Ex Parte Abd-El-Malek et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 23, 2015

12464203 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 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.
12/464,203 05/12/2009 John Abd-El-Malek 2525.1420002 1129
66777 7590 09/23/2015
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
KIM, DONG U
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2196
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/23/2015 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
_____________

Ex parte JOHN ABD-EL-MALEK, DARIN FISHER,
and MIKE BELSHE
_____________

Appeal 2013-008852
Application 12/464,203
Technology Center 2100
______________

Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2013-008852
Application 12/464,203

2

STATEMENT OF CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–7 and 9–27. Claim 8 has been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
INVENTION
Appellants’ invention involves browser plug-ins. See Abstract.
Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A system for browsing web content using a plug-in,
comprising:
at least one renderer process that detects plug-in content
in the web content; and
a plug-in process, having a thread of execution separate
from the at least one renderer process, that includes the plug-in
and communicates with the at least one renderer process to
interpret the plug-in content using an inter-process
communication channel;
a processor; and
a memory coupled to the processor, wherein the
processor executes instructions to instantiate the at least one
renderer process and the plug-in process.

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE1
The Examiner rejected claims 1–4, 6, 7, 9–19, and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Purple (US 2005/0193324 A1, Sept. 1,

1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”)
mailed August 15, 2012, and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed on
April 11, 2013.
Appeal 2013-008852
Application 12/464,203

3

2005) in view of Durgin (US 2007/0038642 A1, Feb. 15, 2007). Final Act.
4–10.
The Examiner rejected claims 5 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Purple in view Durgin, further in view of
Challenger (US 2008/0235710 A1, Sept. 25, 2008). Final Act. 10–12.
The Examiner rejected claims 22–27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Purple in view Durgin, further in view of
Semenzato (US 5,903,728, May 11, 1999). Final Act. 12–14.

ANALYSIS
Appellants have presented several arguments as to why the
combination of the references does not teach or suggest the features recited
in claims 1–7 and 9–27. App. Br. 5–14.2
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner has provided
a comprehensive response to each argument presented by the Appellants on
pages 5 through 11 of the Answer. We have reviewed this response and
concur with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions. We adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. Ans. 5–11.

2 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) dated
February 6, 2013.
Appeal 2013-008852
Application 12/464,203

4

We observe that no Reply Brief is of record to rebut such findings including
the Examiner’s responses to Appellants’ arguments.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–7 and 9–27 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc