Ex Parte Estroff et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2018

13961430 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/961,430 08/07/2013
58127 7590 09/04/2018
FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC
409 BROAD STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15143
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jeffrey Mark Es troff
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.
RPS920130060USNP(710.245) 3865
EXAMINER
GOLDEN, STEVE PETER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2144
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/04/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEFFREY MARK ESTROFF, RUSSELL STUART GANTMAN,
and RUSSELL SPEIGHT V ANBLON
Appeal 2018-002011
Application 13/961,430
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ERIC B. CHEN, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2018-002011
Application 13/961,430
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § I34(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-20, all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to retrieval of a new web page to use as
a homepage based on timing information. (Abstract.)
Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A method, comprising:
storing web page browsing data in a memory in response to a
user accessing a first web page repeatedly during a first time range;
identifying, using the one or more processors, the first web
page as a new homepage for use during the first time range based on
the first web page being repeatedly accessed during the first time
range;and
responsive to the identifying, automatically changing, using the
one or more processors, a current home page setting in a web browser
to the first web page during the first time range, wherein another web
page is used as a homepage outside of the first time range.
Claims 1, 2, 11, 12, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Bates (US 7,058,701 B 1; June 6, 2006) and Olliphant (US
2012/0030590 Al; Feb. 2, 2012).
Claims 3-5, 7, 13-15, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Bates, Olliphant, and Tendjoukian (US 2011/0040718 Al;
Feb. 17, 2011).
Claims 6 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Bates, Olliphant, and Tendjoukian.
2
Appeal 2018-002011
Application 13/961,430
Claims 8 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Bates, Olliphant, and Shane (US 2005/0086643 Al; Apr. 21, 2005).
Claims 9 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Bates, Olliphant, Shane, Lu (US 2006/0107217 Al; May 18, 2006). 1
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Bates, Olliphant, Shane, Lu, Lajoie (US 2012/0185402 Al; July 19, 2012),
and Birkle (US 2003/0023333 Al; Jan. 30, 2003).
The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of Claims 1, 11, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). (Ans. 3.)
ANALYSIS
§ 103 Rejection-Bates and Olliphant
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 20; see also
Reply Br. 22) that the combination of Bates and Olliphant would not have
rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation
"storing web page browsing data in a memory in response to a user
accessing a first web page repeatedly during a first time range."
The Examiner found that the history folder of Bates, which contains
recently visited network addresses, teaches the limitation "storing web page
browsing data in a memory in response to a user accessing a first web page
repeatedly during a first time range." (Final Act. 3--4; see also Ans. 7-8.) In
particular, the Examiner interpreted "the history folder [ of Bates] to be
'storing web page browsing data in memory' as a user browses to websites
1 Appellants do not present any arguments with respect to the rejections of
claims 3-9 and 13-19 under 35 U.S.C. §I03(a). Thus, any such arguments
are deemed to be waived.
3
Appeal 2018-002011
Application 13/961,430
regardless of if the website is visited one time or repeatedly" and interpreted
"'recently visited websites' [ of Bates] to be a 'first time range."' (Ans. 8.)
The Examiner further finds that Olliphant is "directed at users who regularly
visit the same series of websites each day" and "the series of websites that
the user views each day can be automatically determined by the system and
stored in the users profile for later use." (Olliphant ,r 11 ( emphasis added);
Ans. 6; see also Olliphant ,r 13.) We agree with the Examiner's findings.
Bates "relates to configuring browser settings," (col. 1, 11. 10-11), in
particular, establishing time-based browser configurations "according to
predetermined parameters when a time-condition is satisfied" (Abstract).
Bates explains that "most commercially available Internet browsers ...
provide a history folder containing recently visited network addresses ( e.g.,
web sites) and a bookmark folder to which a user can store network
addresses for future retrieval." (Col. 1, 11. 34--39.) Because Bates explains
that Internet browsers provide a history containing recently visited web sites,
as well as a bookmark folder, and Olliphant teaches determining that users
regularly visit the same series of websites each day, the combination of
Bates and Olliphant teaches the limitation "storing web page browsing data
in a memory in response to a user accessing a first web page repeatedly
during a first time range."
Appellants argue that "storing data associated with a recently visited
webpage, as disclosed in Bates, is readily distinguishable from storing web
page data associated with a repeatedly visited webpage 'during a first time
range."' (App. Br. 20 ( emphases omitted); see also Reply Br. 22.)
However, Appellants have not provided any persuasive arguments or
evidence as to why the Examiner's interpretation of "repeatedly" and "first
4
Appeal 2018-002011
Application 13/961,430
time range" is improper, much less why the Examiner's findings with
respect to Bates and Olliphant are improper.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Bates and
Olliphant would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes
the limitation "storing web page browsing data in a memory in response to a
user accessing a first web page repeatedly during a first time range."
We are also unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 20-21;
see also Reply Br. 22-23) that the combination of Bates and Olliphant
would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the
limitation "identifying, using the one or more processors, the first web page
as a new homepage for use during the first time range based on the first web
page being repeatedly accessed during the first time range."
The Examiner found that an application on a user's computing device
of Olliphant, which determines the user's homepage without user
interaction, teaches the limitation "identifying, using the one or more
processors, the first web page as a new homepage for use during the first
time range based on the first web page being repeatedly accessed during the
first time range." (Final Act. 4.) In particular, the Examiner found that
"Olliphant discloses the system taking into account 'the current time/date,
e.g., time, day, date, year, etc., in determining what pages to display to the
user"' and interpreted "the 'same series of websites' [of Olliphant] as
accessing websites repeatedly during the 'first time range."' (Ans. 9-10
(quoting Olliphant ,r,r 13, 11).) We agree with those findings.
Olliphant relates to "dynamically selecting and displaying webpages
upon a user-initiated action and in accordance with user preferences and
interests." (i-f 2.) Olliphant explains that "[t]he displayed website is
5
Appeal 2018-002011
Application 13/961,430
automatically chosen and displayed (i.e., without human interaction) based
on user-selected preferences" (i-f 8), for example, "an application on the
user's computing device, such as a JAVA plugin, may automatically
determine the user's homepage without the user having to provide it" (i-f 16).
Olliphant further explains that "the system can take into account the current
time/date, e.g., time, day, date, year, etc., in determining what pages to
display to the user." (i-f 13.) Olliphant also explains that "[a]nother
embodiment ... is directed at users who regularly visit the same series of
websites each day" for example, "the series of websites that the user views
each day can be automatically determined by the system and stored in the
users profile for later use." (i-f 11.) Because Olliphant explains that the
displayed website is automatically chosen and displayed based on user-
selected preferences ( e.g., time) or based on regular visits, Olliphant teaches
the limitation "identifying, using the one or more processors, the first web
page as a new homepage for use during the first time range based on the first
web page being repeatedly accessed during the first time range."
Appellants argue that "as explicitly stated in Olliphant [paragraph 8]:
'[t]he user may establish a profile and input their preferences through a
standard web interface e.g., a website viewed in a standard browser"' (App.
Br. 20; see also Reply Br. 22) and "nowhere in the currently claimed
limitations or in the underlying application is it disclosed that user
preference input is required to establish a new homepage" (App. Br. 20-21;
see also Reply Br. 22-23). However, as found by the Examiner, Olliphant
also explains that "[t]he displayed website is automatically chosen and
displayed (i.e., without human interaction) based on user-selected
preferences" (i-f 8), in which "the system can take into account the current
6
Appeal 2018-002011
Application 13/961,430
time/date, e.g., time, day, date, year, etc., in determining what pages to
display to the user" (i1 13). Appellants have not provided any persuasive
evidence or arguments as to why the Examiner's finding with respect to
Olliphant are improper.
Appellants also argue that "nowhere in Olliphant is 'based on the first
web page being repeatedly accessed during the first time range' disclosed or
even suggested." (App. Br. 21; see also Reply Br. 23.) However, other than
providing a conclusory statement, Appellants have not provided any
persuasive evidence or arguments as to why the Examiner's interpretations
of "repeatedly" and "first time range" are improper, much less why the
Examiner's findings with respect to Olliphant are improper.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Bates and
Olliphant would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes
the limitation "identifying, using the one or more processors, the first web
page as a new homepage for use during the first time range based on the first
web page being repeatedly accessed during the first time range."
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103. Claim 2 depends from claim 1, and Appellants have not
presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to this claim.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the
same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1.
Independent claims 11 and 20 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellants have not
presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims.
We sustain the rejection of claims 11 and 20, as well as dependent claim 12,
for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
7
Appeal 2018-002011
Application 13/961,430
§ 103 Rejection-Bates, Olliphant, Shane, Lu, Lajoie, and Birkle
Although Appellants nominally argues the rejection of dependent
claim 10 separately (App. Br. 21; see also Reply Br. 23-24), the arguments
presented do not point out with particularity or explain why the combination
of references is improper. Instead, Appellants provides a conclusory
statement that
the Office has not articulated a reason why a person skilled in the
art would combine the prior art references, does not have
adequate evidentiary basis for such a finding, and has not
provided a satisfactory explanation for the motivation to
combine finding that includes an express and rational connection
with the evidence presented.
(App. Br. 21.) Accordingly, without additional explanation, Appellants have
not presented any persuasive arguments with respect to this claim.
Moreover, the Examiner's articulated reasoning for combination of
references is based the improvement of a similar device in the same way as
the prior art. (Ans. 11-14.) Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.
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
8