Ex Parte Bao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 1, 2017

13549416 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 1, 2017)

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.
13/549,416 07/14/2012 Sheng Hua Bao CN920110064US1 9226
48813 7590 02/03/2017
LAW OFFICE OF IDO TUCHMAN (YOR)
PO Box 765
Cardiff, CA 92007
EXAMINER
FRUMKIN, JESSE P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2156
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/03/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
pair@tuchmanlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHENG HUA BAO, JIAN CHEN, ZHONG SU, and RUI WANG
Appeal 2016-002173
Application 13/549,4161
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, LARRY J. HUME, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—6, 8, 9, and 11, which constitute all claims
pending in the application. Claims 7 and 10 have been canceled. We have
jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify International Business Machines Corporation as the
real party in interest. App. Br. 2. This Appeal is related to pending appeal
2016-002819 (Application 13/560,976).
Appeal 2016-002173
Application 13/549,416
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to web page search technology, and
specifically, searching for dynamic web pages. Abstract; Spec. Tflf 2-4.
Claim 1, the lone independent claim, is representative of the invention and
the subject matter of the appeal, and reads as follows (with the disputed
limitations in italics):
1. A method for searching for a web document, comprising:
receiving a user’s search request;
searching for a web document related to the search request
based on a web document index;
determining a movement path of a mouse for accessing the
web document based on a movement path index of the mouse for
the web document;
sending the movement path of the mouse for accessing the
web document to the user;
displaying the web document and the move path for
accessing the web document; and
obtaining the web document by simulating clicking of the
web browser based on the move path.
App. Br. 16 (Claims App’x.).
Claims 1—6, 8, 9, and 11 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lawrence et al. (US
2005/0234848 Al; Oct. 20, 2005) (“Lawrence”) and Rossler et al.
(US 2005/0204296 Al; Sept. 15, 2005) (“Rossler”). Final Act. 6-11.
2
Appeal 2016-002173
Application 13/549,416
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of the arguments
raised in the Briefs. On the record before us, we cannot sustain the
Examiner’s rejections.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches
the following limitations of claim 1: (1) “determining a movement path of a
mouse for accessing the web document based on a movement path index;”
(2) “sending the movement path of the mouse;” and (3) “obtaining the web
document by simulating clicking of the web browser based on the move
path.” App. Br. 5—11; Reply Br. 3—5. Appellants further argue the
Examiner lacked a rationale to combine the references, and that Rossler is
non-analogous art. App. Br. 11—15. We are persuaded, on the record before
us, the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches “obtaining the web
document by simulating clicking of the web browser based on the move
path.” We find this issue to be dispositive, such that we need not reach the
remaining arguments.
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner cited Rossler as teaching the
foregoing “obtaining” limitation. See Final Act. 7 (“Lawrence et al., does
not teach: obtaining the web document by simulating clicking of the web
browser based on the move path.”); id. (citing Rossler || 37, 46). In the
Answer, the Examiner appears to modify that position, relying additionally
on Lawrence. Ans. 2—3 (citing Lawrence Abst., Figs. 2, 3, 18, 21, 46).
None of the passages cited by the Examiner, however, relate to “simulating
clicking of the web browser based on the move path,” and the record does
not demonstrate how combining the references would teach or suggest this
limitation.
3
Appeal 2016-002173
Application 13/549,416
Rossler is directed to sharing a document in a browser and “targets
the problem of providing a multimedia collaboration.” Rossler Abst.
Paragraph 37 teaches geographically separated users can share a browser
window, and paragraph 46 relates to “shared pointer” control. Rossler
37, 46; Final Act. 7. The record does not indicate, and we do not discern,
how these passages in Rossler would teach or suggest to one of ordinary
skill in the art the disputed limitation. See App. Br. 5—6.
Lawrence, like Appellants’ invention, is directed to search
technology. Lawrence Abst. As the Examiner finds, Lawrence teaches
“capturing” user actions such as “entering a keystroke” or “moving the
mouse.” Lawrence 118, 21; Ans. 3. These teachings, however, relate to the
claim limitation “determining a movement path of a mouse,” Final Act. 6,
not the disputed “obtaining” limitation. Similarly, Lawrence teaches the
search engine may “receive” such captured events, Lawrence 146, but that
teaching relates to the “sending the movement path of the mouse” limitation,
not the disputed “obtaining” limitation. Final Act. 6—7. Figures 2 and 3 of
Lawrence (cited by the Examiner, Ans. 3) are flow charts reflecting the
foregoing teachings. The Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill would
understand “moving the mouse and entering a keystroke” also to teach
“clicking the mouse,” because “this is an obvious type of event associated
with a mouse movement.” Ans. 3. The disputed limitation, however, does
not merely recite clicking but “simulated] clicking” that is “based on the
move path.” App. Br. 16 (Claims App’x. (emphasis added)). We do not
4
Appeal 2016-002173
Application 13/549,416
discern, on the record before us, any teaching in the cited combination of
references (or either reference individually) of this limitation.2
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1
as unpatentable over Lawrence and Rossler under 35 U.S.C. § 103, nor do
we sustain the same rejection of claims 2—6, 8, 9, and 11, all of which are
dependent and include the limitations of claim 1.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—6, 8, 9, and 11.
REVERSED
2 In the event of further prosecution, including any review for allowance, the
Examiner may wish to consider whether “the move path” has antecedent
basis in the claim under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph (pre-AIA), or 35
U.S.C. § 112(b). See App. Br. 16 (claim 1 reciting “a movement path of the
mouse,” “a movement path index,” “the movement path of the mouse,” and
“the move path for accessing the web document”). While the Board is
authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), no inference should
be drawn when the Board elects not to do so. See Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1213.02.
5