Ex Parte Everett-Church

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 8, 2013

10753106 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 2013)

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.
10/753,106 01/06/2004 Justin Charles Everett-Church 50269-0606 2780
73066 7590 02/11/2013
HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG/Yahoo!
1 Almaden Boulevard
Floor 12
San Jose, CA 95113
EXAMINER
ZHEN, LI B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2197
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/11/2013 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 JUSTIN CHARLES EVERETT-CHURCH
____________

Appeal 2010-007100
Application 10/753,106
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before SCOTT R. BOALICK, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and
BARBARA A. BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 4-7, 9-11, 13-18, and 23-26. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention enables webpages running in different browser
windows to communicate via associated plugin files. See generally
Abstract; Fig. 1A. Claim 1 is illustrative:
Appeal 2010-007100
Application 10/753,106

2
1. A method of communicating among webpages running in different
browser windows, comprising:
a first webpage running in a first browser window that runs in
conjunction with a first browser program calling a function in a first plugin
file running on a first plugin that runs in conjunction with the first browser
program;
in response to the first webpage calling the function, the first plugin
file sending a first communication to a second plugin file running on a
second plugin that runs in conjunction with a second browser program that is
different from the first browser program, wherein the second plugin file is
associated with a second browser window; and
in response to the second plugin file receiving the first communication
from the first plugin file, the second plugin file sending a second
communication to a second webpage running in the second browser window
that runs in conjunction with the second browser program;
wherein the first and second plugin files function as a communication
medium between the first and second webpages.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4-7, 9-11, 13-18, and 23-26 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zhang (US 6,865,599 B2; Mar. 8,
2005; filed Sept. 3, 2002) and Cramer (US 2002/0104096 A1; Aug. 1,
2002). Ans. 4-11.1

CONTENTIONS
Regarding representative claim 1, the Examiner finds that Zhang
discloses a first webpage running in a first browser window running in
conjunction with a first browser program calling a function in “first plugin
file,” which is said to correspond to Flash movies that generate events upon

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed August 7,
2009 (“App. Br.”); (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed November 25, 2009
(“Ans.”); and (3) the Reply Brief filed January 22, 2010 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2010-007100
Application 10/753,106

3
user input, where this plugin file runs on a first plugin, namely a
Macromedia Flash Player ActiveX control. Ans. 4, 14-17. The Examiner
further finds that responsive to this function call, the first plugin file sends a
first communication to a “second plugin file” running on a second plugin
running in conjunction with a different browser program and associated with
a second browser window, where the second plugin file is said to correspond
to commands issued to a corresponding embedded Flash movie object. Id.
According to the Examiner, Zhang discloses every recited feature except for
the second plugin file sending a second communication to a second webpage
running in the second browser window responsive to the second plugin file’s
receiving the first communication from the first plugin file, but cites Cramer
as teaching this feature in concluding that the claim would have been
obvious. Ans. 4-6, 14-18.
Appellant argues that the cited prior art fails to teach the second
plugin file sending a second communication to a second webpage in a
second browser window responsive to receiving the recited first
communication, let alone different browser programs. App. Br. 6-11; Reply
Br. 6-15. According to Appellant, the Examiner’s reliance on Cramer is
misplaced since not only does communication halt at the flash file and not
continue to the webpage running that file, but communication is between
two webpages in the same browser. Id. Appellant adds that the cited prior
art does not teach two plugin files functioning as a communication medium
between both recited webpages. App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 15-16.
Appellant further contends that there is no motivation to modify Zhang with
Cramer as the Examiner proposes to solve a problem already solved by
Zhang and, in any event, doing so merely results in a duplicating a media
Appeal 2010-007100
Application 10/753,106

4
player in a second browser window. App. Br. 13-16; Reply Br. 18-21.
Appellant also argues limitations of claim 23 summarized below.

ISSUES
I. Under § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Zhang and
Cramer collectively would have taught or suggested:
(1) a second plugin file sending a second communication to a second
webpage running in a second browser window running in conjunction with a
first browser program responsive to the file’s receiving a first
communication from a first plugin file running on a first plugin running in
conjunction with a first browser program, where the plugin files function as
a communication medium between the webpages as recited in claim 1?
(2) responsive to the second webpage receiving a communication
from a first webpage, communicating between a second webpage running on
a second browser window on a first computing device and a third webpage
running in a third browser window on a second computing device via an
instant messenger serviceas recited in claim 23?
II. Is the Examiner’s combining the teachings of these references
supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion?

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 4-7, 9-11, and 13-18
We sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of representative
claim 1. Zhang’s peer-to-peer system enables two browsers to communicate
with each other via associated message “brokers” which may be browser
Appeal 2010-007100
Application 10/753,106

5
plugins. Zhang, col. 4, l. 33 – col. 5, l. 12; Fig. 2. In Zhang’s Figure 4,
embedded objects can participate in browser-to-browser communication
which, in this particular example, involves a Macromedia Flash Player
Active X control for playing Flash movies, functionality that is said to
correspond to the recited “first plugin” and “first plugin file,” respectively.
Ans. 4, 14-17; Zhang, col. 13, l. 42 – col. 14, l. 19; Fig. 4. This mapping
reasonably comports with Appellant’s definition of these terms.2
The Flash movies generate events when a user clicks a mouse button
or hits a key — events that are intercepted and reposted as browser events.
A broker encodes these events and sends them as event messages to a broker
at the other peer which decodes the messages as Flash movie events that are
then interpreted as Flash movie commands. Zhang, col. 13, l. 49 – col. 14, l.
8; Fig. 4. These commands are issued to the corresponding Flash movie
object to replicate the action in the originating browser. Zhang, col. 14, ll.
9-13.
Based on this functionality, we see no error in the Examiner’s finding
(Ans. 4, 16) that the two “plugin files,” namely Zhang’s Flash movie files
and associated objects, communicate with each other to replicate associated
events. Although Appellant contends that this communication is not
between the plugin files, but rather broker plugins (Reply Br. 14, 17),
nothing in the claim precludes the communication between the Flash movie
files and their associated objects (“plugin files”) to replicate associated
events, despite intervening brokers facilitating this communication. That the

2 See Spec. 6:20-22 (defining “plugin” as “any program designed to run in
conjunction with a browser program” (e.g., an Active X control, Flash
player, etc.)); see also Spec. 6:22–7:1 (“A plugin file is a file that can run on
a plugin. For example, a Flash player runs a Flash movie.”).
Appeal 2010-007100
Application 10/753,106

6
preamble of claim 1 uses the open-ended term “comprising” only bolsters
this conclusion.3
The question, then, is whether the Examiner erred by finding that it
would have been obvious for the second plugin file, namely the Flash movie
and associated object at the second peer, to send a second communication to
a second webpage running in a second browser window in conjunction with
a second browser program as claimed. The Examiner finds that Cramer
embeds Flash movies in web pages, and rendering these embedded movies
for display requires some sort of communication between the movie and the
associated browser components, namely the browser, browser plugin, and
webpage. Ans. 15-16, 18. We see no error in this reasoning, for skilled
artisans would recognize that that Zhang’s Flash movie at the second peer
would be rendered for display in the second user’s browser—rendering
which would require some sort of communication between the movie and its
object and the associated webpage to display the movie as the Examiner
indicates. In that sense, the embedded plugin files effectively function as a
communication medium between the associated webpages. Despite
Appellant’s arguments to the contrary (App. Br. 13-16; Reply Br. 18-21), we
see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Cramer for this fundamental
teaching. Accordingly, we find the Examiner’s combining the teachings of
Zhang and Cramer supported by articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion.

3 “‘Comprising’ is a term of art used in claim language which means that the
named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still
form a construct within the scope of the claim.” Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron
Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citation omitted).
Appeal 2010-007100
Application 10/753,106

7
To the extent that Appellant argues that it would not have been
obvious for the peers’ browser programs to be different (see App. Br. 8-11;
Reply Br. 9-15), we find such an argument unavailing, for Zhang lists a
number of different browsers in connection with the disclosed system,
including Internet Explorer, Netscape, or Mozilla. Zhang, col. 4, ll. 40-46.
We therefore see no reason why Zhang’s peers could not use different
browser programs (e.g., one peer uses Internet Explorer and the other uses
Netscape) to render webpages, associated plugins, and files.
Although Cramer discloses an example where a Matrix Player
communicates with a Flash movie that runs in a different window on the
same screen (Cramer ¶¶ 0130-34), we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 15)
that communication does not halt at the Flash file as Appellant asserts (App.
Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 6-8), but rather requires some sort of communication with
the browser components to render the file for display as noted above.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 1, and claims 4-7, 9-11, and 13-18 not separately
argued with particularity.

Claims 23-26
We will not, however, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 23 reciting, in pertinent part, responsive to the second webpage
receiving a communication from a first webpage, communicating between a
second webpage running on a second browser window on a first computing
device and a third webpage running in a third browser window on a second
computing device via an instant messenger service. The Examiner maps
Zhang’s first and second peers to the recited computing devices,
Appeal 2010-007100
Application 10/753,106

8
respectively, and the peers’ browsers to the second and third browser
programs. Ans. 19. But we agree with Appellant (App. Br. 12-13; Reply
Br. 16-18) that the Examiner has not adequately shown how the cited prior
art teaches or suggests the recited causal chain of events, namely that the
first webpage communicates with a second webpage before the second
webpage communicates with a third webpage, let alone that this subsequent
communication is via an instant messaging service. Nor will we speculate in
that regard here in the first instance on appeal.
We are therefore persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting (1)
independent claim 23; (2) independent claim 25 which recites commensurate
limitations; and (3) dependent claims 24 and 26 for similar reasons.

CONCLUSION
Under § 103, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 4-7, 9-11,
and 13-18, but erred in rejecting claims 23-26.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4-7, 9-11, 13-18, and 23-
26 is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

babc