Ex Parte Chakra et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 14, 201813896126 (P.T.A.B. May. 14, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/896, 126 05/16/2013 75949 7590 IBM CORPORATION C/O: Fabian Vancott 215 South State Street Suite 1200 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 05/16/2018 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR AlChakra 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. RSW920130053US2 1023 EXAMINER BLACKWELL, JAMES H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2177 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/16/2018 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): patents@fabianvancott.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte AL CHAKRA, JOHN A. FELLER, TRUDY L. HEWITT, and FRANCESCO C. SCHEMBARI Appeal2017-007638 Application 13/896, 126 1 Technology Center 2100 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, CATHERINE SHIANG, and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-20. Claim 10 is cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the pending rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify International Business Machines Corporation as the Real Party in Interest. (App. Br. 2.) Appeal2017-007638 Application 13/896, 126 THE INVENTION Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention is directed to presenting a link label for multiple hyperlinks. (Abstract.) Independent claims 1 and 8, reproduced below, are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A method for presenting a link label for multiple hyperlinks, comprising: presenting a layered data element in an electronic message with a link label that represents multiple hyperlinks in a display; designating an active hyperlink from said multiple hyperlinks based on specific criteria associated with a recipient of said electronic message; and directing said recipient of said electronic message to an online location of said active hyperlink in response to user input selecting said link label, wherein the specific criteria comprises a score associated with the hyperlinks, the hyperlinks being scored based on a matching of the criteria, and wherein the hyperlink with the highest score is designated as the active hyperlink. 8. A method for directing a recipient of an electronic message to a relevant hyperlink comprising: generating a layered data element within an electronic message, the layered data element comprising a single link label for a plurality of hyperlinks; designating an active hyperlink from the plurality of hyperlinks based on at least one criteria associated with an electronic address associated with the electronic message; and directing a recipient of said electronic message to an online location of said active hyperlink in response to user input selecting said single link label, 2 Appeal2017-007638 Application 13/896, 126 wherein designating the active hyperlink from the plurality of hyperlinks comprises: determining whether more than one of the hyperlinks satisfies minimal criteria; in response to a determination that a single one of the hyperlinks satisfies the minimal criteria, designating that single one of the hyperlinks as the active hyper 1 ink, and in response to a determination that more than one of the hyperlinks satisfies the minimal criteria, applying a number of additional criteria to the hyperlinks to determine which of the hyperlinks is more relevant to the recipient relative to one another. REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4--9, 11, 12, 14, and 16-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as being anticipated by Feig et al. (US 6,182,140 Bl, issued Jan. 30, 2001 ). (Final Act. 2---6; Ans. 3-19.)2 The Examiner rejected claims 3, 13, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Feig and Bates et al. (US 2003/0188263 Al, pub. Oct. 02, 2003). (Final Act. 10, 17-18, 21-22; Ans. 19-22.) The Examiner rejected claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Feig and Srinivasaiah (US 8,285,716 Bl, issued Oct. 09, 2012). (Final Act. 22; Ans. 22-23.) 2 In the Final Action, the Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4--9, 11, 12, 14, and 16-18 as obvious over Feig and Bates. (Final Act. 6-20.) In the Answer, the Examiner changed the rejection of those claims to anticipation by Feig alone. (Ans. 2-19.) 3 Appeal2017-007638 Application 13/896, 126 ISSUE ON APPEAL Appellants' arguments present the following issue: 3 Whether the Examiner erred in finding Feig discloses the limitations of independent claims 1, 8, and 19. (App. Br. 11-18; Reply Br. 4--15.) ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellants' arguments, and we adopt as our own ( 1) the pertinent findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-22; Ans. 3-23) and (2) the corresponding findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. (Ans. 23-38.) We concur with the applicable conclusions reached by the Examiner, and emphasize the following. In finding that Feig discloses the claimed subject matter, the Examiner relies on the disclosure in Feig of a "multiple Universal Resource Locator" ("mURL") that includes an ordered list ofURLs and an index or code referencing a set of instructions to select which URL is accessed when the mURL is clicked. (Final Act. 5; Feig col. 3, 11. 6-46.) One example of such instructions is: A second INSTRUCTION program controls the browser to traverse, in order, the list of the URLs in the mURL, 3 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the positions of the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Nov. 15, 2016) (herein, "App. Br."); the Reply Brief (filed Apr. 24, 2017) (herein, "Reply Br."); the Final Office Action (mailed June 29, 2016) (herein, "Final Act."); and the Examiner's Answer (mailed Mar. 10, 2017) (herein, "Ans.") for the respective details. 4 Appeal2017-007638 Application 13/896, 126 attempting to access the sites to which each URL points. If a site is inaccessible, the browser marks it as such and makes no further attempts to contact it. If a site is reached, the browser begins a download process for a short period of time (several seconds) in order to determine the bandwidth linking the site. When bandwidth estimates are completed for all accessible URLS, the one with the highest bandwidth is accessed and the download process commences. If there is a tie for the highest bandwidth, the browser downloads from the first (in the list order) of those sites with the highest bandwidth. (Feig col. 3, 1. 62---col. 4, 1. 7 .) Appellants argue the criteria used in Feig - i.e., whether a site is inaccessible and the bandwidth linking the site - does not disclose "criteria associated with a recipient" as required by claim 1, for example. (Reply Br. 6-8.) However, we agree with the Examiner: Determination as to whether a site is accessible and then whether the bandwidth is reasonable for those sites determined to be accessible are interpreted as ... specific criteria associated with a recipient . .. because availability determines whether the user at the client (i.e. the recipient) will even be able to retrieve or download the resource referenced by the selected active hyperlink and a selection of a site having the highest bandwidth determined how fast the user at the client (i.e. the recipient) retrieves or downloads the resource. (Ans. 4--5.) Appellants also argue Feig does not disclose the claim 1 requirement, "the specific criteria comprises a score associated with the hyperlinks, the hyperlinks being scored based on a matching of the criteria, and wherein the hyperlink with the highest score is designated as the active hyperlink." (Reply Br. 4--6.) However, we agree with the Examiner that the disclosure in Feig of determining the bandwidths of the URLs linking the site, and 5 Appeal2017-007638 Application 13/896, 126 selecting the URL with the highest bandwidth, satisfies this requirement: "In the case of Feig, scoring is by bandwidth where the hyperlink with the highest bandwidth implicitly scores highest and is selected as the active hyperlink." (Ans. 6.) For claims 8 and 19, Appellants argue Feig does not disclose the required "minimal criteria," nor the required "additional criteria" used to select a hyperlink should more than one meet the minimal criteria. However, we agree with the Examiner that the required minimal criteria is satisfied by the determination whether a site is inaccessible, and the further criteria is satisfied by the determination of the site with the highest bandwidth, if more than one site is accessible. (E.g., Ans. 12.) Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 19. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 19 as anticipated by Feig. We also sustain the rejections of claims 2, 4--7, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 16-18 as anticipated by Feig, and the obviousness rejections of claims 3, 13, and 20 over Feig and Bates, and of claim 15 over Feig and Srinivasaiah, which rejections are not argued separately with particularity. (App. Br. 18; Reply Br. 15.) 6 Appeal2017-007638 Application 13/896, 126 DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-9 and 11-20. 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(f). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation