Filed: 03/07/2017
`Page:1
`Document: 38-1
`Case: 16-1755
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERALCIRCUIT
`
`(1 of 12)
`
`NOTICE OF ENTRY OF
`JUDGMENT ACCOMPANIED BYOPINION
`
`OPINION FILED AND JUDGMENTENTERED: 03/07/2017
`
`The attached opinion announcingthe judgmentof the court in your case wasfiled and judgment was entered on
`the date indicated above. The mandatewill be issued in due course.
`
`Information is also provided aboutpetitions for rehearing and suggestions for rehearing en banc. The questions
`and answersare those frequently asked and answered bythe Clerk's Office.
`
`Costs are taxed against the appellantin favor of the appellee under Rule 39. The party entitled to costs is
`providedabill of costs form and an instruction sheetwith this notice.
`
`Theparties are encouragedto stipulate to the costs.A bill of costs will be presumedcorrectin the absence of a
`timely filed objection.
`
`Costs are payable to the party awarded costs.If costs are awarded to the government, they should be paid to
`the Treasurer of the United States. Where costs are awarded againstthe government, payment should be madeto
`the person(s) designated underthe governingstatutes, the court's orders, andthe parties’ written settlement
`agreements.In cases betweenprivate parties, payment should be madeto counselfor the party awarded costsor,if
`the party is not represented by counsel, to the party pro se. Paymentof costs should not be sent to the court. Costs
`should be paid promptly.
`
`If the court also imposed monetary sanctions, they are payable to the opposing party unless the court's opinion
`provides otherwise. Sanctions should be paid in the same wayascosts.
`
`Regarding exhibits and visual aids: Yourattention is directed Fed. R. App. P. 34(g) which states that the clerk
`may destroy or dispose of the exhibits if counsel does not reclaim them within a reasonable time after the clerk gives
`notice to remove them. (The clerk deems a reasonable time to be 15 days from the date the final mandateis issued.)
`
`FOR THE COURT
`
`/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
`Peter R. Marksteiner
`Clerk of Court
`
`16-1755 - Meiresonne v. Google,Inc.
`United States Patent and Trademark Office, Case No. IPR2014-01188
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1755
`
`Document: 38-2
`
`Page:1_
`
`Filed: 03/07/2017
`
`(2 of 12)
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the federal Circuit
`
`MICHAEL MEIRESONNE,
`Appellant
`
`Vv.
`
`GOOGLE, INC.,
`Appellee
`
`2016-1755
`
`Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. JPR2014-
`01188.
`,
`
`Decided: March 7, 2017
`
`MARK A. JOTANOVIC, Brooks Kushman PC, Southfield,
`MI, argued for appellant. Also represented by THOMASA.
`LEWRY, WILLIAM G. ABBATT, JOHN S. LEROY.
`
`GREGORY A. CASTANIAS, Jones Day, Washington, DC,
`argued for appellee. Also represented by ISRAEL SASHA
`MAYERGOYZ, Chicago, IL; KRISTA SCHWARTZ, San Francis-
`co, CA.
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1755
`
`Document: 38-2
`
`Page:2
`
`Filed: 03/07/2017
`
`(3 of 12)
`
`2
`
`MEIRESONNEv. GOOGLE, INC.
`
`Before PRost, Chief Judge, LOURIE, and MOORE, Circuit
`Judges.
`
`MOORE, Circuit Judge.
`
`inter
`Michael Meiresonne appeals from the final
`partes review (“IPR”) decision of the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`(“Board”) holding that claims 16, 17, 19, and 20 of U.S.
`Patent No. 8,156,096 (the “096 patent”) are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103. For the reasons discussed below,
`we affirm.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Mr. Meiresonneis the sole inventor of the 096 patent,
`titled “Supplier Identification and Locator System and
`Method.” The specification discloses a “system whereby a
`user can identify a supplier of goods or services over the
`Internet.” ’096 patent at 2:55-57.
`It teaches a directory
`website that contains (1) a plurality of links to supplier
`websites, (2) “a supplier descriptive portion” located near
`a corresponding supplier link,
`(3) “a descriptive title
`portion” describing the class of goods or services listed on
`the website, and (4) “a rollover window that displays
`information” about at least one of the suppliers corre-
`spondingto a link. Id. at 2:57-3:3.
