Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01755/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01755-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Google, Inc.
Appellee
Michael Meiresonne
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

MICHAEL MEIRESONNE,

Appellant

v.

GOOGLE, INC.,

Appellee

______________________ 

2016-1755

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2014-

01188.

______________________ 

Decided: March 7, 2017 

______________________ 

MARK A. JOTANOVIC, Brooks Kushman PC, Southfield, 

MI, argued for appellant. Also represented by THOMAS A.

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 Francisco, CA. 

______________________ 

Case: 16-1755 Document: 38-2 Page: 1 Filed: 03/07/2017
2 MEIRESONNE v. GOOGLE, INC. 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, LOURIE, and MOORE, Circuit 

Judges.

MOORE, Circuit Judge.

Michael Meiresonne appeals from the final inter 

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. Meiresonne is 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 corresponding to 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 computer via the Internet 

wherein the home page comprises an input receiving area and wherein a user inputs keyword search term information 

into the input receiving area;

Case: 16-1755 Document: 38-2 Page: 2 Filed: 03/07/2017
MEIRESONNE v. 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 related to the keyword search term information 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 substantially over any of the links, at least substantially over a link’s descriptive portion, 

or substantially adjacent [sic] the corresponding descriptive portion and wherein 

the rollover viewing area is located substantially adjacent to the plurality of related 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: 3 Filed: 03/07/2017
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, Hill 

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 the link to visit the actual site.

J.A. 1603. 

Finseth teaches a visual index for a graphical search 

engine that provides “graphical output from search engine 

results or other URL lists.” In the background section of 

the specification, Finseth notes:

One of the great drawbacks of current search engines is the output that they provide to the user. 

Often, such results are in the form of a list of hyperlinks 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 thumbnail 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: 4 Filed: 03/07/2017
MEIRESONNE v. 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 graphical preview is more useful than plain 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 jurisdiction 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 Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000). A finding is 

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 underlying facts. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 839 F.3d 

1034, 1047 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (en banc). What the 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. Id. at 1047–48; In re 

Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2012). 

A combination of known elements is likely to be obvious when it yields predictable results. KSR Int’l 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 otherwise teaches away from the invention. DePuy Spine, Inc. 

v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1326 

(Fed. Cir. 2009). A reference teaches away “when a 

person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, 

Case: 16-1755 Document: 38-2 Page: 5 Filed: 03/07/2017
6 MEIRESONNE v. 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 descriptions 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 reading the unreliable abstract text. 

Reviewing both references, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s fact finding that the 

prior art does not teach away from the claimed combination. 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 “unreliable,” used repeatedly in Mr. Meiresonne’s briefs to explain 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 at 2:15–17, and the addition of 

Case: 16-1755 Document: 38-2 Page: 6 Filed: 03/07/2017
MEIRESONNE v. 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 

“[o]ften[] . . . 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 supplementation—it does not demand replacement. Finseth also

describes the graphical thumbnails in its claimed invention 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 

“[s]ometimes . . . as informative as a paragraph of gibberish” does not amount to promoting abandonment of text 

descriptions. The very next sentence acknowledges that 

“[o]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 affirmed 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 eliminated 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: 7 Filed: 03/07/2017
8 MEIRESONNE v. GOOGLE, INC. 

prior art reference expressed a concern for failure of the 

assembly and stated that the shock absorber effect “decrease[d] the chance of failure of the screw or the bonescrew interface.” Id. 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 using rigid screws. Id. 

Here, neither Hill nor Finseth indicates that inclusion 

of descriptive text would detract in any way from Finseth’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 communicating information about website links to a person browsing 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 cryptic—and graphical previews both help a user to determine 

whether a link is relevant to the information he is looking 

for. And nothing in either reference indicates that descriptive text would render Finseth’s rollover area inoperative for its intended purpose. 

Whether the 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 conclusion that claims 16, 17, 19, and 20 of the ’096 patent 

Case: 16-1755 Document: 38-2 Page: 8 Filed: 03/07/2017
MEIRESONNE v. GOOGLE, INC. 9

are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the 

teachings of Hill and Finseth.

AFFIRMED

Case: 16-1755 Document: 38-2 Page: 9 Filed: 03/07/2017