Ex Parte Belvin et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 8, 201411751513 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 8, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE __________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD __________ Ex parte MARCUS L. BELVIN, CHRISTOPHER M. BROGLIE, MICHAEL J. FREDERICK, and DAVID J. HAWKEY __________ Appeal 2012-000655 Application 11/751,513 Technology Center 2100 __________ Before DEMETRA J. MILLS, MELANIE L. McCOLLUM, and JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a system, medium, and method for selectable display of content attributes for a hyperlink. The Examiner rejected the claims as anticipated and as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify the Real Parties in Interest as International Business Machines Corporation (see App. Br. 1). Appeal 2012-000655 Application 11/751,513 2 Statement of the Case Background “Activating a hyperlink in content in a content browser generally results in the display within the content browser of different content referenced by the hyperlink” (Spec. 2 ¶ 0003). The Specification teaches that to “access the attributes of the selection referenced in the hyperlink, however, requires the activation of the hyperlink. To the extent that an end user prefers to browse the attributes of many different selections, each referenced by a separate hyperlink, then can be a tedious process” (Spec. 3 ¶ 0004). The Claims Claims 12-27 are on appeal. Claims 13-27 have not been argued separately from claim 12 and, therefore, stand or fall with that claim. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(ii). We thus focus our analysis on claim 12, which reads as follows: 12. A method for selectable display of content attributes for a hyperlink, the hyperlink referencing content and the content comprising selectable content attributes, each content attribute having a respective attribute value, comprising: receiving a selected subset of the plurality of selectable content attributes; defining hover properties for the hyperlink, the hover properties including the selected subset of content attributes; detecting a proximity event for the hyperlink; and responsive to the proximity event being detected, displaying, in a popup box, attribute values corresponding to only the selected subset of content attributes from the selectable content attributes. Appeal 2012-000655 Application 11/751,513 3 The issues A. The Examiner rejected claims 12, 13, 15-19, 21-23, and 25-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Becker2 (Ans. 4-7). B. The Examiner rejected claims 14, 20, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Becker and Ramachandran3 (Ans. 8-9). A. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Becker The Examiner finds that Becker teaches [A] method for selectable display of content attributes . . . comprising: Receiving a selected subset of the plurality of selectable content attributes (column 9, lines 18-40: whereas a user can choose/select particular attributes of interests); Defining hover properties for the hyperlink, the hover properties including the selected subset of content attributes (column 9, lines 18-40: whereas, hover properties can include retrieving one or more profile attributes/characteristics); detecting a proximity event for the hyperlink (column 9, lines 18-40: whereas, a hover or mouse button action near the proximity of a hyperlink can be detected); and responsive to the proximity event being detected, displaying, in a popup box, attribute values corresponding to only the selected subset of content attributes from the selectable content attributes (Fig 4, column 9, lines 18-40: whereas, a popup box can be displayed based upon user selection of interested content attributes). (Ans. 4-5.) The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence of record support the Examiner’s conclusion that Becker anticipates claim 12? 2 Becker et al., US 6,834,372 B1, issued Dec. 21, 2004. 3 Ramachandran, P., US 2005/0125727 A1, published Jun. 9, 2005. Appeal 2012-000655 Application 11/751,513 4 Findings of Fact 1. The Specification teaches that “an end user preference for a selected set of attributes for linked content can be stored in association with a document browsing system” (Spec. 5-6 ¶ 0013). 2. The Specification teaches that “the end user can customize the selected set of attribute values to be revealed in the popup box and need not activate the hyperlink to visualize the attribute values” (Spec. 6 ¶ 0013). 3. Figure 4 of Becker is reproduced below: “FIG. 4 is a flowchart of an operational sequence for operating a web browser to provide proximity sensitive hyperlink history reports” (Becker, col. 3, ll. 43-45). Appeal 2012-000655 Application 11/751,513 5 4. Becker teaches that “whenever a user places the cursor near a hyperlinked web site, the invention conveniently presents a data -packed report of various useful characteristics from the user’s past visit(s) to that web site” (Becker, col. 2, ll. 58-61). 5. Becker teaches that Step 406a determines whether further criteria (if any) are met for displaying information about past visits to the current hyperlink. Step 406a requires such further input (if any) to expedite other operations of the web browser 105 by preventing excessive analysis of web sites as the cursor passes over them. Some examples of such further input may include requiring the cursor to hover at or near the hyperlink for a certain time, requiring the user to press a keyboard key or mouse button while the cursor is at or near the hyperlink (Becker, col. 9, ll. 19-28). 6. Becker teaches that If the criteria of step 406a are met, step 406b cross- references the selected database to identify characteristics of the underlying data obtained from one or more instances where the web browser 105 selected the current hyperlink. According to one embodiment, step 406b may only cross- reference certain entries in the database for the current hyperlink if the user has specified certain hyperlink characteristics that the user is interested in and others where there is no interest, for example by user profile or other choice. For example, only download time and size may be of interest. (Becker, col. 9, ll. 30-41.) 7. Becker teaches that in “the single user, non-shared database embodiment, step 406c references the personal database 113 to identify Appeal 2012-000655 Application 11/751,513 6 characteristics of the current hyperlinks underlying data from the single user’s previous visits to the current hyperlink” (Becker, col. 9, ll. 40-44). 8. Table 1 of Becker is reproduced below: “TABLE 1 illustrates one specific type of the database 113” (Becker, col. 6, ll. 47-48). 9. Becker teaches that: Each time the computer user selects a hyperlink, such as by “mouse clicking,” this causes the computer 104 to download underlying data from a web address represented by the hyperlink. Although the underlying data may comprise a hyperlinked web page in most cases, other forms of underlying data are possible as well, such as software programs, sound files, graphics images, etc. (Becker, col. 5, ll. 47-54.) Appeal 2012-000655 Application 11/751,513 7 Principles of Law “A single prior art reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Claim terms are interpreted using the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification. See, e.g., In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.”). Analysis Claim interpretation is at the heart of patent examination because before a claim is properly interpreted, its scope cannot be compared to the prior art. In this case, Appellants challenge the Examiner’s interpretation of the phrase “content attribute” as recited in Claim 12, arguing that the “improper claim construction of ‘content attribute’ as a ‘hyperlink attribute’ exceeds the legal standard for claim construction during examination and inhibits Examiner’s ability to properly compare the cited art to Appellants’ claims” (App. Br. 10). During prosecution, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable interpretation as they would be understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art in the light of the Specification. Therefore, we first turn to the Specification to determine whether the meaning of the phrase “content attribute” can be discerned. Appeal 2012-000655 Application 11/751,513 8 The Specification teaches that “an end user preference for a selected set of attributes for linked content can be stored in association with a document browsing system” (Spec. 5-6 ¶ 0013; FF 1). The Specification also teaches that “the end user can customize the selected set of attribute values to be revealed in the popup box and need not activate the hyperlink to visualize the attribute values” (Spec. 6 ¶ 0013; FF 2). Thus, the Specification teaches that “content attributes” are customizable values which may reflect end user preferences (FF 1-2), but provide no specific limitations or requirements as to the type of information broadly encompassed by the phrase “content attributes.” Appellants do not identify any portion of the Specification which specifically defines the phrase “content attribute.” The Examiner finds that Becker “explains that content attributes can be specific to the underlying data such as a hyperlinked web page or other types of files such as sound files, graphics, or images. The download times/attributes of the content referenced through hyperlink(s) are shown in table 1” (Ans. 9-10). The Examiner finds that “a set of content attributes (such as download time, or size of a file/content accessed through a hyperlink) are indeed taught” (Ans. 10). We find that the Examiner has the better position. Becker teaches defining display properties for a hyperlink popup box where “input may include requiring the cursor to hover at or near the hyperlink for a certain time” (Becker, col. 9, ll. 24-26; FF 5). Responsive to this input based on proximity, Becker “cross-references the selected database to identify characteristics of the underlying data obtained from one or more instances Appeal 2012-000655 Application 11/751,513 9 where the web browser 105 selected the current hyperlink” (Becker, col. 9, ll. 30-33; FF 6). Becker teaches that “only download time and size may be of interest” (Becker, col. 9, ll. 39-40; FF 6). We particularly agree with the Examiner that “download time” and “download size,” two parameters found in Becker’s table 11 database (FF 8), are reasonably interpreted as “content attributes.” Both download time and download size are related to the underlying content in the web site, not the hyperlink itself. The relationship to content is shown in Table 1, where the IBM.com website has a download size of 20 Kb and download time of 2.1 seconds, while the IBM.com/products web site has a download size of 25 Kb and a download time of 2.5 seconds. The only reasonable interpretation of “download size” is that the term refers to the size of the content of the website being downloaded, not the hyperlink itself, which has no “download size.” Appellants contend that “Becker refers not to content, but to a ‘hyperlink’. . . . The hyperlink . . . is NOT the content, but the hyperlink ‘points’ to the content” (App. Br. 8). We are not persuaded. Becker specifically refers to a step which “cross-references the selected database to identify characteristics of the underlying data obtained from one or more instances where the web browser 105 selected the current hyperlink” (Becker, col. 9, ll. 30-33; FF 6). One type of underlying data identified by Becker is download size (FF 6). As discussed above, “download size” is reasonably interpreted as referring to the underlying data on the web page and therefore reasonably satisfies the claim requirement for “content attributes” in claim 12. Appeal 2012-000655 Application 11/751,513 10 Appellants contend that the “Examiner has not attempted to prove that the ‘hovering’ referenced in Becker somehow is a data structure that stores therein content attributes such as file size or file download time as argued by Examiner” (Reply Br. 4). We are not persuaded. Becker teaches, regarding hover, that “whenever a user places the cursor near a hyperlinked web site, the invention conveniently presents a data -packed report of various useful characteristics from the user’s past visit(s) to that web site” (Becker, col. 2, ll. 48-61; FF 4). One component of such a report is the content attribute “download size” (FF 8-9). Thus, Becker clearly teaches a data structure which, when triggered by a hovering cursor, displays underlying “content attributes” of the website to which the hyperlink connects in a “data-packed report” (FF 4-9). Conclusion of Law The evidence of record supports the Examiner’s conclusion that Becker anticipates claim 12. B. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Becker and Ramachandran Appellants do not separately argue the claims in this obviousness rejection. Instead, Appellants note that the claims stand or fall with the independent claims. Having affirmed the anticipation rejection of claim 12 over Becker, we also find that the further combination with Ramachandran renders the remaining claims obvious for the reasons given by the Examiner (see Ans. 8-9). Appeal 2012-000655 Application 11/751,513 11 SUMMARY In summary, we affirm the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Becker. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1), we also affirm the rejection of claims 13, 15-19, 21-23, and 25-27, as these claims were not argued separately. We affirm the rejection of claims 14, 20, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Becker and Ramachandran. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED cdc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation