Ex Parte 6339780 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 17, 2015

95002267 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 17, 2015)

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. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
95/002,267 09/14/2012 6339780 49523.2 3168
26119 7590 06/17/2015
KLARQUIST SPARKMAN LLP
121 S.W. SALMON STREET
SUITE 1600
PORTLAND, OR 97204
EXAMINER
KISS, ERIC B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/17/2015 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)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC
Requester, Appellant, and Cross-Respondent

v.

MICROSOFT CORP.
Patent Owner, Respondent, and Cross-Appellant
____________

Appeal 2015-001463
Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/002,267
United States Patent 6,339,780 B1
Technology Center 3900
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, ANDREW J. DILLON, and
JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

Appeal 2015-001463
Reexamination Control 95/002,267
Patent US 6,339,780 B1

2
DECISION ON APPEAL
Requester appeals under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 315 the Examiner’s
decision to not reject claims 40–42. TPR App. Br. 2.1 Patent Owner cross-
appeals under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 315 the Examiner’s decision to reject
claims 1–39. PO App. Br. 1.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 315, and we heard
the appeal on May 27, 2015. We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding arose from a request for inter partes reexamination
filed on September 14, 2012 of United States Patent 6,339,780 (“the ’780
patent”), issued to Shell et al.
The ’780 patent describes a hypermedia browser on a portable
computer that loads and displays content in a content viewing area. While
the browser loads content, the browser displays a temporary graphic element
over the content viewing area. The element is removed after content is
loaded, allowing unobstructed viewing of the loaded content. See generally
Abstract. Claims 1 and 40 are illustrative of the invention and reproduced
below:

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Right of Appeal Notice mailed
February 26, 2014 (“RAN”); (2) Requester’s Appeal Brief filed May 23,
2014 (“TPR App. Br.”); (3) Patent Owner Respondent’s Brief filed June 23,
2014 (“PO Resp. Br.”); (4) the Examiner’s Answer mailed August 25, 2014
(“Ans.”) (incorporating the RAN by reference); (5) Requester’s Rebuttal
Brief filed September 24, 2014 (“TPR Reb. Br.”); (6) Patent Owner’s
Appeal Brief filed June 20, 2014 (“PO App. Br.”); (7) Requester’s
Respondent Brief filed July 15, 2014 (“TPR Resp. Br.”); and (8) Patent
Owner’s Rebuttal Brief filed September 25, 2014 (“PO Reb. Br.”).
Appeal 2015-001463
Reexamination Control 95/002,267
Patent US 6,339,780 B1

3
1. A hypermedia browser embodied on a computer-
readable medium for execution on an information processing
device having a limited display area, wherein the hypermedia
browser has a content viewing area for viewing content and is
configured to display a temporary graphic element over the
content viewing area during times when the browser is loading
content, wherein the temporary graphic element is positioned
over the content viewing area to obstruct only party of the
content in the content viewing area, wherein the temporary
graphic element is not content and wherein content comprises
data for presentation which is from a source external to the
browser.
40. An information processing device comprising:
a processor;
a display;
a hypermedia browser executing on the processor to load
and display content in a content viewing area on the display;
wherein the hypermedia browser is configured to operate
in a content-loading mode and a content-loaded mode;
in the content-loaded mode, the hypermedia browser
displays loaded content in the content viewing area and no
“load status” graphic element is displayed, wherein absence of
such “load status” graphic element indicates that the browser is
in the content-loaded mode;
in the content-loading mode, the hypermedia browser
loads content, displays such content in the content viewing area
as it loads, and diplays a “load status” graphic element over the
content view area obstructing part of the content displayed in
the content viewing area, wherein presence of such “load
status” graphic element indicates that the browser is in the
content-loading mode; and
Appeal 2015-001463
Reexamination Control 95/002,267
Patent US 6,339,780 B1

4
wherein content comprises data for presentation which is
from a source external to the browser.

RELATED PROCEEDINGS
This appeal is said to be related to four proceedings, one of which is
pending. TPR App. Br. 1; PO App. Br. 1.

THE APPEALED REJECTIONS AND PROPOSED REJECTIONS
Requester appeals the Examiner’s not rejecting claims 40–42 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over GO CORP., PENPOINTTM UI DESIGN
GUIDELINES (1991) (“PenPoint UI Guidelines”) and GO CORP., PENPOINTTM
ARCHITECTURAL REFERENCE VOL. II (1992) (“PenPoint Architectural
Reference”). RAN 20.
Patent Owner cross-appeals the Examiner’s rejecting the claims as
follows:
Claims 1–39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over PenPoint
UI Guidelines and PenPoint Architectural Reference. RAN 19.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Nguyen (US 6,584,498 B2; June 24, 2003) and P. HONEYMAN ET AL.,
THE LITTLE WORK PROJECT (1992) (“Honeyman”). RAN 19.
Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Nguyen,
Honeyman, and Staub (US 5,546,507; Aug. 13, 1996). RAN 19–20.

THE PROPOSED REJECTION OF CLAIMS 40–42
The Examiner finds that because content is not displayed as it loads in
the cited PenPoint references, claims 40–42 would not have been obvious
Appeal 2015-001463
Reexamination Control 95/002,267
Patent US 6,339,780 B1

5
over these references, particularly in light of the two recited modes
pertaining to loading and loaded content. RAN 13–14, 20. Patent Owner
concurs with these findings and conclusions. PO Resp. Br. 2–8.
Requester argues that the Examiner’s limiting the “as it loads”
limitation to displaying only partially-loaded content is unreasonable.
According to Requester, the “as it loads” limitation includes displaying all
loaded content while still in the “content-loading mode,” namely while
PenPoint’s “busy clock” is shown, such as when the device loads content
from an external source. TPR App. Br. 4–14; TPR Reb. Br. 1–6.

ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in declining to reject claims 40–
42 by finding that the cited PenPoint references do not teach or suggest
displaying content as it loads?

ANALYSIS
We begin by noting, as does the Examiner (RAN 13), that
independent claim 40 recites two modes. The first mode is a content-loaded
mode where a browser displays loaded content in a content viewing area, but
does not display a “load status” graphic element. The second mode is a
content-loading mode where the browser (1) loads content; (2) displays such
content in the viewing area as it loads, and (3) displays the graphic element
over the area obstructing part of the displayed content.
There is no dispute that PenPoint’s busy clock is a graphic element
that is displayed temporarily. Although PenPoint does not state explicitly
Appeal 2015-001463
Reexamination Control 95/002,267
Patent US 6,339,780 B1

6
that the busy clock is displayed while content loads, PenPoint’s busy clock
nevertheless indicates that a machine is “alive” if a command’s result does
not appear instantly. PenPoint UI Guidelines, at 64. Notably, the busy clock
can appear when a computer performs time-consuming work, such as
copying large files across a network. PenPoint Architectural Reference, at
193. This functionality, then, at least suggests displaying the busy clock
when a browser loads content by, for example, copying large files across a
network, the content of which could be rendered in the browser. Even
assuming, without deciding, that the cited PenPoint references do not state
explicitly that this copied content is loaded and displayed in a browser, and
could be used for other purposes, loading this content in a browser would
have nevertheless been at least an obvious variation within the level of
ordinary skill in the art. Nor has Patent Owner shown persuasively that such
a variation would have been uniquely challenging or otherwise beyond the
level of ordinarily skilled artisans. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-
Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
To be sure, Dr. Gottesman declares that the busy clock merely
indicates that the system is busy, and not whether content is loading.
Gottesman Decl. ¶¶ 112–114. Although we appreciate Dr. Gottesman’s
insights in this regard, the cited PenPoint references nevertheless at least
suggest displaying the busy clock while content loads in a browser—a time
when the system is busy. Notably, all PenPoint applications (1) launch the
busy clock automatically if they take more than about one-half second to
respond to an input event, and then (2) remove the busy clock when they are
no longer busy. PenPoint Architectural Reference, at 193. This
Appeal 2015-001463
Reexamination Control 95/002,267
Patent US 6,339,780 B1

7
functionality only bolsters the notion that displaying the busy clock while
content loads in a browser would have been obvious during this busy period.
Figure 45 of the PenPoint UI Guidelines likewise teaches positioning
the temporary graphic element over the content viewing area to obstruct part
of the content in that area as claimed. Patent Owner’s contentions to the
contrary (PO Resp. Br. 7–8; Gottesman Decl. ¶ 117) are unavailing in light
of Figure 45 of the PenPoint UI Guidelines. Even assuming, without
deciding, that the busy clock in Figure 45 can be displayed during operations
when the system is busy other than loading content, positioning the busy
clock as shown in that figure to indicate loading content in a browser would
have been at least an obvious variation for those of ordinary skill and
creativity. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (“A
person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton.”).
Therefore, we agree with Requester to the extent that displaying
PenPoint’s busy clock while loading content from an external source would
have been at least an obvious variation. See TPR App. Br. 14; TPR Reb. Br.
5. But that does not mean that this content is displayed as it loads. Rather,
as Requester acknowledges, the busy clock appears until the content is
loaded and appears on the display. TPR App. Br. 14. So even assuming,
without deciding, that the busy clock is displayed when all the loaded
content is displayed as Requester seems to suggest (see id.), this content is
not displayed as it loads, but rather after it loads. To construe the content-
loading mode to include displaying all loaded content (i.e., after it loads
completely) as Requester suggests would conflate the distinct temporal
Appeal 2015-001463
Reexamination Control 95/002,267
Patent US 6,339,780 B1

8
aspects of the two recited modes, namely displaying content during and after
loading, respectively.
To be sure, the loading content displayed in the browser’s viewing
area in Figure 3 of the ’780 patent appears strikingly similar to the loaded
content shown in Figure 4, except for the temporary graphic element 64 as
Requester indicates. TPR App. Br. 12–13; TPR Reb. Br. 3–4. But this
similarity does not mean necessarily that it is the same displayed content.
As Patent Owner indicates, Figure 3 is a static view of a dynamic process
(PO Resp. Br. 6) and, therefore, can be a snapshot of the content as it is
loaded.
Moreover, even images that are visibly similar, such as those in
Figures 3 and 4 of the ’780 patent, can have different content. For example,
displayed images that appear identical may have different resolutions, or
include invisible elements that are displayable once they are loaded (e.g.,
graphic elements with the same foreground and background color,
watermarks, etc.). In these examples, the displayed content would differ
during and after loading, yet appear visibly similar.
Therefore, because the cited PenPoint references do not teach or
suggest displaying content as it loads in the recited content-loading mode,
and displaying loaded content in the content-loaded mode, we are not
persuaded that the Examiner erred by not rejecting claims 40–42.

THE REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1–39
The Examiner finds that the PenPoint UI Guidelines and Architectural
Reference collectively would have taught or suggested every recited element
Appeal 2015-001463
Reexamination Control 95/002,267
Patent US 6,339,780 B1

9
of claims 1–39 for the reasons indicated on pages 42 to 85 of Exhibit AA of
the Request filed Sept. 14, 2012 (“Request”) that the Examiner incorporates
by reference. RAN 19.
Patent Owner argues that even if PenPoint’s busy clock is displayed
while content is loaded, it is also displayed at other times, and, therefore, is
not displayed only when the browser loads content. PO App. Br. 6–8; PO
Reb. Br. 1–9. Patent Owner adds that PenPoint’s busy clock is displayed
outside the content viewing area and, therefore, is not displayed only in the
content viewing area. PO App. Br. 7–8.
Requester contends that claim 1 does not require displaying a
temporary graphic element only when the browser loads content, let alone
require displaying this element only in the content viewing area as Patent
Owner alleges. TPR Resp. Br. 4–6. Accord RAN 4–5 (agreeing with
Requester on these points).

ISSUES
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that the PenPoint UI
Guidelines and Architectural Reference collectively would have taught or
suggested:
(1) a hypermedia browser configured to display a temporary graphic
element over a content viewing area during times when the browser is
loading content, where the element is positioned over that area to obstruct
only part of the content in the area as recited in claim 1?
Appeal 2015-001463
Reexamination Control 95/002,267
Patent US 6,339,780 B1

10
(2) the browser is configured to display the temporary graphic element
over the content viewing area only during times when the browser is loading
visible content as recited in claim 2?
(3) the temporary graphic element indicates to a user that the browser
is loading content as recited in claim 3?
(4) the temporary graphic element disappears when the browser’s
loading content is complete to indicate that condition to a user as recited in
claim 4?
(5) the temporary graphic element conveys browser status information
as recited in claim 9?
(6) the temporary graphic element is positioned only over a portion of
the content viewing area as recited in claim 12?
(7)(a) loading content from a hyperlink resource responsive to user
selection of hyperlinks contained in said content; (b) displaying the content
in a content viewing area; and (c) displaying a temporary graphic element
over the content viewing area during the loading step, where these three
steps occur at least partially concurrently as recited in claim 19?

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 5–8, 10, and 11
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 for the reasons
indicated by the Examiner and Requester. Despite Patent Owner’s
arguments to the contrary (PO App. Br. 6–8; PO Reb. Br. 1–9), we see no
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 that incorporates pages 42 to 51
of the Request. See RAN 19. As Requester indicates, claim 1 does not
Appeal 2015-001463
Reexamination Control 95/002,267
Patent US 6,339,780 B1

11
require displaying a temporary graphic element only when the browser loads
content, let alone require displaying this element only in the content viewing
area as Patent Owner alleges. TPR Resp. Br. 4–6. Accord RAN 4–5
(agreeing with Requester on these points). Nor does claim 1 recite removing
this element. Rather, claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, that the browser is
configured to display a temporary graphic element over the content viewing
area to obstruct only part of the content in that area.
There is no dispute that PenPoint’s busy clock is a graphic element
that is displayed temporarily. Although PenPoint does not state explicitly
that the busy clock is displayed while content loads, PenPoint’s busy clock
nevertheless indicates that a machine is “alive” if a command’s result does
not appear instantly. PenPoint UI Guidelines, at 64. Notably, the busy clock
can appear when a computer performs time-consuming work, such as
copying large files across a network. PenPoint Architectural Reference, at
193. This functionality, then, at least suggests displaying the busy clock
when a browser loads content by, for example, copying large files across a
network, the content of which could be rendered in the browser. Even
assuming, without deciding, that the cited PenPoint references do not state
explicitly that this copied content is loaded and displayed in a browser, and
could be used for other purposes, loading this content in a browser would
have nevertheless been at least an obvious variation within the level of
ordinary skill in the art. Nor has Patent Owner shown persuasively that such
a variation would have been uniquely challenging or otherwise beyond the
level of ordinarily skilled artisans. See Leapfrog, 485 F.3d at 1162.
Appeal 2015-001463
Reexamination Control 95/002,267
Patent US 6,339,780 B1

12
To be sure, Dr. Gottesman declares that the busy clock merely
indicates that the system is busy, and not whether content is loading.
Gottesman Decl. ¶¶ 34–38. Although we appreciate Dr. Gottesman’s
insights in this regard, the weight of the evidence on this record nevertheless
favors the Examiner’s position to the extent that the cited PenPoint
references at least suggest displaying the busy clock while content loads in a
browser—a time when the system is busy. Notably, all PenPoint
applications (1) launch the busy clock automatically if they take more than
about one-half second to respond to an input event, and then (2) remove the
busy clock when they are no longer busy. PenPoint Architectural Reference,
at 193. This functionality only bolsters the Examiner’s position that
displaying the busy clock while content loads in a browser would have been
obvious during this busy period.
Nor are we persuaded of error in the Examiner’s reliance on Figure 45
of the PenPoint UI Guidelines for teaching positioning the temporary
graphic element over the content viewing area to obstruct only part of the
content in that area as claimed. RAN 19 (incorporating page 48 of the
Request). Patent Owner’s contention that Figure 48 of PenPoint UI
Guidelines does not display the temporary graphic element only in the
content viewing area (PO App. Br. 8) is not commensurate with the scope of
the claim and, in any event, does not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s
reliance on Figure 45 that shows positioning the busy clock over the content
viewing area to partially obstruct content in that area.
Even assuming, without deciding, that the busy clock in Figure 45 is
displayed during operations when the system is busy other than loading
Appeal 2015-001463
Reexamination Control 95/002,267
Patent US 6,339,780 B1

13
content as Patent Owner contends (PO App. Br. 8), positioning the busy
clock as shown in that figure to indicate other times when the system is
busy, including loading content in a browser, would have been at least an
obvious variation for those of ordinary skill and creativity. See KSR, 550
U.S. at 421 (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton.”).
Although Patent Owner argues that PenPoint’s displaying the busy
clock when no content is loaded teaches away from the claimed invention
(PO App. Br. 9–10), nothing on this record indicates that the cited PenPoint
references criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into the
invention claimed as required for teaching away. See Norgren Inc. v. Int’l
Trade Comm’n, 699 F.3d 1317, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 5–8, 10, and 11 not argued separately with particularity.

Claim 2
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 reciting that the
browser is configured to display the temporary graphic element over the
content viewing area only during times when the browser is loading visible
content. We see no error in the Examiner’s position that the recited display
limitation is at least suggested by the cited PenPoint references in view of
the PenPoint UI Guidelines teaching displaying the busy clock only when
the browser is busy (e.g., loading content) as noted on page 52 of the
Request that the Examiner incorporates by reference. See RAN 19. As the
Appeal 2015-001463
Reexamination Control 95/002,267
Patent US 6,339,780 B1

14
Examiner and Requester indicate, the claim does not require that visible
content appear on the screen as it loads, let alone appear concurrently with
the temporary graphic element. TPR Resp. Br. 6; RAN 6 (agreeing with
Requester on this point).
Even assuming, without deciding, that PenPoint’s busy clock in
Figure 45 is displayed when no content loads as Patent Owner contends (PO
App. Br. 8; Gottesman Decl. ¶ 52), positioning the busy clock as shown in
that figure to indicate that the system is busy only when the browser loads
visible content would have been at least an obvious variation for those of
ordinary skill and creativity. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (“A person of
ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”).
Although not all content loaded in a browser is visible (e.g., markup
language tags, executable code, scripts, etc.), displaying the temporary
graphic element only when visible content is loaded in the browser would
have nevertheless been at least an obvious variation within the level of
ordinary skill in the art. Nor has Patent Owner shown persuasively that such
a variation would have been uniquely challenging or otherwise beyond the
level of ordinarily skilled artisans. See Leapfrog, 485 F.3d at 1162. Patent
Owner’s arguments (PO App. Br. 8–10) are, therefore, unavailing and not
commensurate with the scope of the claim for the reasons noted previously.

Claim 3
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3 reciting that the
temporary graphic element indicates to a user that the browser is loading
content for the reasons noted previously and those indicated by the Examiner
Appeal 2015-001463
Reexamination Control 95/002,267
Patent US 6,339,780 B1

15
and Requester. RAN 6, 19 (incorporating pages 52 and 53 of the Request by
reference); TPR Resp. Br. 7. Patent Owner’s arguments (PO App. Br. 10–
11) are unavailing for the reasons noted previously.

Claim 4
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4 reciting that the
temporary graphic element disappears when the browser’s loading content is
complete to indicate that condition to a user. Patent Owner contends that
because PenPoint’s busy clock does not indicate solely completing content
loading, but rather indicates other events when the system is busy, removing
the busy clock would not only indicate that the system has finished loading
content. PO App. Br. 11–12. Dr. Gottesman declares that the busy clock’s
disappearance would merely indicate that the system is no longer busy—not
that any particular operation is completed. Gottesman Decl. ¶ 58.
We find that the weight of the evidence on this record, however,
favors the Examiner’s position. As Requester indicates, claim 4 does not
require that removing the temporary graphic element only indicates
completion of content loading. TPR Resp. Br. 8; RAN 7 (agreeing with
Requester on this point). Nor do we find error in the Examiner’s reliance on
the “busyOff” arguments in the code on page 193 of the PenPoint
Architectural Reference that remove the busy clock when a time-consuming
task is completed, such as completing copying large files over a network.
RAN 7. This functionality, then, at least suggests that indicating to a user
that content loading is complete when the busy clock disappears would have
been at least an obvious variation for those of ordinary skill in the art.
Appeal 2015-001463
Reexamination Control 95/002,267
Patent US 6,339,780 B1

16

Claim 9
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 reciting that the
temporary graphic element conveys browser status information. Despite
Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary (PO App. Br. 12–13), nothing in
the claim precludes PenPoint’s busy clock conveying a busy status of the
system—including the browser as at least an obvious variation—for the
reasons indicated previously, and those indicated by the Examiner and
Requester. TPR Resp. Br. 9; Request 58; RAN 8.

Claims 12, 13, 15, and 16
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 12 for
reasons similar to those indicated previously, and by the Examiner and
Requester. Request 61–66; RAN 8–9. Patent Owner’s contention that claim
12 covers situations where content loading may overlap with displaying that
content, and that PenPoint is deficient in this regard (PO App. Br. 14), is
unavailing and not commensurate with the scope of the claim. As noted
above regarding claim 2, nothing in the claim requires that visible content
appear on the screen as it loads, let alone appear concurrently with the
temporary graphic element.
To be sure, claim 12 recites that the temporary graphic element (1) is
displayed when the browser is loading visible content, and (2) obstructs only
part of the visible content in the content viewing area. But nothing in the
claim requires that the visible content that the browser is loading is the same
visible content in the viewing area that is obstructed; the obstructed content
Appeal 2015-001463
Reexamination Control 95/002,267
Patent US 6,339,780 B1

17
could have been loaded previously. Therefore, to the extent that Patent
Owner argues that claim 12 is limited to loading and displaying visible
content concurrently such that content is displayed as it loads similar to
claim 40 (see PO App. Br. 14; Gottesman Decl. ¶ 71), such a contention is
not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Claim 12 further differs from claim 1 and its dependent claims by
reciting, in pertinent part, that the temporary graphic element is positioned
only over a portion of the content viewing area. Nevertheless, this
placement is at least suggested by at least Figure 45 of the PenPoint UI
Guidelines that shows positioning the busy clock only over the content
viewing area to partially obstruct content in that area.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claim 12, and claims 13, 15, and 16 not argued separately with
particularity.

Claim 19
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 19 reciting, in
pertinent part, (1) loading content from a hyperlink resource responsive to
user selection of hyperlinks contained in said content; (2) displaying the
content in a content viewing area; and (3) displaying a temporary graphic
element over the content viewing area during the loading step, where these
three steps occur at least partially concurrently.
Despite Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary (PO App. Br. 15–
16), nothing in the claim requires that the content that is loaded is the same
as that displayed in the content viewing area. Rather, the content could be
Appeal 2015-001463
Reexamination Control 95/002,267
Patent US 6,339,780 B1

18
different as Requester indicates. TPR Resp. Br. 10; RAN 10 (agreeing with
Requester on this point). Therefore, unlike independent claim 40, nothing in
claim 19 precludes displaying the busy clock concurrently with text
(content) in Figure 45 of the PenPoint UI Guidelines while the browser loads
additional content as noted on pages 69 to 72 of the Request that the
Examiner incorporates by reference. RAN 19.
Patent Owner’s contention that claim 19 requires that content is
visible to the user while it is loaded, and displayed concurrently with the
temporary graphic element (PO App. Br. 15–16), is unavailing and not
commensurate with the scope of the claim. Unlike claims 2 and 12, claim
19 does not recite visible content, let alone that such content is displayed as
it loads similar to claim 40. Patent Owner’s reference to paragraphs 70 and
71 of Dr. Gottesman’s Declaration (id. at 16) is likewise unavailing in this
regard, for those cited paragraphs pertain to claim 12 (which does recite
visible content)—not claim 19.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 19.

Claim 24
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 24 reciting
removing the temporary graphic element once the loading step is complete
to indicate to a user that condition. Patent Owner reiterates arguments
similar to those made for claim 4 (see PO App. Br. 4) that we find
unpersuasive for the reasons previously discussed, and those indicated by the
Examiner and Requester. RAN 11; Request 74; TPR Resp. Br. 11.
Appeal 2015-001463
Reexamination Control 95/002,267
Patent US 6,339,780 B1

19

THE REJECTION OF CLAIMS 14, 17, 18, 20–23, and 25–39
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14, 17, 18, 20–23,
and 25–39. Despite nominally arguing these claims separately, Patent
Owner reiterates similar arguments made in connection with claims 1, 3, 4,
6, 10–12, and 19 (PO App. Br. 14, 17–19) that we find unpersuasive for the
reasons previously discussed.

THE REMAINING REJECTIONS
Because our decision is dispositive regarding patentability of all
appealed claims based on the foregoing prior art references, we need not
reach the merits of the Examiner’s decision to also reject claims 1, 3–6, 9,
and 11 over Nguyen, Honeyman, and Staub. RAN 19–20. See Beloit Corp.
v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (approving ITC’s
determination based on a single dispositive issue, and not reaching other
issues not decided by the lower tribunal).

CONCLUSION
Under § 103, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–39 and
not rejecting claims 40–42.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–39 and not rejecting
claims 40–42 is affirmed.
Appeal 2015-001463
Reexamination Control 95/002,267
Patent US 6,339,780 B1

20
Requests for extensions of time in this inter partes reexamination
proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.956. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.79.
In the event neither party files a request for rehearing within the time
provided in 37 C.F.R. § 41.79, and this decision becomes final and
appealable under 37 C.F.R. § 41.81, a party seeking judicial review must
timely serve notice on the Director of the United States Patent and
Trademark Office. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 90.1 and 1.983.

AFFIRMED

bar

Appeal 2015-001463
Reexamination Control 95/002,267
Patent US 6,339,780 B1

21

FOR REQUESTOR:

Andrew S. Ehmke
HAYNES & BOONE LLP
2323 Victory Ave., Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75219

FOR PATENT OWNER:

KLARQUIST SPARKMAN LLP
121 S.W. Salmon Street
Suite 1600
Portland, OR 97204