeking, observational study, orienteering, search,

teleporting
7 Resources section: web sites

Michele Tepper
May 1998 netWorker, Volume 2 Issue 2
Full text available: 11 pdf(35.02 KB) Additional Information: full citation, references, index terms
8 o.e~igOingtWQ.oQnPfQfitYYep~it~Qnle.§$JbCln$:}QQ!,tSp_~Ye.ClLeClCO
Carl Stieren, Zbigniew Rachniowski
October 1996 Proceedings of the 14th annual international conference on Systems
documentation: Marshaling new technological forces: building a
corporate, academic, and user-oriented triangle
http://portal.acm.org/results.cfm?coll=ACM&dl=ACM&CFID=253971 07&CFTOKEN=533... 8/10104

Results (page 1): image and web and company and logo Page 3 of6
Full text available: "III odf(915.29 KB) Additional Information: full citation, references, index terms
9 Model-driven development of Web applications: the AutoWeb system

Piero Fraternali, Paolo Paolini
October 2000 ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), Volume 18 Issue 4
Additional Information: full citation, abstract, references, citings, index
. Full text available: .P'9f(9.,~4.ME.U
terms
This paper describes a methodology for the development of WWWapplications and a tool
environment specifically tailored for the methodology. The methodology and the
development environment are based upon models and techniques already used in the
hypermedia, information systems, and software engineering fields, adapted and blended in
an original mix. The foundation of the proposal is the conceptual design of WWW
applications, using HOM-lite, a notation for the specification of structure, nav ...
Keywords: HTML, WWW, application, development, intranet, modeling

I \
10 Fast multiresolution image querying ..

Charles E. Jacobs, Adam Finkelstein, David H. Salesin
September 1995 Proceedings of the 22nd annual conference on Computer graphics and
interactive techniques
Full text available:11 odf(529.14 KB)
~ os(211.52 KB) Additional Information: fl,lILGitgJiQD, r~f~rf::!nG~$., Giting$.,irtQ!'l.xJ!'l.[r:11$.
Keywords: content-based retrieval, image databases, image indexing, image metrics,

query by content, query by example, similarity retrieval, sketch retrieval, wavelets
11~~GlJJity-jn.mQQH~_~Qmmw}iG91i9J1_$:9_h9JJ~ng~§.9.r.v;LQQQQtllJJ]ili~§ ..
Audun J0sang, Gunnar Sanderud
January 2003 Proceedings of the Australasian information security workshop
conference on ACSW frontiers 2003 - Volume 21
Full text available: .pgf(l1Z,Q4K6) Additionallnformation:fl,lllgJJ§.tiQD, QQ§tmgL r~J~r.!'l.nG!2$., inq~~J~r.m§
The nature of mobile communication, characterised for example by terminals haVing poor
user interface and limited processing capacity, as well as complex combination of network
protocols, makes the design of security solutions particularly challenging. This paper
discusses some of the difficulties system architects are faced with as well as some
advantages mobile networks offer when designing security solutions for mobile
communication.
Keywords: heterogeneous networks, mobile deVices, security, usability
12 !:jG8~t1QY\l;.Q.iGtQIi9L9.lJtbQ[itY$~_9IGh.QyhYQ_~rJjnk§Qnth~\lYEtR
Ronny Lempel, Aya Soffer
April 2001 Proceedings of the tenth international conference on World Wide Web
Full text available: "IIIpqf(93.~.,]Z.Ke.l Additional Information: fI,lILGltg!iQD, [~f~[!:'JJG~§', GiHO.9§, LOQ§xJ1=1[lJ1§
Keywords: hubs and authorities, image hubs, image retrieval, link structure analysis
http://portal.acm.org/results.cfm?coll=ACM&dl=ACM&CFID=25397107&CFTOKEN=533... 8110/04
Results (page I): image and web and company and logo Page 4 of6
13 PicASHOW: pictorial authority search by hyperlinks on the web·

January 2002 ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), Volume 20 Issue 1
FUll text available: 'II pdf(436.32 KB) Additional Information: fJJJLcitgJiQD. 91:>~1m.g, r.~f~Jsm.Qe$..ing!:)Xler.m$..
relLl~w.
We describe PicASHOW, a fully automated WWW image retrieval system that is based on
several link-structure analyzing algorithms. Our basic premise is that a page p displays (or
links to) an image when the author of p considers the image to be of value to the viewers of
the page. We thus extend some well known link-based WWW page retrieval schemes to the
context of image retrieval.PicASHOW's analysis of the link structure enables it to retrieve
relevant images even when those ...
Keywords: Image retrieval, hubs and authorities, image hubs, link structure analysis
14 Blink response, visual attention, and the www: Visual attention to repeated internet
imag~$:Je~tinglI1EL$c:;gnQgthJlleQr:y_9---D_ttl~'v"JQrL(twlcl~~el::>
Sheree Josephson, Michael E. Holmes
March 2002 Proceedings of the symposium on Eye tracking research & applications
FUll text available: 'IIpQfLQ2L3.5Kfll Additional Information: ft,JIL~l@JiQIJ, 9R$.1r.9J:;t, r.~f~JenG.e.$..G.iJilJg$.
The somewhat controversial and often-discussed theory of visual perception, that of

scanpaths, was tested using Web pages as visual stimuli. In 1971, Noton and Stark defined
"scanpaths" as repetitive sequences of fixations and saccades that occur upon re-exposure
to a visual stimulus, facilitating recognition of that stimulus. Since Internet users are
repeatedly exposed to certain visual displays of information, the Web is an ideal stimulus to
test this theory. Eye-movement measures were recorde ...
Keywords: Eye movement, Internet imagery, World Wide Web, eye tracking, optimal
matching analysis, scanpath, sequence comparison, string editing
15f;qiling.QoJineclQC:;\Jrnent$;Ihepe.[$!Jg$iyeQQWeLQfQ?tnQ§.Jo.e:C:;.Qmmerc:;eWep...cl.e.$jgn; . .
a new area for research
Wendy Winn
September 2000 Proceedings of IEEE professional communication society international
professional communication conference and Proceedings of the 18th
annual ACM international conference on Computer documentation:
technology & teamwork
FUll text available:" pdf(298.51 KB) Additional Information: full citation, abstract, references
In a matter of months, we have witnessed the meteoric rise and fall of e-commerce. Now
that the dust is settling, it is time toexamine how some companies are succeeding where
others have failed. In this paper I suggest that good web design is vital to e-business and
that pathos (emotional appeal) plays a key role in a design's persuasive power. Advertisers
have long understood this concept. As e-commerce attempts to revolutionize the business
world, let class rhetoric serve as the theoretical f ...
16 Annotation-based transcoding for nonvisual web access •

Chieko Asakawa, Hironobu Takagi
November 2000 Proceedings of the fourth international ACM conference on Assistive
technologies
FUll text available: 1I.R.Qf(4g.LfJKEll Additional Information: fpILGiJgt!.Qn, r.eJer.enG?$., G.iJi@$., indexJerm$.
http://portal.acm.org/results.cfm?coll=ACM&dl=ACM&CFID=25397107&CFTOKEN=533... 8/10/04
.Results (page 1): image and web and company and logo Page 5 of6
Keywords: blind, commentary annotation, nonvisual web access, structural annotation,

transcoding system
17yv~p~it~f.\!}~ly§t§.:.Q~.§igIJjng
..9.nlinS:LP~nneL~(jv~rti§~m~nt?..:.?.1Jg.~J~:LY..Y~.5mim~t~?.
Michelle E. Bayles
April2002 Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing
systems: Changing our world, changing ourselves
Full text available: 11 pdf(336.77 KB) Additional Information: full citation, abstract, references, citings, index
. terms
A common medium for advertising on the Internet is the use of banner ads. This study
investigates recall and recognition of animated banner advertisements in an attempt to
identify design guidelines. It was hypothesized that animation would increase recall and
recognition of novel ads by increasing user awareness. No significant relationships were
found between the use of animation and ability to recall and recognize banner ads. Results
indicate that animation does not enhance user memory of onl ...
Keywords: animation, banner ads, online advertisements, recall, recognition
18yv~p~nd.e..::-J~],J§jn~§§~ppHG.~tjQn;JJ.§~L~q~pJiY.~G..Qnt~ntd.§Hv§ry.JJJeG..h~ni§mQnJb.e. . .
world wide web
Tadashi Nakano, Kaname Harumoto, Shinji Shimojo, Shojiro Nishio
March 2002 Proceedings of the 2002 ACM symposium on Applied computing
Full text available: 1I.pdf(1.00 MB) Additional Information: full citation, abstract, references, index terms
To reduce the user-perceived latency in web content delivery, many techniques have been
. proposed. One is a transmission time control mechanism that automatically adjusts the
quality of inline objects, such as images on a web page, according to the client network
bandwidth. Another is a transmission order control mechanism that can transmit inline
objects in a specified order preferred by users. In this paper, we describe the development
of a user adaptive content delivery mechanism that integrat ...
Keywords: HTTP extension, WWW, content adaptation, content delivery, quality of service,
transmission order control, transmission time control, user profile
19LQG~1j4~tLQn_Qtwej;LGQntent
Daniel Brandon
December 2001 Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, Volume 17 Issue 2
Full text available: 1IPQf(4§§.,.2.:l.KS1 Additional Information: fuILgit<'lJLQD. r~f~r~n!:?~.l?, inQ~~J!2.lm;'?
20 Timing attacks on Web privacy

Edward W. Felten, Michael A. Schneider
November 2000 Proceedings of the 7th ACM conference on Computer and
communications security
Full text available: 11 pdf(184.79 KB) Additional Information: full citation, references, index terr;'s
Results 1 - 20 of 200 Result page: 1 Z J ~ ~ §. Z §. 2. 10 next
~ . . .Results (page 1): image and web and company and logo Page 60f6
The ACM Portal is published by the Association for Computing Machinery. Copyright © 2004 ACM, Inc.
I~rm§glJ)$.~g"'1 Ertvacy Policy CQge olEthic~ CgntagjJ)§
'Results (page 1): story and web and logo Page 1 of6
~lLb.~G[LQ~ (Full Service) R~9.i§.t.~[ (Limited Service, Free) Login
Search: (€, The ACM Digital Library 0 The Guide
US Patent & Trademark Office lst()ryarl~ \oVeba rl dlo9 0
r f~~dQ".lGK R§QorL~J)roblern $.;'3ti§f~<::Ji911

§'l,J.D.I..~y..
Terms used story and web and logo Found4,812 of 140,980
Sort results by I~~I~~~~~~ .. ]· • Save results to a Binder Try a n 8Q.Y:ill1.(;'~J:L.$~~9.r.t;=.. b.

Try this search in The ACM Guide
Display results expanded form; 11I Search Tips
D Open results in a new
window
Results 1 - 20 of 200 Result page: 1 .2 } <1: .2 P. Z a ~ lQ n~xt

Best 200 shown Relevance scale 0 I;lliiil iii.
1 CQnt~xt.=9.\N.~[~j{V~p.JD.fQn:n~tiQn.Sy~t.e.m§ iii
Aleksander Binemann-Zdanowicz, Roland Kaschek, Klaus-Dieter Schewe, Bernhard Thalheim
January 2004 Proceedings of the first Asian-Pacific conference on Conceptual
modelling - Volume 31
Full text available:" pdf(4.13.81 KB) Additional Information: full citation, abstract, references
Apart from completeness usability, performance and maintainability are the key quality
aspects for Web information systems. Considering usability as key implies taking usage
processes into account right from the beginning of systems development. Context-
awareness appears as ,a promising idea for increasing usability of Web Information Systems.
In the present paper we propose an approach to context-awareness of Web Information
Systems that systematically distinguishes among the various important k ...
Keywords: SiteLang, Web Information Systems, Web services, context-aware information

systems, media objects
26.IO~Qg~.?..Lm~.w'§
. naylg..~lL9.n . . ~.$i0.9 . . ?...tQ..ry_§e.gm~ntq1iolJ. iii
Andrew Merlino, Daryl Morey, Mark Maybury
November 1997 Proceedings of the fifth ACM international conference on Multimedia
Full text available: • .pqf.C1. ..Z2M6J Additional Information: f!.!!L!::lt;;:l,tjoo, L~feI~Oc:;el?, ,c:;W..Ogl?, io..d.e.~...tenI!.~.
3 Designing two nonprofit Web sites on less than $350 US per year each
Carl Stieren, Zbigniew Rachniowski
October 1996 Proceedings of the 14th annual international conference on Systems
documentation: Marshaling new technological forces: building a
corporate, academic, and user-oriented triangle
Full text available: 'lDp9f(~15.Z~!S~} Additional Information: ft.J.Jlgi!il.JigQ, [~.fl:J.re!J ..9._~~, in9l:J.>.<.JE:WI!§
4 Ihe.J~J:::H~ZCt!lkig§prQgr.~. .m:.. ~LR~ . d. ne.r.§.bjpP.e.tw~~r.:LIs..i.q~L~.Q~Jt§ ..~nqJe.cbnQJQgy.

Allison Druin
September 1997 interactions, Volume 4 Issue 5
Full text available: .pqf(!?•.RJ..MJ2J Additional Information: f!JJLl<it<;l.tloo. Gi..t!O.9~, jO"g..l:J.2Ltern:ll?
5 Is a picture worth a thousand words?: an evaluation of information awareness displays . .

Christopher Plaue, Todd Miller, John Stasko
May 2004 Proceedings of the 2004 conference on Graphics interface
Full text available: 11 pdf(1.54 MBl Additional Information: full citation, abstract, references
What makes a peripheral or ambient display more effective at presenting awareness

information than another? Presently, little is known in this regard and techniques for
evaluating these types of displays are just beginning to be developed. In this article, we
focus on one aspect of a peripheral display's effectiveness---its ability to communicate
information at a glance. We conducted an evaluation of the InfoCanvas, a peripheral display
that conveys awareness information graphically as a form of ...
Keywords: ambient display, awareness information, empirical evaluation, information

visualization, peripheral display
6 Qi~GQlJr~~GIJ~§jQI.p.rQ~gG~§Ln~w~§.~gm~nj5:.!tiQn
Mark T. Maybury
August 1998
Full text available: • .pgf(~7.,lJ?I56.) Additional Information: full citation, abstract, references
II
Publisher Site .
This paper describes the design and application of time-enhanced, finite state models of
discourse cues to the automated segmentation of broadcast news, We describe our analysis
of a broadcast news corpus, the design of a discourse cue based story segmentor that builds
upon information extraction techniques, and finally its computational implementation and
evaluation in the Broadcast News Navigator (BNN) to support video news browsing,
retrieval, and summarization.
7 User interface directions for the Web

Jakob Nielsen
January 1999 Communications of the ACM, Volume 42 Issue 1
Full text available: df 421.52 KB
html(35.34 KB)
Additional Information: fYILc;!ti'!Ji9.IJ, r~f~n?r::l\::;~§', gtiD..9§', jlJg~xJ~r::m§., r~vi~w
8 AnaJy?is.Qt§tlJggnt.v.v~.p' ..prQ"",,§ing_bJ:~b.f!vj.QLLmQJi~atiQn~fQu:t~jgnlng~nq._~vg.llJgtjng
Web sites
Eva M. Thury
September 1998 Proceedings of the 16th annual international conference on Computer
docu mentation
Full text available:" pdf(748.42 KBl Additional Information: full citation, references, citings, index terms
9 I~GbKnQwlegg_~:~ffiGj~ntlY ..~mqGQ§t:.~ffgGtjv~JY_§_lJQQQr:Ung_lJ$~r§
Amy Reeter, Todd Krupa
November 2002 Proceedings of the 30th annual ACM SIGUCCS conference on User
services
Full text available: 11 pdf(1.06 MB) Additional Information: full citation, abstract, references, index terms
For more than 20 years, the information technology organization at the University of
Missouri-Columbia (MU) published an on-campus newsletter. Content ranged from cute
tidbits to pages of programming code for hard-core COBOL readers. Information & Access
Technology Services (IAT Services) identified several requirements for a publication focusing
on campus technology developments and increasing awareness of technology opportunities
and applications. The publication sought to be timely, cost-effec ...
Keywords: advertising, communication, editorial, magazine, marketing, news, promotional,

publication
10 At the forge: Bricolage templates

Reuven M. Lerner
March 2004 Linux Journal, Volume 2004 Issue 119
Full text available: ~ htm1(19.43 KB) Additional Information: full citation
)
11 Technical Session: Saving users from themselves: creating an effective student- ..

Qri~nt~q?nt.I::v.inJ§tnt~IY~nJ!Qn
Kevin Davis
October 2001 Proceedings of the 29th annual ACM SIGUCCS conference on User
services
11
Full text available: pdf(270.47 KB) Additional Information: full citation, abstract, index terms
The proliferation of computer viruses, Trojans, and other malicious code in recent years has
presented a serious challenge to higher education computer services support programs.
Outside of higher education, most IT departments mandate anti-virus policies through
central management of end-user systems and software. In an academic environment where
student systems are owned by the users and not institutions, however, such an approach is
not always tenable, and the weaker forces of user education, ...
Keywords: McAfee VirusScan, anti-virus, computer security, intervention, residential

computing support, user services
12 8pplyingTuft~'§PJ:Incipl~~LQLLofQImC3JiQn d~$!9JltQ~r~C3ting_~ff~ctiY~YV~b_~it~§
Beverly B. Zimmermann
docu mentation
Full text available: 1Ip9fm?9,6.9J\J2) Additional Information: f\JJLG.i!9.tiQr::t, [~f§[~nG.~"'§, Lng~xJ~Im§
Keywords: document design, home pages, informationdesign, web page design
13E3liO~fesPQn_~Et_yi§1,lc:lI.J!tt~ntjQn,-am:l.Jb_~_wy.y.\~L:_Vi§1J9.LC3it~ot!QnJQ_r~p~9.t~q.j.nt~In~t . .
images: testing the scanpath theory on the world wide web
Sheree Josephson, Michael E. Holmes
March 2002 Proceedings of the symposium on Eye tracking research &. applications
Full text available:" pdf(621.35 KB) Additional Information: full citation, abstract, references, citings
The somewhat controversial and often-discussed theory of visual perception, that of
scanpaths, was tested using Web pages as visual stimuli. In 1971, Noton and Stark defined
"scanpaths" as repetitive sequences offixations and saccades that occur upon re-exposure
to a visual stimulus, facilitating recognition of that stimulus. Since Internet users are
repeatedly exposed to certain visual displays of information, the Web is an ideal stimulus to
http://portal.acm.org/results.cfm?coll=ACM&dl=ACM&CFID=253971 07&CFTOKEN=533... 8/1 0/04

Results (page I): story and web and logo Page 4 of6
test this theory. Eye-movement measures were recorde ...
Keywords: Eye movement, Internet imagery, World Wide Web, eye tracking, optimal
matching analysis, scanpath, sequence comparison, string editing
14I?LJplj$htlJilQLR[Qgmmmingi:_~.fmm~wQ[!slQLth~_g?Y~lQPm~nt~Oc::LpI~$.~nt~liQ_I}J2f
work by children on the World Wide Web
Judy Keiner
August 1997 ACM SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics, Volume 31 Issue 3
Full text available: 11 pdf(227.50 KB) Additional Information: full citation, index terms
15CQPy[igbtJ9.v.v.mg~t$th~VVQ[Ic::LVVig~jtY~R
Matt Rosenberg
November 1995 Crossroads, Volume 2 Issue 2
Full text available: lilhJmJ(4~L~9KI?J Additional Information: flJJlgitatiQ!l,ir:ldex t.Em:D§
16 VV~p~it~i\n~IY$i$:Q~$ignin.9.Qnlln~.J2~Dn~r..~.c::tY~J:ti$.~m?nt$.:_.$hQLJJg..v.v.~. ~nim~t.??
Michelle E. Bayles
April2002 Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing
systems: Changing our world, changing ourselves
Full text available: 11 pdf(336.77 KB) Additional Information: f!J.ILGiti'!tiQIl, i'!P§.tfi'!Gt. fE:.lfE:.lfE:.lIJG.E:.l§', Gitinfl§, iIlq~~
te.r.m§.
A common medium for advertising on the Internet is the use of banner ads. This study
investigates recall and recognition or'animated banner advertisements in an attempt to
identify design gUidelines. It was hypothesized that animation would increase recall and
recognition of novel ads by increasing user awareness. No significant relationships were
found between the use of animation and ability to recall and recognize banner ads. Results
indicate that animation does not enhance user memory of onl ...
Keywords: animation, banner ads, online advertisements, recall, recognition
17 p'p';.I$$LJ?$Qt.Q.Qnt?nL~Dc:t§JILJG1LJr?fQL~.m.LJJti
Iin9-Ll91v.v.~b site ..
Shihong Huang, Scott Tilley
docu mentation
Full text available: 11
pdf(391.88 KB) Additional Information: full citation, abstract, references, index terms
Most content on the Web today is in English, but the majority of the Earth's peoples speak
languages other than English. To reach a wider audience, future Web sites will have to be
multilingual, changing a Web site from one that is American-centric and single-language to
one that is globally-oriented and multilingual. While the challenges in creating and
maintaining a high-quality Web site in a single language are considerable, working with
multiple languages simultaneously creates special chall ...
Keywords: content management, multilingua, software engineering, structure, web site
18 Di..JXJDJ:)[c:lctiCg. l; Mc:lkJng.c:loJMp.-CicLI?-.ge$Jgn ing_9.J)u sin~_$.$J)choQLyv?p.$It.?.c:I rQ!.Jng ..

Rerformance metrics
http://portal.acm.orglresults.cfm?coll=ACM&dl=ACM&CFID=25397107&CFTOKEN=533... 8/10/04
Tom Brinck, Seunghee S. Ha, Nick Pritula, Kara Lock, Alfred Speredelozzi, Mike Monan
June 2003 Proceedings of the 2003 conference on Designing for user experiences
Full text available: 11 pdf(446.93 KB) Additional Information: full citation, abstract, references
The University of Michigan Business School went through a substantial redesign in 2002--
2003 of their site of over 3,000 pages, with a focus on increased ease of use, clean,
professional design, improved branding, reduction of Web sprawl, and integration of their
public site with their intranet, called 1 iMpact.! The site serves a range of users with varying
needs, including faculty, students, staff, alumni, prospective students, media, and
recruiters.Our redesign process was ground ...
Keywords: brand building, experience strategy, graphic design, information architecture,

interaction design, intra net design, multidisciplinary design/interdisciplinary design,
performance metrics, user experience, user interface design, user research, user-centered
design/human-centered design, visual design, web site design.
19EQQ!,I$ingOOJI$~I:JO:PfQ9~tQtI~J~liQn$hip$:Gl[I$~.$$R~~_~.g~rneq~$ign~r$;_~.'.51[~m~ iiiII
baseline research
Carrie Heeter, Brian Winn, Rhonda Egidio, Punya Mishra, Norm Lownds
June 2003 Proceedings of the 2003 conference on Designing for user experiences
Full text available:" pdf(131.12 KB) Additional Information: full citation, abstract, references
This NSF-funded two-year research project explores gender and age differences in attitudes
toward technology, space exploration, game design, and learning from games. In addition to
rigorously testing the proposition that all-girl design teams will envision substantively
different education game experiences than all-boy design teams, this project will prOVide
extremely elaborate baseline research to inform future design of highly entertaining learning
games.By June 2003, we will have spent five ...
Keywords: age differences, cognitive psychology, ethnography/ethnographic studies,

experience design, experience interaction design, game design, gender differences, learning,
participatory design, user experience, user interface design, user research, user-centered
design/human-centered design
20InfQ[m~liQnB~triev~J:.lmQroYLng_Q$§lJqQ:LeleY~nQ~fe§gbaQl<jn_""eQ.infQXIDC3JioD
retrieval using web page segmentation
Shipeng Yu, Deng Cai, Ji-Rong Wen, Wei-Ying Ma
May 2003 Proceedings of the twelfth international conference on World Wide Web
Full text available: 1Ipgf(2Z!?,$iLKl?i Additional Information: :ation, abstract, references, citings, index
In contrast to traditional document retrieval, a web page as a whole is not a good

information unit to search because it often contains multiple topics and a lot of irrelevant
information from navigation, decoration, and interaction part of the page. In this paper, we
propose a VIsion-based Page Segmentation (VIPS) algorithm to detect the semantic content
structure in a web page. Compared with simple DOM based segmentation method, our page
segmentation scheme utilizes useful visual cues to obtai ...
Keywords: page segmentation, query expansion, relevance feedback, web information

retrieval
Results 1 - 20 of 200 Result page: 12 ~. 4. ~ (i Z Ii ~ ..LQ ne.~1
http://portal.acm.org/results.cfm?coll=ACM&dl=ACM&CFID=25397107&CFTOKEN=533... 8110/04
· . ' 'Results (page 1): story and web and logo Page 60f6
The ACM Portal is published by the Association for Computing Machinery. Copyright © 2004 ACM, Inc.
Terms of Usage Privacy Policy Code of Ethics Contact Us
Useful downloads: 'II Adobe Acrobat Cl QuickTime . . Windows Media Player 1& Real Player
http://portal.acm.org/results.cfm?coll=ACM&dl=ACM&CFID=253971 07&CFTOKEN=533 ... 8/1 0/04

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OffiCE
• COMMI ~OR PATENTS
w.5HINClON. D.C. 20231
fILE COpy
WWW.USplO.gCN
ImUll m Iml ~IIIIIIUO ~llm~ 1I11~~ ~I~ DOIml CONFIRMATION NO. 9916
Bib Data Sheet
FILING DATE ATTORNEY

SERIAL NUMBER CLASS GROUP ART UNIT
04/30/2001 DOCKET NO.
09/843,923 709 2152
RULE 0026-0002
14 PPUC.4 NTS
1** CONTINUING DATA *************************

THIS APPLN CLAIMS BENEFIT OF 60/200,957 05/01/2000
1** FOREIGN APPLICATIONS ********************
IF REQUIRED, FOREIGN FILING LICENSE GRANTED

** 06/21/2001
Foreign Priority claimed I:J yes I:J no STATE OR SHEETS TOTAL INDEPENDENT
35 USC 119 (a-d) conditions
met
I:J yes I:J no I:J Met after COUNTRY DRAWING CLAIMS CLAIMS
Allowance
Verified and CA 10 27 8
Acknowledged Examiner's Signature Initials

Suite 300
Fairfax ,VA 22030
TITLE
II:J All Fees I

II:J 1.16 Fees (Filing) I
FILING FEE FEES: Authority has been given in Paper I:J 1.17 Fees ( Processing Ext. of
RECEIVED No. to charge/credit DEPOSIT ACCOUNT time)
1236 No. for following:
10 1.18 Fees (Issue)
I
II:J Other I
II:J Credit I
Patent
SergeyBRIN
)
) Group Art Unit: Unknown
RECEIVED
)
Application No.: 09/843,923 ) Examiner: Unknown AUG 3 0 2001
)
Filed: April 30, 2001 ) TechnOlogy Center 2100
)
For: SYSTEMS AND METHODS ) OFFICE OF INITIAL PATENT EXAMINATION
FOR ENTICING USERS TO )
ACCESS A WEB SITE )
REOUEST FOR OFFICIAL FILING RECEIPT
Commissioner for Patents and Trademarks

Washington, D.C. 20231
Sir:
In reviewing our files, we find that we have not received an Official Filing Receipt for the above-identified
application. A copy of the official receipt card stamped by the Patent Office is attached.
It is respectfully requested that the Commissioner furnish an Official Filing Receipt for this application.
11111111111111111111111111111111111 HARRITY & SNYDER, L.L.P.
26615
By't~Q~~Paul A. Harrily
Reg. No. 39,574

Suite 300
Fallfax, Vrrginia22030
(571) 432-0800
Date: August 21, 2001

RECEIVED
AUG 3 0 2001
Technology Center 2100
Inveritor(s): Sergey BRIN' Appln. No.: Unassigned
Docket No.: 0026-0002 Working Any: PAH Date: April 30, 200 I
Title:· SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ENTICING USERS TO ACCESS A WEB SITE
The following was/were received in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on the date stamped hereon:
I8l Utility Patent Application I8l Executed DeclarationIPower of Attorney I8l Check for $ 1.236,00 is enclosed
o Design Patent o Unexecuted Declarati'onIPower of Attorney I8l Check for $ 40.00 is enclosed
o Continuing Prosecution App. Reg. I8l Request for Non-Publication of Application
o Provisional Application Cover Sheet I8l Assignment/Assignment Recordation (PTO-1595)
o Provisional Application o Claim for Convention Priority w/# cefl. copYOes)
o ContinuationlDivisional App. (Rule) o Preliminary Amendment
1.53(b» with copy of application o lnforma'tion Disclosure Statement Transmittal
I8l Information Disclosure Statement w/2 reference(s)
APPLICATION INCLUDING: I8l Information Disclosure Citation (PTO-1449)
I8l specification (23 pages) o Petition for # Month Extension of Time
I8l claims (27 claims) o Constructive Petition for Extension of Time 11111111111111111111111111111111111-
I8l drawings (Fig(s). 1-10, 10 sheet(s» 26615

l'I'..U!lll I JJo.IJ!l4I-.J.KCJ1IllIC I!
.'
Patent
UTILITY PATENT
APPLICATION TRANSMITTAL LETTER
Box PATENT APPLICATION

Sir:
Enclosed for filing is the utility patent application of Sergey BRIN for SYSTEMS AND
METHODS FOR ENTICING USERS TO ACCESS A WEB SITE.
Also enclosed are:
[g] 10 sheet(s) of [g] formal 0 informal drawing(s);
o claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. §§ 119 and/or 365 is 0 hereby made to
'"".
_ filed in _ on_;
o in the declaration;
o a certified copy of the priority document;
o a General Authorization for Petitions for Extensions of Time and Payment of Fees;
o applicant(s) is/are entitled to Small Entity Status;
~an Assignment document and Assignment Recordation Cover Sheet;
1ZI an Information Disclosure Statement and PTO-1449; and 2 references.
l:8J Other: Request for Non-Publication;
1ZI An 1ZI executed 0 unexecuted declaration of the inventor(s)
1ZI also is enclosed 0 will follow.

o Please amend the specification by inserting before the first line the sentence -- This
application claims priority under 35 U.S.C. §§ 119 and/or 365 to _filed in _on _; the entire
content of which is hereby incorporated by reference.--
o A bibliographic data entry sheet is enclosed.

Utility Patent Application Transmittal Letter
Page 2
lZI The filing fee has been calculated as follows 0 and in accordance with the enclosed
preliminary amendment:
CLAIMS
No. of Extra Rate Fee

Claims Claims
Basic Application Fee $710.00
t;} Total Claims 27 Minus 20 = 7 x $18.00 = $126.00
;~3 Ind. Claims 8 Minus 3 = 5 x $ 80.00 = $400.00

,~
:~~
Ifmultiple dependent claims are presented, add $270.00
Total Application Fee $1,236.00
If Small entity status is claimed, subtract 50% of Total Application Fee

,
Add Assignment Recording Fee if Assignment document is enclosed $40.00
TOTAL APPLICATION FEE DUE $1,276.00
o This application is being filed without a filing fee. Issuance of a Notice to File Missing Parts
of Application is respectfully requested.
[gj A check in the amount of $1,236.00 (application filing fee and claims fees) is enclosed for
the fee due.
lZI A check in the amount of $ 40.00 (Assignment Recordation fee) is enclosed for the
fee due.
o Charge $_ to Deposit Account No. 50-1070 for the fee due.

Page 3
~ The Commissioner is hereby authorized to charge any appropriate fees under 37 C.F.R. §§
1.16, 1.17, and 1.21 that may be required by this paper, and to credit any overpayment, to
Deposit Account No. 50-1070. This paper is submitted in duplicate.
1111111111111111111111111111111111\
26615
BY:BO~~ Paul A. Harrity

Reg. No. 39,574
Suite 300
(571) 432-0800

Patent
)
SergeyBRIN ) Group Art Unit: Unassigned
)
Application No.: Unassigned ) Examiner: Unassigned
)
)
For: SYSTEMS AND METHODS )
ACCESS A WEB SITE )
REQUEST FOR NON-PUBLICATION OF APPLICATION AND

CERTIFICATION UNDER 35 U.S.C. &122 (b)(2)(B)(i)
Commissioner of Patent and Trademarks

Washington, D. C. 20231
Sir:
As an authorized agent of the above-identified applicant(s), the undersigned attorney
hereby certifies that the invention disclosed in the attached application has not and will not be the
subject of an application filed in another country, or under a multilateral agreement, that requires
publication at eighteen months after filing. I hereby request that the attached application not be
published under 35 U.S.c. §122(b).
I further understand that this non-publication request may be rescinded at any time and if
so, the application will be scheduled for publication at eighteen months from the earliest claimed
filing date for which a benefit is claimed.

Request for Non-Publication of Application
Application Serial No. Unassigned
Page 2
I further understand that if applicant(s) subsequently file(s) an application directed to the
invention disclosed in the attached application in another country, or under a multilateral
international agreement, that requires publication of applications eighteen months after filing, the
United States Patent and Trademark Office must be notified of such filing within forty-five (45)
days after the date of the filing of such foreign or international application. I also understand that
failure by applicant(s) to so notify the Patent and Trademark Office will result in abandonment
of this application.
1111\\1111111 \\11 11111 1111111\\I1II HARRITY & SNYDER, L.L.P.

26615
By:BQ~~ Paul A. Harrity

Reg. No. 39,574
Suite 300
(571) 432-0800

.'
Patent
UTILITY PATENT
APPLICATION TRANSMITTAL LETTER
Box PATENT APPLICATION

Sir:
Enclosed for filing is the utility patent application of Sergey BRIN for SYSTEMS AND
METHODS FOR ENTICING USERS TO ACCESS A WEB SITE.
Also enclosed are:
[g] 10 sheet(s) of [g] formal 0 informal drawing(s);
o claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. §§ 119 and/or 365 is 0 hereby made to
'"".
_ filed in _ on_;
o in the declaration;
o a certified copy of the priority document;
o a General Authorization for Petitions for Extensions of Time and Payment of Fees;
o applicant(s) is/are entitled to Small Entity Status;
~an Assignment document and Assignment Recordation Cover Sheet;
1ZI an Information Disclosure Statement and PTO-1449; and 2 references.
l:8J Other: Request for Non-Publication;
1ZI An 1ZI executed 0 unexecuted declaration of the inventor(s)
1ZI also is enclosed 0 will follow.

o Please amend the specification by inserting before the first line the sentence -- This
application claims priority under 35 U.S.C. §§ 119 and/or 365 to _filed in _on _; the entire
content of which is hereby incorporated by reference.--
o A bibliographic data entry sheet is enclosed.

Page 2
lZI The filing fee has been calculated as follows 0 and in accordance with the enclosed
preliminary amendment:
CLAIMS
No. of Extra Rate Fee

Claims Claims
Basic Application Fee $710.00
t;} Total Claims 27 Minus 20 = 7 x $18.00 = $126.00
;~3 Ind. Claims 8 Minus 3 = 5 x $ 80.00 = $400.00

,~
:~~
Ifmultiple dependent claims are presented, add $270.00
Total Application Fee $1,236.00
If Small entity status is claimed, subtract 50% of Total Application Fee

,
Add Assignment Recording Fee if Assignment document is enclosed $40.00
TOTAL APPLICATION FEE DUE $1,276.00
o This application is being filed without a filing fee. Issuance of a Notice to File Missing Parts
of Application is respectfully requested.
[gj A check in the amount of $1,236.00 (application filing fee and claims fees) is enclosed for
the fee due.
lZI A check in the amount of $ 40.00 (Assignment Recordation fee) is enclosed for the
fee due.
o Charge $_ to Deposit Account No. 50-1070 for the fee due.

Page 3
~ The Commissioner is hereby authorized to charge any appropriate fees under 37 C.F.R. §§
1.16, 1.17, and 1.21 that may be required by this paper, and to credit any overpayment, to
Deposit Account No. 50-1070. This paper is submitted in duplicate.
1111111111111111111111111111111111\
26615
BY:BO~~ Paul A. Harrity

Reg. No. 39,574
Suite 300
(571) 432-0800

Patent
)
SergeyBRIN ) Group Art Unit: Unassigned
)
)
)
For: SYSTEMS AND METHODS )
ACCESS A WEB SITE )
REQUEST FOR NON-PUBLICATION OF APPLICATION AND

CERTIFICATION UNDER 35 U.S.C. &122 (b)(2)(B)(i)

Washington, D. C. 20231
Sir:
As an authorized agent of the above-identified applicant(s), the undersigned attorney
hereby certifies that the invention disclosed in the attached application has not and will not be the
subject of an application filed in another country, or under a multilateral agreement, that requires
publication at eighteen months after filing. I hereby request that the attached application not be
published under 35 U.S.c. §122(b).
I further understand that this non-publication request may be rescinded at any time and if
so, the application will be scheduled for publication at eighteen months from the earliest claimed
filing date for which a benefit is claimed.

Request for Non-Publication of Application
Page 2
I further understand that if applicant(s) subsequently file(s) an application directed to the
invention disclosed in the attached application in another country, or under a multilateral
international agreement, that requires publication of applications eighteen months after filing, the
United States Patent and Trademark Office must be notified of such filing within forty-five (45)
days after the date of the filing of such foreign or international application. I also understand that
failure by applicant(s) to so notify the Patent and Trademark Office will result in abandonment
of this application.
1111\\1111111 \\11 11111 1111111\\I1II HARRITY & SNYDER, L.L.P.

26615
By:BQ~~ Paul A. Harrity

Reg. No. 39,574
Suite 300
(571) 432-0800

UNITED STATES PATENT APPLICATION
OF
SergeyBRIN
FOR
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR

ENTICING USERS TO ACCESS A WEB SITE
[0001) SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ENTICING USERS TO ACCESS A WEB SITE
[0002) RELATED APPLICATION
[0003) This application claims priority under 35 U.S.c. § 119(e) based on U.S. Provisional
Application Serial No. 60/200,957, filed May 1,2000, the disclosure of which is incorporated
herein by reference.
[0004) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
[0005) Field of the Invention
[0006) The present invention relates generally to client-server networks and, more particularly,
to systems and methods that provide mechanisms for attracting users to a site on a network.
[0007) Description of Related Art
[0008] Today, many operators of web sites on the Internet use animated images, such as
animated Graphic Interchange Format (GIF) images, in web pages to make the web pages more
dynamic and visually appealing to users. The philosophy is that if the web pages are visually
appealing, then the users will visit the web site often.
[0009) There are disadvantages, however, to using animated images. For example, if a user
visits a site regularly, the user quickly begins to ignore the animated images. In other words,
although animated images can make web pages more appealing to users initially, they typically
do not entice the users to return to the web page.
1
[0010] With many web sites, it would be desirable to have users access the web site frequently.
Online businesses, for example, would benefit from having users (i.e., customers) return to their
web site on a regular basis. Additionally, web sites that display advertisements can obtain more
revenue from their advertisers if users regularly visit the web sites.
[0011] As a result, there exists a need for mechanisms that entice users to return to a web site
on a regular basis.
[0012] SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
[0013] Systems and methods consistent with the present invention address this and other needs
through the use of an animated story line or a modified/customized company logo (" special event
logo") displayed on a web page. The story line may change periodically (e.g., hourly, daily, or
weekly) to entice users to repeatedly access the web page to view the next episode in the
changing story line. The special event logo may be provided for special occasions, such as
holidays and other special events. The special event logo may be selectable by a user and lead to
a page of search results related to the holiday or special event.
[0014] In accordance with the purpose of the invention as embodied and broadly described
herein, a computer-readable medium stores instructions executable by one or more processors to
perform a method for attracting users to a web page. The computer-readable medium includes
instructions for uploading an initial object in a story line to the web page and instructions for
2
periodically uploading successive objects, following the initial object, to the web page according
to the story line.
[0015] In another implementation consistent with the present invention, a server includes a
memory that is configured to store instructions and a processor. The processor is configured to
execute the instructions to upload an initial object in a story line to a site on a network and
periodically upload successive objects, following the initial object, to the site according to the
story line to entice users to return to the site.
[0016] In yet another implementation consistent with the present invention, a method for
attracting users to a site on a network includes receiving a plurality of images that tell a story
according to a story line and successively displaying the images on the site according to the story
line.
[0017] In another implementation consistent with the present invention, a method for enticing
users to return to a web page includes receiving a plurality of objects that tell a story according to
a story line; providing a first one of the objects on the web page for a predetermined amount of
time; and providing next ones of the objects on the web page, each for the predetermined amount
oftime after the first one ofthe objects.
[0018] In a further implementation consistent with the present invention, a method for enticing
users to access a web page includes modifying a standard company logo to create a special event
logo; associating one or more search terms with the special event logo; uploading the special
3
event logo to the web page; receiving a user selection of the special event logo; and providing
search results relating to the special event logo.
[0019] In another implementation consistent with the present invention, a computer-readable
medium stores instructions executable by one or more processors to perform a method for
attracting users to a web page. The computer-readable medium includes instructions for creating
a special event logo by modifying a standard company logo; instructions for associating at least
one of a link and 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.
[0020] In yet another implementation consistent with the present invention, a server, connected
to a network, includes 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
[0021] BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0022] The accompanying drawings, which are incorporated in and constitute a part ofthis
specification, illustrate an embodiment of the invention and, together with the description,
explain the invention. In the drawings,
4
[0023] Fig. 1 is a diagram of an exemplary network in which systems and methods consistent
with the present invention may be implemented;
[0024] Fig. 2 is an exemplary diagram of a server of Fig. 1 in an implementation consistent
with the present invention;
[0025] Fig. 3 is a diagram of an exemplary web page for a changing story line according to an
implementation consistent with the present invention;
[0026] Fig. 4 is an exemplary diagram of a changing story line according to an implementation
consistent with the present invention;
[0027] Fig. 5 is an exemplary diagram of another changing story line according to an
[0028] Fig. 6 is a flowchart of processing for enticing users to return to a web page using a
changing story line in accordance with an implementation consistent with the present invention;
[0029] Fig. 7 is a diagram of an exemplary web page for a special event logo according to an
[0030] Fig. 8 is an exemplary diagram of search results that may be provided in response to
selection of the special event logo of Fig. 7 according to an implementation consistent with the
present invention;
[0031] Fig. 9 is a diagram of examples of special event logos according to implementations
consistent with the present invention; and
5
[0032] Fig. lOis a flowchart of processing for enticing users to return to a web page using a
special event logo in accordance with an implementation consistent with the present invention.
[0033] DETAILED DESCRIPTION
[0034] The following detailed description of the invention refers to the accompanying
drawings. The same reference numbers in different drawings identify the same or similar
elements. Also, the following detailed description does not limit the invention. Instead, the
scope of the invention is defined by the appended claims and equivalents.
[0035] Systems and methods consistent with the present invention entice users to return to a
web page by providing a changing animated story line and/or a special event logo on the web
page.
[0036] EXEMPLARY NETWORK
[0037] Fig. 1 is an exemplary diagram of a network 100 in which systems and methods
consistent with the present invention may be implemented. The network 100 may include
multiple clients 110 connected to multiple servers 120 via a network 130. The network 130 may
include a local area network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN), a telephone network, such as
the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN), an intranet, the Internet, a similar or dissimilar
network, or a combination ofnetworks. Four clients 110 and three servers 120 have been
illustrated as connected to network 130 in Fig. 1 for simplicity. In practice, there may be more or
less clients 110 and servers 120.
6
[0038] The clients 110 may include devices, such as wireless telephones, personal computers,
personal digital assistants (PDAs), lap tops, etc., threads or processes running on these devices,
and/or objects executable by these devices. The servers 120 may include server devices, threads,
and/or objects that operate or maintain web sites in a manner consistent with the present
invention. The clients 110 and servers 120 may connect to the network 130 via wired, wireless,
or optical connections.
[0039] Fig. 2 is an exemplary diagram of a server 120 in an implementation consistent with the
present invention. The server 120 may include a bus 210, a processor 220, a main memory 230,
a read only memory (ROM) 240, a storage device 250, one or more input devices 260, one or
more output devices 270, and a communication interface 280. The bus 210 may include one or
more conductors that permit communication among the components of the server 120.
[0040] The processor 220 may include any type of conventional processor or microprocessor
that interprets and executes instructions. The main memory 230 may include a random access
memory (RAM) or another dynamic storage device that stores information and instructions for
execution by the processor 220. The ROM 240 may include a conventional ROM device or
another type of static storage device that stores static information and instructions for use by the
processor 220. The storage device 250 may include a magnetic and/or optical recording medium
and its corresponding drive.
[0041] The input devices 260 may include one or more conventional mechanisms that permit
an operator to input information to the server 120, such as a keyboard, a mouse, a pen, voice
7
recognition and/or biometric mechanisms, etc. The output devices 270 may include one or more
conventional mechanisms that output information to the operator, including a display, a printer, a
speaker, etc. The communication interface 280 may include any transceiver-like mechanism that
enables the server 120 to communicate with other devices and/or systems. For example, the
communication interface 280 may include mechanisms for communicating with another device
or system via a network, such as network 130.
[0042] As will be described in detail below, a server 120, consistent with the present invention,
provides an animated story line and/or a special event logo on a web page to entice users to
return to the web site on a regular basis. The server 120 may perform this task in response to
processor 220 executing software instructions contained in a computer-readable medium, such as
memory 230. A computer-readable medium may be defined as one or more memory devices
and/or carrier waves.
[0043] The software instructions may be read into memory 230 from another computer-
readable medium, such as the data storage device 250, or from another device via the
communication interface 280. The software instructions contained in memory 230 causes
processor 220 to perform processes that will be described later. Alternatively, hardwired
circuitry may be used in place of or in combination with software instructions to implement
processes consistent with the present invention. Thus, the present invention is not limited to any
specific combination of hardware circuitry and software.
8
[0044] EXEMPLARY WEB PAGE FOR ANIMATED STORY LINE
[0045] Fig. 3 is a diagram of an exemplary web page 300 maintained by a server 120 according
to an implementation consistent with the present invention. The web page 300 may include a
company logo 310 and one or more animated objects 320. The animated objects 320 may
include images, video, and/or audio information and may be strategically located on the web
page 300 to draw users' attention to one or more portions of the web page 300, such as the
company's name or an advertiser's display.
[0046] According to implementations consistent with the present invention, the server 120 may
update the animated objects 320 periodically, such as hourly, daily, weekly, etc., according to an
animated story line. For example, the server 120 may periodically upload a new animated object
to the web site 300.
[0047] Fig. 4 is a diagram of an exemplary story line 400 according to an implementation
consistent with the present invention. In this example, the story line 400 involves aliens that
steal a company's logo and includes five animated images 410-450. The animated image 410
represents the beginning of the story and shows an alien spacecraft approaching the company
logo. The animated image 420 shows the alien spacecraft landing on the company logo and an
alien inspecting the logo. The animated image 430 shows the aliens leaving their spacecraft to
further inspect the company logo. The animated image 440 shows the aliens hauling away the
company logo with their spacecraft. Finally, the animated image 450 shows the company logo
after being deposited on another world by the aliens.
9
[0048] Fig. 5 is a diagram of another exemplary story line 500 according to an implementation
consistent with the present invention. In this example, the story line 500 involves the founding
fathers celebrating the Fourth of July and includes four animated images 510-540. The animated
image 510 represents the beginning of the story and shows the founding fathers executing the
Declaration of Independence. The animated image 520 shows the founding fathers celebrating
the execution of the Declaration of Independence with a cook-out. The animated image 530
shows the founding fathers watching fireworks that have the effect of removing the color from a
company's logo. Finally, the animated image 540 shows one of the founding fathers repainting
the company logo.
[0049] EXEMPLARY PROCESSING FOR ANIMATED STORY LINE
[0050] Fig. 6 is a flowchart of processing for enticing users to return to a web page using a
changing story line according to an implementation consistent with the present invention.
Processing may begin with the generation of animated objects for a story line [act 610]. The
animated objects may be generated using conventional techniques and software and stored as a
single object file or as multiple object files on the server 120 (Fig. 1). The object file(s) may be
downloaded to the server 120 at one time or over a period of time using, for example, a
computer-readable medium, such as a removable memory or a network transmission.
[0051] When at least the first animated object in the story line is completed, the first animated
object may be uploaded to the web page [act 620]. The first animated object may then be
viewable or accessible on the web page via a network, such as network 130. Then after a
10
predetermined or random amount of time, such as an hour, day, week, etc., the next animated
object in the story line may be uploaded to the web page [act 630]. If there are more animated
objects to be loaded [act 640], these objects may be uploaded to the web page after each passing
of the predetermined or random amount of time [act 630]. lfno more animated objects remain
[act 640], it may be determined whether another story line is to be presented [act 650]. If another
story line is to be presented, then processing may continue at act 610 with the generation of the
animated objects for that story line. If no other story line is to be presented, processing may end.
[0052] The foregoing processing may be performed automatically by the server 120 or one or
more devices connected directly or indirectly (i.e., via a network) to the server 120.
Alternatively, some of the acts may be performed by one or more human operators.
[0053] Also, while systems and methods have been described for presenting animated objects
of a story, other types of information may be presented to entice users to return to a web page.
For example, video data, audio data, and/or a series of pictures may be used. It has also been
described that a single animated object may be uploaded to the web page periodically and
presented (e.g., displayed) for a predetermined or random amount of time. Alternatively, a series
of animated objects may be uploaded and presented at the same time to form a sort of cartoon
that tells a story.
[0054] EXEMPLARY WEB PAGE FOR SPECIAL EVENT LOGO
[0055] Fig. 7 is a diagram of an exemplary web page 700 maintained by a server 120 according
to an implementation consistent with the present invention. The web page 700 may include a
11
special event logo 710. The special event logo 710 may include a standard company logo 720
modified or customized with one or more animated objects 730. The animated objects 730 may
include images, video, and/or audio information and may be strategically located next to or
integrated with the logo 720 to draw users' attention to the company's name or, perhaps, an
advertiser's display.
[0056] According to implementations consistent with the present invention, the server 120 may
provide the special event logo 710 for holidays and other special events. For example, the
special event logo 710 shown in Fig. 7 relates to Valentine's Day.
[0057] The server 120 may also provide one or more search terms, one or more links to a
document, or search results relating to the special event logo 710. Therefore, when a user selects
(e.g., clicks on) the special event logo 710, the server 120 may provide a page of a document,
such as a web site, or search results relating to the holiday or special event for which the special
event logo 710 was provided. In the example shown in Fig. 7, selection ofthe special event logo
710 may lead to a page containing search results relating to Valentine's Day.
[0058] Fig. 8 is an exemplary diagram of search results that may be provided in response to
selection of the special event logo 710 according to an implementation consistent with the
present invention. As shown, the search results contain links to one or more documents relating
to Valentine's Day.
[0059] Fig. 9 is a diagram of examples 910-950 of special event logos according to
implementations consistent with the present invention. In the example 910, a company logo is
12
modified with a leprechaun's pot of gold for Saint Patrick's Day. In the example 920, a company
logo- is modified with animated characters celebrating New Year's Day. In the example 930, a
company logo is modified with a turkey for Thanksgiving. In the example 940, a company logo
is modified with a voter's button for Election Day. Finally, in the example 950, a company logo
is modified with an animated character for the Olympics.
[0060] EXEMPLARY PROCESSING FOR SPECIAL EVENT LOGO
[0061] Fig. lOis a flowchart of processing for enticing users to return to a web page using a
special event logo according to an implementation consistent with the present invention.
Processing may begin with the generation of a modified or customized company logo [act 1010].
A standard company logo on a web site, for example, may be modified or customized with one or
more animated objects for a special occasion, such as a holiday or special event. The animated
object(s) may be separate from the company logo or may be integrated therewith. The special
event logo may be generated using conventional techniques and software and stored as a single
object file or as multiple object files on the server 120 (Fig. 1). The object fi1e(s) may be
downloaded to the server 120 at one time or over a period oftime using, for example, a
computer-readable medium, such as a removable memory or a network transmission.
[0062] To generate a modified or customized logo, the server 120 may identify a home page
for a document, such as a web site, on a network, such as the Internet. The server 120 may then
locate the standard logo used on the home page to identify the operator of the web site. The
server 120 may modify the standard logo with one or more animated objects.
13
[0063] The server 120 may associate one or more search terms with the special event logo [act
1020]. For Valentine's Day, for example, the search terms of "valentine's day" may be associated
with the special event logo. In an alternative implementation consistent with the present
invention, the server 120 may associate a document, such as a web page, or search results with
the special event logo.
[0064] The server 120 may upload the special event logo to the web page [act 1030]. For
example, the server 120 may upload the special event logo when the special occasion
corresponding to the special event logo occurs. The server 120 may leave the special event logo
on the web page for one or more days corresponding to the special occasion or may periodically
change the special event logo during the one or more days of the special occasion.
[0065] At some point, a user may select the special event logo by, for example, clicking on the
logo using an input device, such as a mouse [act 1040]. Ifuser selection occurs, the server 120
may use the associated search term(s) to generate a search query. The server 120 may use the
search query to search an index, a directory, or a network, such as the Internet. The server 120
may then provide search results relating to the special event logo to the user [act 1050].
[0066] In an alternative implementation, the server 120 uses the document or search results
previously associated with the special event logo as the search results relating to the special event
logo. In this case, the server 120 may simply retrieve the document or search results from
memory.
14
[0067] The foregoing processiIig may be performed automatically by the server 120 or one or
more devices connected directly or indirectly (i.e., via a network) to the server 120.
Alternatively, some of the acts may be performed by one or more human operators.
[0068] Also, while systems and methods have been described for using one or more animated
objects to modify or customize a company logo, other types of information may be used to entice
users to return to a web page. For example, video and/or audio data may be used.
[0069] CONCLUSION
[0070] Systems and methods consistent with the present invention provide mechanisms to
entice users to return to a web page by presenting animated objects that change in time to tell a
story and/or a company logo modified or customized for a special occasion. In this manner,
users are encouraged to access the web page to view the story and/or the special event logo.
[0071] The foregoing description of preferred embodiments of the present invention provides
illustration and description, but is not intended to be exhaustive or to limit the invention to the
precise form disclosed. Modifications and variations are possible in light of the above teachings
or may be acquired from practice of the invention. For example, while series of acts have been
described with regard to Figs. 6 and 10, the order of the acts may be modified in other
implementations consistent with the present invention.
[0072] The scope of the invention is defined by the claims and their equivalents.
15
WHAT IS CLAIMED IS
uploading a first image in a story line to the web page; and
periodically uploading successive images, following the first image, to the web page
according to the story line.
generating a plurality of images that tell a story according to the story line, the images
including the first image and the successive images; and
storing the images on a server associated with the web page.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the first image and the successive images include
animated images.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein each of the first image and the successive images
includes a series of animated images.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the uploading includes:
presenting the first image for viewing over a network; and
wherein the periodically uploading includes:
16
presenting the successive images for viewing over the network.
6. The method of claim 5, wherein the presenting the first image includes:
displaying the first image on the web page; and
wherein the presenting the successive images includes:
displaying the successive images on the web page.
7. The method of claim 6, wherein the first image and the successive images are
displayed near or with at least one of a company's logo and an advertisement.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the periodically uploading includes:
uploading the successive images after each predetermined period of time.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the periodically uploading includes:
uploading the successive images after random periods of time.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the first image and the successive images include
video images.
11. A system for attracting users to a web page, comprising:
17
means for uploading a first image in a story line to the web page; and
means for periodically uploading successive images, following the first image, to the web
page according to the story line.
processors to perform a method for attracting users to a web page, comprising:
instructions for uploading an initial object in a story line to the web page; and
instructions for periodically uploading successive objects, following the initial object, to
the web page according to the story line.
13. The computer-readable medium of claim 12, wherein the initial and successive
objects include at least one of animated images, video images, and audio information.
14. A server, comprising:
upload an initial object in a story line to a site on a network, and
periodically upload successive objects, following the initial object, to the site
according to the story line to entice users to return to the site.
18
15. A method for attracting users to a site on a network, comprising:
receiving a plurality of images that tell a story according to a story line; and
successively displaying the images on the site according to the story line.
16. The method of claim 15, wherein the successively displaying includes:
displaying a first one of the images on the site for a predetermined amount of
time, and
displaying next ones of the images on the site after each predetermined amount of
time.
17. The method of claim 15, wherein the successively displaying includes:
displaying a first one of the images on the site for a first amount of time, and
displaying next ones of the images on the site for random amounts of time after
the first amount of time.
19
includes:
animated images.
includes:
of video and audio data.
21. The method of claim 18, wherein the special event includes a holiday.
22. The method of claim 18, wherein the associating one or more search terms
includes:
23. The method of claim 18, wherein the uploading the special event logo includes:
20
24. The method of claim 18, wherein the providing search results includes:
using the search query to search at least one of a network, an index, and a directory, and
includes:
modifying the standard company logo with special event infonnation to create the special
event logo.
processors to perfonn a method for attracting users to a web page, comprising:
instructions for associating at least one of a link and search results with the special event
logo;
21
27. A server connected to a network, comprising:
event.
22
[0073] ABSTRACT
[0074] A system provides a periodically changing story line and/or a special event company
logo to entice users to access a web page. For the story line, the system may receive objects that
tell a story according to the story line and successively provide the objects on the web page for
predetermined or random amounts oftime. For the special event company logo, the system may
modify a standard company logo for a special event to create a special event logo, associate one
or more search terms with the special event logo, and upload the special event logo to the web
page. The system may then receive a user selection of the special event logo and provide search
results relating to the special event.
23
100~
110
!J..;;...L!Iilllll!l
120
CLIENT
CLIENT
~ t / SERVER
110 / "V'
'\..
ill
WEll '~
120
~
--X--\.. NETWORK
130 ~ --x--
CLIENT =
"""'---
SERVER
~
110 / ~
120
CLIENT
SERVER
FIG. 1
120~
INPUT DEVICES
260 MAIN STORAGE

ROM
MEMORY DEVICE
240
230 250
OUTPUT DEVICES
.... •
270
• ,
• •
PROCESSOR
"-- BUS
210
COMMUNICATION 220
INTERFACE .-
~
280
FIG.2
300
GOOGLE WEB SITE [;]~~

FILE EDIT VIEW GO WINDOW HELP
§§~~~~
IBOOKMARKS IYJ LOCATION: Ihttp://WWW.Google.com ---------IYJ
310~ A-..-/320
~
ADVANCED SEARCH - LANGUAGE, DISPLAY, & FILTERING OPTIONS
I I
GOOGLE INDEX: 1,060,000,000 WEB PAGES
IYJ
DOCUMENT DONE
FIG. 3
400~
Google~' . ~410
"
·G:.'4"'0,"
. . :;,u:\lol-'··'"e'
~,
c . :SC"ci) ~420
'>". ~
~~+ '
fl.£.,
.- ,,~ ~
"" - S~1f"
,~\,
(t,,,
"'0,:
'''' '. •, ,or'" '. ' ,".
"">'c, ~
.c.'~ r.~~
'
, : i ~,':- re ~430
~440
~450
FIG. 4
500~
- vt.
-" ..
'<',tj ~530
:=
~ :::=:
~540
FIG. 5
GENERATE ANIMATED OBJECTS
610
FOR STORY LINE
UPLOAD FIRST ANIMATED OBJECT

OF STORY LINE TO WEB PAGE 620
UPLOAD NEXT ANIMATED

OBJECT OF STORY LINE
630
YES
640
NO
YES
650
NO
FIG. 6
700~
GOOGLE WEB SITE [;)~f8]
-FILE -EDIT -VIEW -
GO -
WINDOW HELP
~§~~~~
IBOOKMARKS IYI LOCATION: Ihttp://www.Google.comlYl
~
710 '---A...
730~
..
ADVANCED SEARCH - LANGUAGE, DISPLAY, & FILTERING OPTIONS
I I
GOOGLE INDEX: 1,060,000,000 WEB PAGES
lYl
DOCUMENT DONE
FIG.7
700
GOOGLE WEB SITE [;]~~
FILE EDIT VIEW GO WINDOW HELP
[g§~~~~
IBOOKMARKS ~ LOCATION: Ihttp://www.Google.com ~
I Searched the web for valentine's day. Results 1-50 of about 1,060,000. Search took 0.63 seconds
I~
Category: Society> Holidays> Valentine's Day
happy valentine's day!

Happy Valentine's day from TheHolidaySpot ! valentine's day greeting cards.... Free Love
Letterheads for Valentine's day Give that special touch with your pen. '"
Description: History and recipes, cards and a message board to celebrate Valentine's Day.
0
Category: Society> Holidays> Valentine's Day
www.theholidayspot.com/valentine/ - 9k - Cached - Similar pages
Billy Bear's Happy Valentine's Day

BillyBear4Kids.Com Welcomes YOU! Click Here advertisement
banner. HOME I Clipart I Animals I Fun ...
Description: Online games, crafts, print and play pages, e-cards, screensavers, and desktop sets.
Category: Kids and Teens> People and Society> ... > Valentine's Day
www.billybear4kids.com/holidays/valentin/fun.htm - 12k - Cached - Similar pages
~
I I DOCUMENT DONE
FIG. 8
~910
~930
Geogle'"
~",
Ah-/940
FIG. 9
START
GENERATE MODIFIED/
1010
CUSTOMIZED LOGO
ASSOCIATE SEARCH
TERM(S) WITH MODIFIED/ 1020
CUSTOMIZED LOGO
UPLOAD MODIFIED/CUSTOMIZED
1030
LOGO TO WEB PAGE
NO
1040
YES
PROVIDE SEARCH RESULTS

RELATING TO MODIFIED/ 1050
CUSTOMIZED LOGO
FIG. 10
Received: 4/27/01 5:08PM; -> 5714320800; Page 4
, 04/2772001 PRI 14:08 FAX GOOGLE INC. I4l 004/016
Page I of3
Attorney's Docket No_ 0026-0002
DECLARATION AND POWER OF ATTORNEY
As a below named inventor, I hereby declare that my residence, post office address and citizenship are as stated
below next to my name; I believe I am the original, first and sole inventor (if only one name is listed below) or an
original, first and joint inventor (ifplural names are listed below) ofthe subj ect matter which is claimed and for
which a patent is sought on the invention entitled: SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ENTICING USERS TO
ACCESS A WEB SITE. the specification ofwhich 0 was filed _or ~ is attached hereto.
I hereby state that I have reviewed and understand the contents ofthe above-identified specification, including tbe
claims, as amended by any amendment referred to above. I acknowledge the duty to disclose information which is
material to the examination of this application in accordance with Title 37, Code ofFederal Regulations, § 1.56.
I hereby claim foreign priority benefits under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or § 365(b) ofany foreign application(s) for
patent or inventor's certificate or § 365(a) of any PCT international application(s), designating at least one country
other than the United States, listed below and have also identified below any foreign application(s) for patent or
inventor's certificate, or any PCT international application(s) having a filing date before that of the application(s) of
which priority is claimed:
Country Application Number Date of Filing Priority Claimed Under

3S U.S.C. 119
DYES 0 NO
DYES 0 NO
I hereby claim the benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) of any United States provisional application(s) listed below:
Application Number Date of Filing
I hereby claim the benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 120 of any United States application(s) or § 365(c) of any PCT
international application(s) designating the United States, listed below and, insofar as the subject matter of each of
the claims of this application is not disclosed in the prior United States or PCT international application(s) in the
manner provided by the first paragraph of35 U.S.C. § 112, I acknowledge the duty to disclose information which is
material to patentability as defined in 37 CFR § 1.56 which became available between the filing date of the prior
application(s) and the national or PCT international filing date of this application:
Received: 4/27/01 5:08PM; -> 5714320800; Page 5
1 04/2112001 FRI 14:08 FAX GOOGLE INC. @I 005/016
Page 2 00
Combined Declaration and Power ofAttorney

u.s. Applications Status (Check One)

U.S. Application U.S. Filing Date Patented Pending Abandoned
Number
PCT Applications Designating the U.S.
PCT Application No. PCT Filing Date U.s. Serial

Number
Assigned (if
any)
I hereby appoint the following attorney anellor agent(s) to prosecute this application and transact all business in the
Patent and Trademark Office connected therewith. HARRITY & SNYDER, L.L.P.; Paul A Harrity, Reg.
No. 39,574; Glenn Snyder, Reg. No. 41,428; John E. Harrity, Reg. No. 43,367; Tony M. Cole, Reg. No. 43,417;
Brian E. Ledell, Reg. No. 42,784; and Alan Pedersen-Giles, Reg. No. 39,996; all of

Suite 300
and Kulpreet S. Rana, Reg. No. 43,127.
Please address all correspondence to

Suite 300
Telephone No. (571) 432-0800.
I hereby declare that all statements made herein of my own knowledge are true and that all statements made on
infonnation and belief are believed to be true; and further that these statements were made with the knowledge that
willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under section 1001 of
Title 18 of the United States Code, and that such willful false statements may jeopardize the validity of the
application or any patent issuing thereon.
Received: 4/27/01 5:08PM; -> 5714320800; Page 6
• 04/27./2001 FRI 14: 09 FAX GOOGLE INC. 141 006/016
Page 3 of3
Combined Declaration and Power of Attorney

Full Name of First Inventor Inventor's Signature Date
SergeyBRIN :~-:1? <

~ (oz., (0 I
Residence Country of Citizenship
Palo Alto, California U.S.A.
Post Office Address
555 Bryant Street, Palo Alto, California 94301
Full Name of Second Inventor Inventor's Signature Date
Residence Country ofCitizenship
Post Office Address
Full Name of Third Inventor Inventor's Signature Date
Residence Country of Citizenship
Post Office Address

PATENT APPLICATION SERIAL NO. _
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
FEE RECORD SHEET
05/01/2001 WABRHA"l 00000055 09843923

01 FC 101 710.00 OP
02 FC 103 126.00 OP
03 FC 102 400.00 OP
PTO-1556
(5/87)
·U.S. GPO: 2000-466-987139595
PATENT APPLICATION FEE DETERMINATION RECORD
Effective October 1, 2000
SMALL ENTITY OTHER THAN

TYPE c::::J OR SMALL ENTITY
TOTAL CLAIMS
RATE FEE RATE FEE
FOR NUMBER FILED NUMBER EXTRA BASIC FEE 355.00 OR ASIC FEE 710.00
TOTAL CHARGEABLE CLAIMS _minus 20= * X$9= OR X$18=

INDEPENDENT CLAIMS minus 3 = X40=, OR. X80=
MULTIPLE DEPENDENT CLAIM PRESENT
o +135= OR +270=
* If the difference in column 1 is less than zero, enter "0" in column 2
CLAIMS AS AMENDED - PART II

TOTAL OR TOTAL
. OTHERTHAN
...._-..
Column 3 SMALL ENTITY OR SMALL ENTITY
ADDI- ADDI- .
PRESENT
EXTRA RATE TIONAL RATE TIONAL
FEE "FEE
Total Minus ** X$9= OR X$18=
Independent * Minus
X40= X80=
FIRST PRESENTATION OF MULTIPLE DEPENDENT CLAiM OR 1 - - - - 1 - - - - 1
+135= OR +270=
TOTAL . . TOTAL
-~ ADOiT. FEE OR ADDIT. FEE...._ _-4I
.'
PRESENT. ,
ADDI- ADDI- .
EXTRA RATE TIONAL RATE TIONAL
FEE FEE
Total * Minus ** = X$ 9= OR X$18=
Ind pendent * Minus *** =
X40=.. .' X80='
FIRST PRESENTATION OF MULTIPLE DEPENDENT CLAIM oR 1--_--11--_--1
+135= OR +270=
TOTAL .. TOTAL
ADDIT. FEE OR ADDIT. FEE...._ _..
PRESENT ADDI- ADDI- :

EXTRA RATE TIONAL flATE TIONAL
FEE FEE
..
Total Minus ** = X$.9= OR X$18=
J
Ind pendent Minus *** =

X40= X80=
O Ra--_
FIRST PRESENTATION OF MULTIPLE DEPENDENT CLAIM _......_ _....
/
/
+135= . OR' +270= ~
• If th entry in column 1 is less than the entry in column 2, write "0. in column 3. TOTAL TOTAL
•• If the "Highest Number Previously Paid For" IN THIS SPACE is less than 20, nter "20: AOOIT. FEE OR ADOlf: FEE ...._ _..
·*·11 the "Highest Number Previously Paid For" IN THIS SPACE is less than 3, enter "3:
The "Highest Number Previously Paid For" (Total or Indep ndent) is the highest numb r found in the appropriate box in column 1.
FORM PT0-875 Palent and Trademark Office. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

(Rev. SlOO)
·u.s. GPO: ~708130103
SERIAl NO. AUNGDATE
1') :.;;; Y' JY2 ~ v"/-</) /

CLAIMS ONLY APPUCANT(S)
rJ /.l /"
CLAIMS
ASALED
AFTER
1.1 AMENDMENT
AFTER
2nd AMENDMENT
* I" I"
IND. DEP. IND. DEP. IND. DEP. IND. DEP. IND. DEP. IND. DEP.
1 I 51
2 I 52
3 I 53
4 I 54
5 / 55
6 I 56
7 I 57
8 58
9 ; 59
10 j 60
11 I 61
12 I 62
13 I 63
14 I 64
15 / 65
16 I 66
17 / 67
18 I 68
19 69
20 J 70
21 71
22 / 72
23 I 73
24 J 74
25 I 75
26 / 76
27 I n
28 78
29 79
30 80
31 81
32 82
33 83
34 84
35 85
36 86
37 87
38 88
39 89
40 90
41 91
42 92
43 93
44 94
45 95
46 96
47 97
48 98
49 99
50
TOTAL
IND.
TOTAL
9.
•• •
•
• •
100
TOTAL
IND•
TOTAL
,• -.' .'
DEP.
TOTAL
/'/ DEP.
CLAIMS lri t- ~I~
* MAY BE USED FOR ADDITIONAL CLAIMS OR ADMENDMENTS
U.S.DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
FORM PT().2022 (1-98) Paten! and TrademaJ1< 0fIlce
·U.S. Government PmtingOffice: 1998· (J3.214170303

Patent
)
Sergey BRIN ) Group Art Unit: Unassigned
)
)
)
Title: SYSTEMS AND METHODS )
ACCESS A WEB SITE )
INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT UNDER 37 C.FeR. § 1.97<b)

Sir:
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.56 and 1.97(b), App1icant(s) bring to the attention of the
Examiner the documents listed on the attached PTO 1449. This Information Disclosure
Statement is being filed before the mailing date of a first Office Action in the above-referenced
application. As such, no certification or fee is required. Copies of the listed documents are
attached.
Applicant(s) respectfully request(s) that the Examiner consider the listed documents and
indicate that they were considered by making appropriate notations on the attached form.
lnfonnation Disclosure Statement Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.97(b)
Page 2
If any copending application(s) is/are cited on the attached PTO 1449, the Examiner's
attention is directed to the foregoing application(s) in compliance with §2001.06(b) of the
Manual of Patent Examining Procedures. By identifying the copending application(s), the
assignee and/or applicant of the application(s) do not waive confidentiality of the application(s).
Accordingly, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is requested to maintain the confidentiality
of the copending application(s) under 35 U.S.c. §122.
This submission does not represent that a search has been made and does not constitute
an admission that each or all of the listed documents are material or constitute "prior art." If the
Examiner applies any of the documents as prior art against any claim in the application and
Applicant(s) detennine(s) that the citedodocument(s) do not constitute "prior art" under United
States law, Applicant(s) reserve(s) the right to present to the Office the relevant facts and law
regarding the appropriate status of such documents.
Applicant(s) further reserve(s) the right to take appropriate action to establish the
patentability of the disclosed invention over the listed documents, should one or more of the
documents be applied against the claims of the present application.

Infonnation Disclosure Statement Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.97(b)
Page 3
If there is any fee due in connection with the filing of this Statement, please charge the
fee to our Deposit Account No. 50-1070.

1111111111111111111111111I111111111
26615
By: -l.:e~?Q~~~~~S?~_
~
Paul A. Harrity
Reg. No. 39,574

Suite 300
(571) 432-0800

SHEET - OF
IIII~I~IIII~IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII J~
ATTORNEY'S DKT No. ApPLICATION No.
0026-0002 Unassigned p
INFORMATION
CI.~I~
ApPLlCANT(S)
DISCLOSURE
26615 Sergey BRIN ·~o
~!I!ln !JJoJ:El4I.J.XCJlllllI:l!
"11~i
FILING DATE GROUP
CITATION ~~o
April 30. 2001 Unassigned cD M
~W
PTO·1449
EXAMINER'S FILING
INITIALS PATENT NO. DATE NAME CLASS SUBCLASS DATE

EXAMINER'S Translation
INITIALS PATENT NO. DATE COUNTRY CLASS SUBCLASS Yes No
OTHER DOCUMENTS (Including Author, Title, Date, Pertinent Pages, Etc.)

Google; Google Holiday Logos; www.google.com/holidaylogos; pages 1-8; 2001 (print
date).
Google; Mentalplex; www.google.com/holidaylogos; pages 1-4; April 1. 2000.
I EXAMINER I DATE CONSIDERED
EXAMINER: Initial if reference considered, whether or not citation is in conformance with MPEP 609; draw line through citation if not in
conformance and not considered. Include copy of this form with next communication to applicant(s).

Google Doodle File History

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Google Doodle File History

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

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

44989 7590 03/02/2011

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

IRI03 (Rev. 10/09)

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

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

EXAMINER ARTUNlT CLASS-SUBCLASS

AILES, BENJAMiN A 2442 709-2i6000

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

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

Application Number: 09843923

Filing Date: 30-Apr-2001

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

Utility Appl issue fee 1501 1 1510 1510

Total in USD ($) 1510

Application Number: 09843923

International Application Number:

Confirmation Number: 9916

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

Application Type: Utility under 35 USC 111 (a)

Payment Type Credit Card

Payment was successfully received in RAM $1510

RAM confirmation Number 5546

New Applications Under 35 U.S.c. 111

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

New International Application Filed with the USPTO as a Receiving Office

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

In re Patent Application of: ) Mail Stop Issue Fee

ISSUE FEE TRANSMITTAL COVER SHEET

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

HARRITY & HARRITY, LLP

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

NOTICE OF ALLOWANCE AND FEE(S) DUE

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

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

HOW TO REPLY TO THIS NOTICE:

I. Review the SMALL ENTITY status shown above.

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

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

EXAMINER ART UNIT CLASS-SUBCLASS

AILES, BENJAMIN A 2442 709-216000

Authorized Signature _ Date _

Typed or printed name _ Registration No. _

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

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

09/843,923 BRIN, SERGEY

BENJAMIN AILES 2442

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

u.s. Patent and Trademark Office

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