Ex Parte Chang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2016

13350647 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/350,647 01/13/2012
10996 7590 09/30/2016
McDermott Will & Emery LLP (Google)
The McDermott Building
500 North Capitol St., N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jeffrey Albert CHANG
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.
087868-0712 2302
EXAMINER
VU,TOANH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2141
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2016 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):
mweipdocket@mwe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEFFREY ALBERT CHANG, MIRANDA R. CALLAHAN,
GLEN MURPHY, and MARC PA WLIGER1
Appeal2015-004585
Application 13/350,647
Technology Center 2100
Before KEVIN C. TROCK, AMBER L. HAGY, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-20, which constitute all pending claims. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Google Inc. (App. Br. 3.)
Appeal2015-004585
Application 13/350,647
Introduction
Appellants state their "disclosure generally relates to the transmission
of data over a network, and more particularly to the use of a computing
device to communicate over a network." (Spec i-f 2.) Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A computer-implemented method for synchronizing a
personalized web browsing experience on multiple devices
using a data synchronization process by logging into a web
browser on each device using a pre-existing profile, the method
compnsmg:
receiving a request to open a first instance of a web
browser;
receiving, in the first instance of the web browser and
for use by a data synchronization process, log in information
for a pre-existing profile for accessing e-mail of an e-mail
service, the pre-existing profile created prior to a first use of the
login information for the data synchronization process; and
providing web browser personalization information for
the pre-existing profile to the data synchronization process in
response to the receipt of the log in information for the pre-
existing profile,
wherein the web browser personalization information is
provided to the data synchronization process for
synchronization with other web browser personalization
information for another web browser associated with the pre-
existing profile on another device.
(App. Br. 18 (Claims App'x) (disputed requirement emphasized).)
Rejections
Claims 1, 3---6, 9, 11, 13-15, 17, and 19-20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Brown et al. (US 2009/0228504 Al; Sept.
10, 2009), Rakowski et al. (US 2007/0283011 Al; Dec. 6, 2007), and
Cabezas et al. (US 2009/0144451 Al; June 4, 2009). (Final Act. 4--9.)
2
Appeal2015-004585
Application 13/350,647
Claims 2, 7, and 12 stand rejected as obvious over Brown, Rakowski,
Cabezas, and Jay Hathaway, Multifox: log into websites with multiple
accounts, simultaneously (Dec. 15, 2009) (last visited May 4, 2011)
(retrieved from http://downloadsquad.switched.com/2009/12/15/multifox-
log-into-websites-with-multiple-accounts-simultaneous ). (Final Act. 9-11.)
Claims 8, 10, 16, and 18 stand rejected as obvious over Brown,
Rakowski, Cabezas, and Spivack (US 2009/0077124 Al; Mar. 19, 2009).
(Final Act. 11-12.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions and disagree with Appellants' conclusions. Except as noted
below, we adopt as our own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Final Office Action from which this appeal is taken (Final
Act. 4--12) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's
Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 11-15).2 We concur
with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following
for emphasis.
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding Rakowski teaches the
disputed requirement of "receiving, in the first instance of the web browser
and for use by a data synchronization process, log in information for a pre-
existing profile for accessing e-mail of an e-mail service," as recited in
independent claim 1. (App. Br. 12.) Appellants argue Rakowski "teaches
receiving login information such as a user name, and storing configuration
changes in an event log, for example, for an email application, but does not
2 The Examiner's Answer labels all 15 pages of its discussion as "Page 1."
We refer to these pages as if they were sequentially numbered 1-15.
3
Appeal2015-004585
Application 13/350,647
anywhere teach or suggest [the disputed requirement.]" Reply Br. 3.
Appellants insist that Rakowski's teaching that "configuration changes are
stored in a local event log on each client, as well as in a synchronization
server" (id. at 4 (citing Rakowski, Abstract)) "does not teach or suggest
'receiving ... log in information for a pre-existing profile for accessing e-
mail of an e-mail service."' Id. at 4.
Appellants point to their Specification's example of "using a
common pre-existing user profile, such as a pre-existing email address
and password combination. The pre-existing profile is initially created
for another service, such as an email account." (Id. at 13 (quoting Spec.
i-f 29).) Appellants in effect argue the disputed requirement requires log in
information for an email service be the log in information for the pre-
existing profile. We disagree. Under a broad but reasonable interpretation,
in view of the relevant examples and permissive language of Appellants'
Specification, claim 1 's log in information is simply the information, such as
a usemame and password, for obtaining access to the pre-existing profile.
The profile then is "for accessing e-mail of an e-mail service."
Appellants do not persuade us that the disputed requirement does not
encompass Rakowski's teaching of using "event logs" (see i-f 74), which
contain synchronization information such as email log in information (see
i-fi-163, 67). Rakowski's synchronization event log, stored on a server,
constitutes a "pre-existing profile" as recited. Email log in information
stored in an event log satisfies the requirement "for accessing e-mail of an e-
mail service" as recited. Receiving log in information to access the event
log constitutes "receiving ... log in information for a pre-existing profile" as
4
Appeal2015-004585
Application 13/350,647
recited. We agree with the Examiner that Rakowski teaches claim 1 's
disputed requirement. (See Final Act. 4---6, Ans. 11-13.)
Appellants also argue Cabezas "does not anywhere teach or suggest
that the login name and login password are also for a pre-existing profile of
an e-mail service." (App. Br. 14.) The Examiner, however, relies upon
Rakowski, not Cabezas, for teaching claim 1 's "log in information for a pre-
existing profile" requirement. (Final Act. 5---6.) We accordingly sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Appellants also argue the Examiner errs in rejecting the other
independent claims (11, 19, and 20) for the same reasons as for claim 1; for
the reasons discussed supra, we find this argument unpersuasive.
Appellants further argue the Examiner errs in rejecting dependent claims 2-
10 and 12-18 over combinations of Brown, Rakowski, Cabezas, and other
references, because none of the other references cure the deficiencies of the
art cited against the parent independent claims (see App. Br. 15-16); we
stand unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments for the reasons discussed
supra.
For the foregoing reasons we, therefore, sustain the Examiner's
rejections of claims 1-20.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims
1-20. 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) (2013).
AFFIRMED
5