Ex Parte Botero

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 24, 2019

13649521 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/649,521 10/11/2012
33438 7590 01/28/2019
TERRILE, CANNATTI & CHAMBERS, LLP
P.O. BOX 203518
AUSTIN, TX 78720
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Luis J. Botero
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
DC-100392.01 4092
EXAMINER
SHECHTMAN, CHERYL MARIA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2157
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/28/2019 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):
heather@tcciplaw.com
tmunoz@tcciplaw.com
USPTO@dockettrak.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LUIS J. BOTER0 1
Appeal2018-004008
Application 13/649,521
Technology Center 2100
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Dell Products L.P. See
App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-004008
Application 13/649,521
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1, 4--7, 10-13, and 16-18. Claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 14, and 15 are canceled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm. 2
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to a responsive images service. Spec., Title.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer-implementable method for automating the
management of a device description repository (DDR), the
DDR comprising a repository of data associated with properties
of a user device, comprising:
receiving a first user-agent identifier and a request for a first
image, the first user-agent identifier comprising
identification information that can be used to identify
client software originating the request for the first image;
receiving a first set of device properties associated with the
first user-agent identifier;
using the first user-agent identifier to search the DDR for a
second user-agent identifier, the first user-agent identifier
matching the second user-agent identifier;
processing the first set of device properties to initiate the
provision of the first image if the second user-agent
identifier is not found, the first image compatible with
the first set of device properties;
indexing the first user-agent identifier to the first set of
device properties and to the first image; and
storing the indexed first user-agent identifier and the first set
of device properties in the DDR so as to provide
automatic management of the DDR; and wherein
2 We refer to the Specification, filed October 11, 2012 ("Spec."); the Final
Office Action, mailed March 29, 2017 ("Final Act."); Appeal Brief, filed
August 24, 2017 ("Br."); and the Examiner's Answer, mailed December 14,
2017 ("Ans.").
2
Appeal2018-004008
Application 13/649,521
the first user-agent identifier and the request for the first
image is received from a web browser processing a web
page;
the first set of device properties is provided by a device
detection script embedded in the web page, the execution
of the device detection script initiated by the processing
of the web page by the web browser;
the second user-agent identifier is found in the DDR; and
the second user-agent identifier is associated with a second
set of device properties stored in the DDR.
REFERENCES
The following prior art is relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Watson
Hanson
US 2004/0049574 Al
US 8,555,384 B 1
REJECTION
Mar. 11, 2004
Oct. 8, 2013
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4--7, 10-13, and 16-18 under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Watson and Hanson.
ANALYSIS
Appellant's contentions are unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error.
We adopt as our own ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-10, Ans. 3-9) and
(2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in
response to Appellant's Appeal Brief (Ans. 9-14) and concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for
emphasis, adopting the Examiner's issue designation numbering appearing
in the Answer for consistency of reference.
3
Appeal2018-004008
Application 13/649,521
1 a - The Device Description Repository (DDR) Definition
Appellant contends the Device Description Repository (DDR) of
claim 1 would have been understood to be "a standard interface and an
initial core vocabulary of device properties of the user device as defined by
the Mobile Web Initiative Device Description Working Group." Br. 3.
Appellant argues Watson fails to disclose or suggest such a DDR. Id. The
Examiner responds that Appellant's asserted definition is not found in the
Specification and that, under a broad but reasonable interpretation, Watson's
device policy tables 40 teach or suggest the disputed DDR. Ans. 10.
Appellant's contention is not persuasive. As explained by the
Examiner, the Specification fails to evidence that the DDR of the claims is
limited to the argued definition of the Mobile Web Initiative Device
Description Working Group. Nor does Appellant provide other persuasive
evidence supporting the argument that one skilled in the art, at the time of
the invention, would have understood a DDR as requiring limitations
imposed by the asserted standard. To the contrary, the Specification
discloses "[a]s used herein, a DDR 212 broadly refers to a repository of data
associated with the properties of a target device, such as user devices 204."
Spec. ,r 17. Thus, the Specification discloses the DDR as merely a
repository of data, not a particular machine or functionality defined as per
the argued Mobile Web Initiative Device Description Working Group
standard. Appellant's argument is further unpersuasive for failure to identify
particular features or functions of the argued DDR that distinguish it over
Watson's device policy tables 40 of memory 22.
4
Appeal2018-004008
Application 13/649,521
1 b -Automating Management of the DDR
Appellant contends Watson fails to disclose automating management
of a DDR. Br. 3. The Examiner responds, explaining Watson's database 19
stores data objects that are automatically selected to allow a determination of
whether a user device is capable of receiving and displaying a data object.
Ans. 10. The Examiner finds the described functionality teaches or suggests
automating management of the DDR as claimed. Id. Appellant does not
reply.
Appellant's contention is not persuasive for lack of sufficient
explanation of what features of the recited automated management of the
DDR are absent from Watson. Merely reciting a claim limitation and
asserting it is not present falls short of identifying an error in the Examiner's
rejection as required on appeal. Arguments must address the Examiner's
action. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) ("The arguments shall explain why the
examiner erred as to each ground of rejection contested by appellant."); In re
Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[T]he Board reasonably
interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal
brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that
the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art"). Therefore,
under a broad but reasonable interpretation, we agree with the Examiner that
Watson's component logic software module provides functionality teaching
or suggesting the disputed limitation.
1 c - Receiving a Request for a First Image
Appellant contends Watson's extraction of a device type for
identifying a remote user device fails to disclose a request for a first image
or that the user-agent identifier comprises identification information that can
5
Appeal2018-004008
Application 13/649,521
be used to identify client software originating the request for the first image.
Br. 4. The Examiner responds that Watson discloses a request for a webpage
that results in the return of versions of image objects to be displayed within
the webpage thereby teaching or suggesting a request for a first image.
Ans. 11. The Examiner further explains Watson's extraction of a device type
identifier by retrieving the name of the user-agent of the device originating
the request teaches or suggests identification information that can be used to
identify client software originating the request for the first image. Ans. 12.
Appellant does not reply.
Appellant's contention is unpersuasive because it fails to adequately
address the Examiner's findings. In particular, Appellant's argument lacks
sufficient explanation of why the name of the user-agent does not teach or
suggest to one skilled in the art that it could be used to identify client
software. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). Therefore, in the absence of
persuasive evidence or argument to the contrary, we agree that one skilled in
the art would have understood that a user-agent identifier would have been
sufficient to identify the associated software.
1 d - Using a 1st User-Agent ID to Search DDRfor a 2nd User-Agent ID
Appellant contends Watson's temporary update message, which
provides a nearest appropriate existing device type identifier when an exact
match cannot be found, fails to disclose using a first user-agent identifier to
search a DDR for a second user-agent identifier. Br. 4. The Examiner
responds, explaining:
Watson discloses the determination of a remote user device of a
new type, e.g. a latest version of a mobile telephone with
different display capabilities [Watson, para 119]. Watson
discloses that when it is determined that a device type identifier
cannot be extracted from the request message (because it is a
6
Appeal2018-004008
Application 13/649,521
new unstored device type and therefore an unknown
identification stream) [para 121 ], a temporary update message
is generated to provide production server with a nearest
appropriate device type identifier ( second user agent identifier)
that is capable of being interpreted and displayed by the device
[para 129].
Ans. 12.
Appellant's contention is unpersuasive of Examiner error. Although
asserting "using a first user-agent identifier to search a DDR for a second
user-agent identifier is patentably distinct from the disclosed process of
Watson when a request message contains an unknown identification stream"
(Br. 4), Appellant fails to explain why Watson's nearest appropriate type
identifier is not equivalent to, or at least suggests, the claimed second-user
agent identifier.
1 e - Storing 1st User Agent ID and Device Properties in DDR
The Examiner finds Watson's database 19 stores data objects by
indexing device type identifiers to device capabilities to allow automatic
selection of an appropriate data object version and determination of whether
a given user device is capable of receiving and displaying the data object.
Final Act. 5---6. Therefore, according to the Examiner, Watson teaches or
suggests the limitation of "storing the indexed first user-agent identifier and
the first set of device properties in the DDR so as to provide automatic
management of the DDR." Id. Appellant contends Watson fails to disclose
or suggest the disputed limitation. Br. 4. However, other than the naked
assertion that Watson is deficient, Appellant fails to address the Examiner's
findings. As explained above, such conclusory argument is insufficient to
persuade us of Examiner error. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
7
Appeal2018-004008
Application 13/649,521
If- Device Description Script Embedded in Web Page
The Examiner finds the combination of Watson and Hanson teaches or
suggests the limitation of the first set of device properties is provided by a
device detection script embedded in the web page, the execution of the
device detection script initiated by the processing of the web page by the
web browser. Final Act. 6-7. According to the Examiner, Watson teaches
providing the first set of device properties (id.) and Hanson teaches
providing or collecting data using a script embedded in a web page (id. at 7).
Appellant contends
Br. 5.
[N]owhere within ... Hanson ... is there any disclosure or
suggestion of a first set of device properties being provided by
a device detection script embedded in the web page, much less
the execution of the device detection script initiated by the
processing of the web page by the web browser, as required by
claims 1, 7 and 13.
Appellant's contention is unpersuasive because, other than alleging
Hanson is deficient, Appellant fails to address the Examiner's findings and,
in particular, explain why Hanson's fraud detection applet fails to teach or
suggest the disputed web page having with embedded script. Therefore, in
the absence of sufficient evidence or argument, we are unpersuaded of
Examiner error.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of independent claim 1 and, for
the same reasons, independent claims 7 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Watson and Hanson together with the rejection of dependent claims 4--
6, 10-12, and 16-18 not argued separately.
8
Appeal2018-004008
Application 13/649,521
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 4--7, 10-13, and
16-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
9