Ex Parte Elford et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 16, 2016

12978082 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/978,082 12/23/2010
31817 7590 06/20/2016
SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P,C
c/o CPA GLOBAL
900 2nd A venue South, Suite 600
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Christopher L. Elford
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.
127079-180744 1559
EXAMINER
PARKER, JEANETTE J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2175
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/20/2016 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):
IPDocketing@SCHWABE.com
intelpatent@schwabe.com
inteldocs _ docketing@cpaglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER L. ELFORD and HOW ARD P. TSOI
Appeal2014-009749
Application 12/978,082
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1, 3 through 5, 8, 10 through 12, 15, 18, 19, 22, 31, 32, and 35
through 44. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appeal2014-009749
Application 12/978,082
INVENTION
This invention is directed to a method to enable indirect remote
interaction with a web browser using gestures. See Abstract. Claim 1 is
representative of the invention and reproduced below.
1. A method comprising:
analyzing code for a web page to be displayed by a web
browser application on a first device to identify an actionable
area on the web page, the code having additional information,
corresponding to the actionable area, such that if the web page
is displayed with a second device, the second device different
from the first device and having a positioning cursor, the
additional information is displayed in response to a floatover by
the positioning cursor of the second device;
replacing or augmenting the actionable area in the
display of the web page by the web browser application on the
first device with a visual cue, prior to user interaction with the
displayed web page, to suggest a user gesture to effectuate
selection of the actionable area;
identifying a user motion directed at the first device;
identifying the user motion as an input gesture;
processing the input gesture to determine a selection of
the actionable area; and
providing the selection to the web browser application to
enable the associated additional information of the selected
actionable area to be displayed on the first device.
REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 3 through 5, 8, 10 through 12, 15,
18, 19, 22, 31, 32, and 35 through 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Park (US 2010/0107054 Al; Apr. 29, 2010), Wyler et al.
2
Appeal2014-009749
Application 12/978,082
(US 2009/0044098 Al; Feb. 12, 2009), and Amento et al. (US
2012/0151420 Al; June 14, 2012). Final Act. 3-20. 1
ISSUE
Appellants present several arguments, on pages 7 through 15 of the
Appeal Brief and pages 2 through 5 of the Reply Brief, directed to the
Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1 and 8. These arguments
present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the
skilled artisan would combine the teachings of Park and Wyler as recited in
representative claim 1?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief and the
Reply Brief, the Examiner's rejections, and the Examiner's response to
Appellants' arguments. Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us of
error in the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3 through 5, 8, 10 through 12,
15, 18, 19, 22, 31, 32, and 35 through 39.
In the Appeal Brief, Appellants assert the Examiner has not provided
an articulated rationale to combine the teachings of Park and Wyler. Ans. 7-
11. Appellants argue Park teaches analyzing a web page to be displayed by
a web browser to determine if there is a mouseover area and, when a non-
mouse based navigation (focus based navigation) is moved to the mouseover
1 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief dated May 19, 2014
("App. Br."); the Reply Brief dated September 15, 2014 ("Reply Br."); Final
Office Action mailed December 18, 2013 ("Final Act."); and the Examiner's
Answer mailed July 16, 2014 ("Ans.").
3
Appeal2014-009749
Application 12/978,082
area, lower level items are displayed. App. Br. 8. Appellants assert even if
Park's list of lower level items corresponds to the claimed visual cues, they
are only displayed in response to actuation of a key by the user and not prior
to the user interaction as claimed. App. Br. 8. Further, Appellants argue
Wyler teaches a system for displaying web content by arranging the web
page to be readily viewable on a display screen. App. Br. 10. Additionally
Appellants assert Wyler does not discuss displaying information in response
to a float over as recited in claim 1. Based upon these arguments,
Appellants assert the rejection is in error, as there is no indication of which
portion of Wyler is meant to be relevant to Park. App. Br. 11.
In response to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner finds Wyler
teaches when a user requests a web page the web page is downloaded and
converted to a representation that is analyzed for elements to be represented.
Ans. 4. The Examiner finds this teaching of downloading and analyzing the
whole web page, when combined with Park, teaches the claimed limitations.
Ans. 4---6; Final Act. 4--6. The Examiner reasons this combination would
improve functionalities for displaying web content. Ans. 5; Final Act. 6.
We have reviewed the Examiners' findings, conclusions in the Examiner's
Answer and Final Rejection and we concur with the Examiner and are not
persuaded of error by Appellants' arguments. We additionally note Park
teaches the lower level items that correspond to the claimed visual cues are
displayed. There are a limited number of alternatives for the display, (i.e.
prior to, or in response to user interaction); the claim merely represents one
of two possibilities and the Wyler reference demonstrates that is it known to
analyze and display information (while not necessarily disclosing
mouseover) prior to user input.
4
Appeal2014-009749
Application 12/978,082
Appellants further assert modifying Park to display prior to the user
interaction would render Park unusable, as several of the displays would
overlap and not be viewable. App. Br. 12-14. Further, Appellants applying
the same reasoning, assert the combination is contrary to the purpose of
Wyler, to reduce the amount of information. App. Br. 14.
The Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to these
arguments on page 7 through 9 of the Answer. We concur with the
Examiner. Appellants' arguments are relying on one example of Park's
invention to assert the display would not be viewable. We do not consider
the skilled artisan to take such a narrow view of Park's teachings and as such
would not modify the teachings to produce a display where elements overlap
and are un-viewable. "A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton." K-SR lnt '!Co. v. Teleflex inc., 550 lLS. 398,
421 (2007). Thus, Appellants' arguments directed to the rejection of claim 1
have not persuaded us of e1Tor and we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and
claims 3 through 5, l 0 through 12, 31, and 3 2 which are not separately
argued.
Claims 15, 18 through 22, 35 through 39
Appellants argue the Examiner's rejection of these claims is in enor
as the Examiner has not addressed the limitation "prior to user interaction
with the displayed vveb page" as recited in each of independent clairns 15,
19, and 37. App. Br. 15. Appellants acknovvledge the Exarniner cited \Vyler
for this limitation in cfaim l, but that the discussion of claims 15, 19, and 37
do not address this limitation. App. Br. 15----16; Reply Br. 6. Further,
5
Appeal2014-009749
Application 12/978,082
Appellants argue the rejection of these claims is also in error for the reasons
discussed with respect to claim 1.
\Ve are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's rejection by these
arguments. \Vhile the Examiner's rationale addressing claims 15, 19, and
37, omitted this 1 imitation, this is merely a cut and paste error, and
Appe11ants were apprised that the combination of \Vyler and Park is being
relied upon to teach this limitation. The Examiner's rejection makes clear
that each of independent claims 1, 15, 19, and 37 are subject to the same
rejection and the Exarniner's discussion of claim 1 makes it clear that the
Examiner was relying upon \Vyler in combination with Park to teach this
limitation. Fmiher, as discussed above, Appellants' arguments has not
persuaded us of error in the rejection of claim l.
Claim 39
Appellants argue the Exarniner's rejection of this claim is in error
because the Examiner states claim 39 is rejected for the same reasons as
claim 29, however the Examiner's Final Rejection has not addressed claim
29, which has been canceled. Ans. 1 O; App. Br. 16. The Examiner states
the rationale for claim 29 was provided in a prior action. Ans. 10. Thus,
Appellants were apprised of the Examiner's findings and conclusions with
respect to claim 39. Appellants have not asserted the prior office action
presented an improper rejection of claim 39 nor have Appellants identified
an error in the findings related to these claims. Thus, Appellants have not
identified in error in the Examiner's findings or conclusion with respect to
these claims. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 39
flw the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
6
Appeal2014-009749
Application 12/978,082
Claims 40 through 44
Appellants argue the Examiners has not shown the combination of the
references teach the limitation directed to the apparatus which "does not
include a positioning cursor." App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 7. In response to
Appellants' arguments, the Examiner states:
Park describes a typical mobile device that not only include the
embodiment of web page navigation described in the
specification but other features commonly found in mobile
devices. A description of a mobile device would have suggested
to a person having ordinary skill in the arts there would be no
positioning cursor on an address book with a list of names a
user would scroll through.
Ans. 11. We disagree with the Examiner, as the Examiner has identified
insufficient evidence to show the combination of the references teaches the
disputed limitation. As each of dependent claims 40 through 44 recites a
limitation directed to not including a positioning cursor, we will not sustain
the Examiner's rejection of these claims.
DECISION
We sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3 through 5, 8, 10
through 12, 15, 18, 19, 22, 31, 32, and 35 through 29 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 40 through 44
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).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7