`
`Claim 19 is representative:
`
`A computer system including a server comprising:
`
`at least one web site stored on the server
`and accessible by a user via the Internet,
`wherein the web site comprises:
`
`a home page on the server accessible by
`the user using a computervia the Internet
`wherein the home page comprises an in-
`put receiving area and wherein a user in-
`puts keyword search term information
`into the input receiving area;
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1755
`
`Document: 38-2
`
`Page:3
`
`Filed: 03/07/2017
`
`(4 of 12)
`
`MEIRESONNEv. GOOGLE,INC.
`
`3
`
`a keyword results displaying web page
`that comprises:
`
`a listing of a plurality of related subject
`matter links to web sites that are also re-
`lated to the keyword search term infor-
`mation inputted into the input receiving
`area;
`
`a plurality of descriptive portions, wherein
`each descriptive portion is an associated
`descriptive portion that is adjacent to and
`associated by the user with an associated
`related subject matter link, which is one of
`the plurality of related subject matter
`links; and
`
`a rollover viewing area that individually
`displays
`information corresponding to
`more than one of the related subject matter
`links in the same rollover viewing area
`when the user’s cursor is at least substan-
`tially over any of the links, at least sub-
`stantially over a link’s descriptive portion,
`or substantially adjacent
`[sic]
`the corre-
`sponding descriptive portion and wherein
`the rollover viewing area is located sub-
`stantially adjacent to the plurality of re-
`lated subject matter links.
`
`096 patent at 11:18-12:19 (emphasis added).
`Google petitioned for IPR of claims 16, 17, 19, and 20
`of the 096 patent. The Board instituted review of the four
`claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on a combination of
`the 1997 book “World Wide Web Searching for Dummies,
`2nd Edition” by Brad Hill (“Hill”) and U.S. Patent No.
`6,271,840 (“Finseth”).
`Hill describes the user interfaces for several popular
`search engines in the 1990s, including Lycos and Yahoo!.
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1755
`
`Document: 38-2
`
`Page:4
`
`Filed: 03/07/2017
`
`(5 of 12)
`
`4
`
`MEIRESONNE v. GOOGLE, INC.
`
`The depicted user interfaces include a list of web links
`along with an abstract of accompanying text describing
`the website at
`the associated link.
`Specifically, Hull
`teaches:
`
`An Abstract is a one-paragraph description of the
`site. Don’t expect a ton of information from these
`abstracts because the Lycos staff doesn’t write
`them. Sometimes they’re about as informative as
`a paragraph full of gibberish. Other abstracts can
`prove more useful—and you can always get the
`story straight from the horse’s mouth by clicking
`on thelink to visit the actualsite.
`
`J.A. 1603.
`
`Finseth teaches a visual index for a graphical search
`engine that provides “graphical output from search engine
`results or other URLlists.” In the background section of
`the specification, Finseth notes:
`One of the great drawbacks of current search en-
`gines is the output that they provide to the user.
`Often, such results are in the form ofa list of hy-
`perlinks with a cursory, if not cryptic, excerpt of
`initial text present on the web page. Few,if any,
`search engine interfaces provide means by which
`to gauge graphically the contents of the web page.
`Such review or perusal of some summary form of
`a web page, even if cursory, provides a significant
`amount of information as the form in which
`graphical information is presented often indicates
`to a significant degree its content.
`J.A. 1632 at 1:54-63.
`In order to “provide a better and
`quicker review of search engine results and/or URL list
`information,” Finseth teaches a “means by which thumb-
`nail or other representational graphic information can
`accompany hyperlinks that result at the end of a search
`engine search.” Id. at 2:26-31; J.A. 1633 at 3:8-10.
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1755
`
`Document: 38-2
`
`Page:5
`
`Filed: 03/07/2017
`
`(6 of 12)
`
`MEIRESONNEv. GOOGLE,INC.
`
`5
`
`The Board held claims 16, 17, 19, and 20 of the 096
`patent unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the
`combined teachings of Hill and Finseth. It found that Hill
`discloses all limitations of claim 19 except for the “rollover
`viewing area” limitation, which it found disclosed by
`Finseth. While the Board recognized that Finseth refers
`to descriptive text as “cursory” and indicates that a graph-
`ical preview is more useful thanplain text, it nonetheless
`found that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not
`have read Finseth to teach away from the solution of the
`096 claims. Mr. Meiresonne appeals. We have jurisdic-
`tion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`We review the Board’s legal conclusions de novo and
`its factual findings for substantial evidence.
`In re Gart-
`side, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000). A findingis
`supported by substantial evidence if a reasonable mind
`might accept the evidence as adequate support for the
`finding. Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229
`(1938). Obviousness is a question of law based on under-
`lying facts. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 839 F.3d
`1034, 1047 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (en banc). Whatthe prior art
`teaches, whether a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would have been motivated to combine references, and
`whether a reference teaches away from the claimed
`invention are questions of fact.
`Jd. at 1047-48; In re
`Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 13830 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`A combination of known elementsis likely to be obvi-
`ous when it yields predictable results. KSR Intl Co. v.
`Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Obviousness may
`be defeated if the prior art indicates that the invention
`would not have worked for its intended purpose or other-
`wise teaches away from the invention. DePuy Spine, Inc.
`v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 13826
`(Fed. Cir. 2009). A reference teaches away “when a
`person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference,
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1755
`
`Document: 38-2
`
`Page:6
`
`Filed: 03/07/2017
`
`(7 of 12)
`
`6
`
`MEIRESONNEv. GOOGLE, INC.
`
`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” in the claim. Galderma
`Labs., L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc., 737 F.3d 731, 738 (Fed. Cir.
`2013). A reference that “merely expresses a general
`preference for an alternative invention but does not
`criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation
`into” the claimed invention does not teach away. Id..
`
`The sole issue before us is whether Hill and Finseth
`teach away from the invention of the 096 patent, which
`combines descriptive text with a rollover viewing area.
`The parties agree that Hill teaches links and text descrip-
`tions and Finseth teaches links and a rollover viewing
`area. Mr. Meiresonne argues that Hill and Finseth teach
`away from the combination of descriptive text and a
`rollover viewing area because both prior art references
`disparage and criticize the use of descriptive text. He
`argues that Finseth’s solution to the “cursory,
`if not
`cryptic” descriptive text was abandoning and replacing
`textual descriptions with graphical previews. He also
`notes that Hill describes the abstract text as “gibberish”
`and advocates “visit[ing] the actual site” instead of read-
`ing the unreliable abstract text.
`Reviewing both references, we conclude that substan-
`tial evidence supports the Board’s fact finding that the
`prior art does not teach away from the claimed combina-
`tion. Though Finseth teaches graphical previews in a
`rollover window, it never implies that text and graphics
`are mutually exclusive or advocates abandoning text
`descriptions wholesale. The words “replace” and “unreli-
`able,” used repeatedly in Mr. Meiresonne’s briefs to ex-
`plain how the references teach away from the ’096
`invention, are completely absent from Finseth.
`Instead,
`Finseth explains that thumbnail images of websites are
`highly desirable in order to more “quickly filter through
`the vast
`information available from the simplest of
`searches,” J.A. 1632 at2:15-17, and the addition of
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1755
`
`Document: 38-2
`
`Page:7
`
`Filed: 03/07/2017
`
`(8 of 12)
`
`MEIRESONNEv. GOOGLE,INC.
`
`7
`
`graphical previews makes web browsing “easier and more
`useful, even for the novice,” J.A. 1636 at 10:40—44.
`
`The fact that Finseth describes descriptive text as
`“folften[] .. . cursory, if not cryptic” does not automatically
`convert
`the reference to one that
`teaches away from
`combining text descriptions with a rollover window. This
`description implies only that text descriptions may be
`incomplete or insufficient to fully understand the content.
`Finseth does not say or imply that text descriptions are
`“unreliable,” “misleading,” “wrong,” or “inaccurate,” which
`might lead one of ordinary skill in the art to discard text
`descriptions completely. The word “cursory” implies that
`the information is accurate but could use supplementa-
`tion—it does not demand replacement.
`Finseth also
`describes the graphical thumbnails in its claimed inven-
`tion as “cursory,” but notes that they still “provide[] a
`significant amount of information as the form in which
`graphical information is presented often indicates to a
`significant degree its content.” J.A. 1632 at 1:59-63.
`Similarly, Hill’s description of website abstracts as
`“Islometimes ... as informative as a paragraphof gibber-
`ish” does not amount to promoting abandonmentof text
`descriptions. The very next sentence acknowledges that
`“fo]ther abstracts can prove more useful.”
`J.A. 1603.
`While Hill teaches that a user should not “expect a ton of
`information” from the text, it never advocates abandoning
`text wholesale—it merely encourages supplementing the
`text by visiting the website itself. Id.
`This case is unlike previous cases in which we af-
`firmed lower tribunal findings that prior art references
`taught away from the invention.
`In DePuy Spine, for
`example, the prior art taught that the addition of a rigid
`screw to the prior art spinal assembly would have elimi-
`nated or reduced the device’s desired “shock absorber”
`effect,
`thereby rendering the device inoperative for its
`intended purpose. 567 F.3d at 1326-27. In that case, the
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1755
`
`Document: 38-2
`
`Page:8
`
`Filed: 03/07/2017
`
`(9 of 12)
`
`8
`
`MEIRESONNE v. GOOGLE, INC.
`
`prior art reference expressed a concern for failure of the
`assembly and stated that the shock absorber effect “de-
`crease[d] the chance of failure of the screw or the bone-
`screw interface.”
`Jd. at 1327 (internal quotation marks
`omitted). The prior art depicted a “causal relationship
`between rigidity and screw failure,” which supported the
`finding that it taught away from usingrigid screws. Id.
`Here, neither Hill nor Finseth indicates that inclusion
`of descriptive text would detract in any way from Fin-
`seth’s goal of using a rollover viewing area to peruse data
`“much faster” than previous methods and “determin[ing]
`which web pages would be of most interest to the user.”
`J.A. 1636 at 10:31-47. Finseth does not express concern
`that text descriptions would hinder the goal of communi-
`cating information about website links to a person brows-
`ing the internet.
`Instead it encourages the addition of
`graphical previews to known systems to “mak[e]
`the
`Internet even more advantageous than before.”
`Id.
`at 10:40-42. Text descriptions—even if cursory or cryp-
`tic—and graphical previews both help a user to determine
`whethera link is relevant to the information heis looking
`for. And nothing in either reference indicates that de-
`scriptive text would render Finseth’s rollover area inoper-
`ative for its intended purpose.
`
`Whetherthe prior art references teach away is not a
`question that we review de novo. The Board found that
`the references do not teach away from combining text
`descriptions with a rollover window, and we review that
`finding for substantial evidence. The Board’s fact finding
`that these prior art references do not teach away from
`combining text descriptions with additional information
`in a rollover viewing area is supported by substantial
`evidence.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Board’s con-
`clusion that claims 16, 17, 19, and 20 of the 096 patent
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1755
`
`Document: 38-2
`
`Page:9
`
`Filed: 03/07/2017
`
`(10 of 12)
`
`MEIRESONNEv. GOOGLE,INC.
`
`9
`
`are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`_ teachings of Hill and Finseth.
`AFFIRMED
`
`§ 103 based on the
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1755
`
`Document: 38-3
`
`Page:1
`
`Filed: 03/07/2017
`
`(11 of 12)
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`INFORMATION SHEET
`
`FILING A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`
`There is no automaticright of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States from judgments
`of the Federal Circuit. You mustfile a petition for a writ of certiorari which the Supreme Court
`will grant only when there are compelling reasons. (See Rule 10 of the Rulesof the Supreme
`Court of the United States, hereinafter called Rules.)
`
`Time. The petition mustbe filed in the Supreme Courtof the United States within 90 days of the
`entry of judgmentin this Court or within 90 days of the denial of a timely petition for rehearing.
`The judgment is entered on the day the Federal Circuit issues a final decision in your case. [The
`time does not run from the issuance of the mandate, which has noeffect on the rightto petition.]
`(See Rule 13 of the Rules.)
`
`Fees. Either the $300 docketing fee or a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis with an
`affidavit in support thereof must accompanythepetition. (See Rules 38 and 39.)
`
`Authorized Filer. The petition mustbe filed by a memberof the bar of the Supreme Court of the
`United Statesor by the petitioner representing himself or herself.
`
`Formatof a Petition. The Rules are very specific about the order of the required information
`and should be consulted before youstart drafting your petition. (See Rule 14.) Rules 33 and 34
`should be consulted regarding type size and font, paper size, paper weight, margins, page limits,
`cover, etc.
`
`Numberof Copies. Forty copies of a petition must be filed unless the petitioner is proceeding in
`forma pauperis, in which case an original and ten copies of the petition for writ of certiorari and
`of the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (See Rule 12.)
`
`Where to File. You mustfile your documents at the Supreme Court.
`
`Clerk
`Supreme Courtof the United States
`1 First Street, NE
`Washington, DC 20543
`(202) 479-3000
`
`No documents are filed at the Federal Circuit and the Federal Circuit provides no information to
`the Supreme Court unless the Supreme Court asks for the information.
`
`Access to the Rules. The current rules can be found in Title 28 of the United States Code
`Annotated andother legal publications available in many public libraries.
`
`Revised December 16, 1999
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1755
`
`Document: 38-4
`
`Page: 1
`
`Filed: 03/07/2017
`
`(12 of 12)
`
`APP
`TOF
`TE
`IRCUIT
`FOR THE FEDERAL
`
`Questions and Answers
`
`Petitions for Rehearing (Fed. Cir. R. 40)
`and
`Petitions for Hearing or Rehearing En Banc (Fed. Cir. R. 35)
`a———
`
`Q. Whenis a petition for rehearing appropriate?
`
`A. Petitions for pane! rehearing are rarely successful
`because they mostoften fail to articulate sufficient grounds
`upon which to grant them. For example, a petition for panel
`rehearing should not be used to reargue issues already
`briefed and orally argued; if a party failed to persuade the
`court on an issuein the first instance, a petition for panel
`rehearing should not be used as an attempt to get a second
`“bite at the apple.” This is especially so when the court has
`entered a judgmentof affirmance without opinion under
`Fed. Cir. R. 36. Such dispositions are enteredif the court
`determines the judgmentof the trial court is based on
`findings that are not clearly erroneous, the evidence
`supporting the jury verdict is sufficient, the record supports
`the trial court’s ruling, the decision of the administrative
`agencywarrants affirmance under the appropriate standard
`of review, or the judgmentor decision is without an error of
`law.
`
`Q. Whenis a petition for hearing or rehearing en banc
`appropriate?
`
`A. En banc decisions are extraordinary occurrences. To
`properly answerthe question, one mustfirst understand the
`responsibility of a three-judge merits panel of the court. The
`panel is charged with deciding individual appeals according
`to the law of the circuit as established in the court's
`precedential opinions. While each merits panelis
`empowered to enter precedential opinions, the ultimate
`duty of the court en bancis to set forth the law of the
`Federal Circuit, which merit panels are obliged to follow.
`
`Thus, as a usual prerequisite, a merits panel of the court
`must have entered a precedential opinion in support ofits
`judgmentfor a suggestion for rehearing en banc to be
`appropriate. In addition, the party seeking rehearing en
`banc mustshowthat either the merits panel has failed to
`follow identifiable decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court or
`
`Federal Circuit precedential opinions or that the merits
`panel hasfollowedcircuit precedent, which the party seeks
`to have overruled by the court en banc.
`
`Q. Howfrequently are petitions for rehearing granted by
`merits panels or petitions for rehearing en banc accepted
`by the caurt?
`
`A. The data regarding petitions for rehearing since 1982
`showsthat merits panels granted some relief in only three
`percent of the more than 1900 petitionsfiled. Therelief
`granted usually involved only minorcorrections of factual
`misstatements, rarely resulting in a change of outcomein
`the decision.
`
`En bancpetitions were acceptedless frequently, in only 16
`of more than 1100 requests. Historically, the court itself
`initiated en banc review in more than half (21 of 37) of the
`very few appeals decided en banc since 1982. This sua
`sponte, en bancreview is a by-product of the court's
`practice of circulating every precedential panel decision to
`all the judges of the FederalCircuit beforeit is published.
`No countis kept of sua sponte, en bancpolls thatfail to
`carry enough judges,but one of the reasons thatvirtually
`all of the more than 1100 petitions made bythe parties
`since 1982 have been declinedis that the court itself has
`already implicitly approved the precedential opinions before
`theyare filed by the merits panel.
`
`Q.Is it necessary to havefiled either of these petitions
`beforefiling a petition for certiorari in the U.S. Supreme
`Court?
`
`A. No.All that is neededis a final judgmentof the Court of
`Appeals. As a matterof interest, very few petitions for
`certiorari from Federal Circuit decisions are granted. Since
`1982, the U.S. Supreme Court has grantedcertiorari in only
`31 appeals heard in the Federal Circuit. Almost 1000
`petitions for certiorari have beenfiled in that period.
`
`October 20, 2016
`
`

`

`
`
`Case: 16-1755 Page:1_Filed: 04/13/2017Document:41
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERALCIRCUIT
`
`16-1755
`
`MICHAEL MEIRESONNE,
`Appellant
`
`GOOGLE,INC.,
`Appellee
`
`Appealfrom the United States Patent and Trademark Office in case no. IPR2014-01188
`
`MANDATE
`
`In accordance with the judgment of this Court, entered March 07, 2017, and pursuantto Rule 41(a) of
`the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the formal mandateis hereby issued.
`
`Costs in the amount of $323.04 were determined and taxed against the appellant.
`
`FOR THE COURT
`
`/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
`Peter R. Marksteiner
`Clerk of Court
`
`