Ex Parte EstesDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 22, 201612168092 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2016) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 12/168,092 07/04/2008 Philip F. Estes AUS920080282US1 6798 76269 7590 12/27/2016 LAW OFFICE OF IDO TUCHMAN (AUS) PO Box 765 Cardiff, CA 11415 EXAMINER MINCEY, JERMAINE A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2159 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/27/2016 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): pair@tuchmanlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PHILIP F. ESTES Appeal 2016-001746 Application 12/168,092 Technology Center 2100 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JOHN R. KENNY, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2016-001746 Application 12/168,092 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention is directed to “improved techniques for managing a browsing history for a web browser in the context of the Web 2.0 paradigm” (Spec. 11). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method for managing a browsing history for a web browser, the web browser configured to display web page content, a web page being addressable by a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI), the method comprising: receiving, at the web browser, new page content from a server; replacing a subset of a current web page with the received new page content, wherein the replaced subset does not include a complete web page and portions of the current web page that are not replaced are not reloaded by the web browser; storing a data entry in a chronologically ordered history list, the data entry comprising a model representation of the new page content, the model representation being hierarchical and object-oriented; providing at least one history navigation button for traversing the history list; and redisplaying page content stored at the history list. REFERENCES and REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Hawes (US 6,094,662), Szabo (US 7,062,475 Bl), and Nickerson (US 7,302,370 B2). 2 Appeal 2016-001746 Application 12/168,092 ANALYSIS Independent Claims 1, 9, and 15 Appellant contends the Examiner erred in combining Hawes and Nickerson, as the combination “would change the principle of operation of Hawes” (App. Br. 8—9). Appellant also asserts it is unclear how Hawes and Nickerson can be combined (App. Br. 9—10), and the combination is “an exercise of hindsight reasoning” (App. Br. 10—11). Appellant does not address Szabo with respect to the independent claims. At the outset, we note Appellant has not argued the cited references do not teach or suggest the limitations for which they were relied on, but rather, they cannot be combined. The Examiner provides a reasonable finding that Hawes discloses replacing a subset of a current web page with new page content when the replaced subset does not include a complete web page (Ans. 4, 23—25). Hawes discloses retrieving a web page containing the latest status information without retrieving graphics images (Abstract) and downloads only portions of a web page that were changed (col. 2,11. 31—32). Further, Appellant’s Specification, paragraph 6, states, “The Web 2.0 paradigm enables web-based applications to be highly interactive. Specifically, under the Web 2.0 paradigm, an action may cause the current web page to be modified instead of completely replaced'' (emphases added). Hawes additionally recites: By caching the cacheable portions of the web page 212, the browser 180 reloads the cached portion into the display 140 from the memory 172. Thus, as a result, the browser 180 only needs to retrieve the uncached non-cacheable portions from the web site 210. (Hawes col. 5,11. 54—57.) 3 Appeal 2016-001746 Application 12/168,092 The subset of the current web page in Appellant’s invention, in which a subset of the current web page is replaced with content for a server, corresponds to receiving updated content from the non-cached portion recited in Hawes. The limitation “portions of the current web page . . . not replaced are not reloaded by the web browser” is taught by Nickerson. Because it is desirable to navigate from one web page to a next without having to reload the entire page each time, particular embodiments of the invention provide a system and method for communicating partial page updates between a client and server as illustrated in FIG. 7. (Nickerson col 9,11. 37-41.) Appellant merely provides attorney argument without more, stating the proposed modification/combination would change the principle operation of Hawes (App. Br. 8—9). Combining Hawes’ disclosure of modifying a web page instead of completely replacing the current web page, with Nickerson’s navigating from one web page to a next without reloading the entire page, would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. All three references, Hawes, Szabo, and Nickerson, address the same problem as Appellant’s invention, particularly in light of Appellant’s paragraph 6 of the Specification which states “under the Web 2.0 paradigm, an action may cause the current web page to be modified instead of completely replaced,” which was known at the time of Appellant’s invention. Thus, the proposed modification would not change the basic principle of operation of the primary reference, contrary to Appellant’s assertions (In re Beattie, 91A F.2d 1309, 1312—13 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (holding it is not enough for an appellant to show that there are differences between two references)). Thus, the Examiner provides sufficient articulated 4 Appeal 2016-001746 Application 12/168,092 reasoning with a rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness (seeKSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). In light of the Examiner’s findings, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 15, which are argued together (App. Br. 11). Dependent Claims 2—8, 10—14, and 16—18 Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Szabo discloses a Document Object Model (DOM) as recited in claim 2 (Ans. 11—13; Reply Br. 5). The Examiner provides a detailed discussion in the Answer as to how Szabo, at a minimum, discloses the limitations of claim 2 (Ans. 25—27). Appellant merely states the Examiner provided no documentary support of the findings, and thus has not made a prima facie case of obviousness. In an obviousness rejection, inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account (see KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). Further, the Examiner has provided articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support this legal conclusion. Appellant has not provided any reasoning or evidence as to why the Examiner is incorrect other than to state it is so, which is not persuasive. In re Toxin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“the 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”); 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Szabo discloses removing part of a history session as recited in claim 5, stating the Examiner did not provide evidentiary support for this limitation (“remov[ing] each data entry from the history list which the tag included in the data entry has 5 Appeal 2016-001746 Application 12/168,092 the same value as the tag”) (App. Br. 14—16). The Examiner, however, has made reasonable findings and provides a discussion in the Answer as to how Szabo, at a minimum, suggests the limitations of claim 5 (Ans. 27—28). Thus, in light of the Examiner’s findings and the teachings of Szabo, we do not agree the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 5. Claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 10-14, and 16—18 have not been separately argued and thus fall with claims 1,9, and 15. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20 is affirmed. 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 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation