Ex Parte Gimson

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 10, 2011

10106466 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 10, 2011)

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.
10/106,466 03/26/2002 Roger Brian Gimson 30005824-2 4352
7590 08/11/2011
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Intellectual Property Administration
P.O. Box 272400
Fort Collins, CO 80527-2400
EXAMINER
MADAMBA, GLENFORD J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2451
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/11/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ROGER BRIAN GIMSON
____________

Appeal 2009-011710
Application 10/106,466
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and JAMES R. HUGHES,
Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-011710
Application 10/106,466

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-37. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention selectively provides data to different types of
data-receiving devices (computers, mobile phones, etc.) depending on the
information’s conciseness. See generally Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method of sending data, said data being heldon [sic] a primary
processing apparatus capable of receiving a request for data, to at least one
data-receiving device, said method comprising arranging said data on said
primary processing apparatus in at least two information levels, each
information level summarizing same set of information at a different level of
conciseness with respect to another information level, said information
levels being arranged such that said information levels comprise a
predetermined subset of said data held on said primary processing apparatus
and the method further comprising sending at least one of said information
levels to a particular data-receiving device on receipt by said primary
processing apparatus of a said request for data.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Bayeh US 6,012,098 Jan. 4, 2000
Helgeson US 6,643,652 B2 Nov. 4, 2003
(filed Jan. 12, 2001)
Okazaki US 6,873,713 B2 Mar. 29, 2005
(filed Mar. 16, 2001)
Kanevsky GB 2,339,374 A Jan. 19, 2000

Appeal 2009-011710
Application 10/106,466

3
THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-20, 24-33, and 35-37 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Kanevsky. Ans. 3-12.1
2. The Examiner rejected claims 6 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kanevsky and Bayeh. Ans. 13-15.
3. The Examiner rejected claims 21-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kanevsky, Helgeson, and Okazaki. Ans. 15-18.
4. The Examiner rejected claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kanevsky and Helgeson. Ans. 18-19.

THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION
Regarding representative claim 1, the Examiner finds that Kanevsky
sends data to a data-receiving device by arranging the data in at least two
information levels via Kanevsky’s web page adaptation capabilities, which
is said to present information levels at varying levels of conciseness, where
each level summarizes the same set of information at a different level of
conciseness with respect to another information level. Ans. 3-4, 21-26.
Appellant argues that Kanevsky’s web page adaptation does not
summarize the same set of information at a different level of conciseness as
claimed, but rather (1) partially summarizes the information in the original
page, and (2) links other parts of the information that must be selected to
access the missing information. App. Br. 8-11; Reply Br. 2-3. The issue
before us, then, is as follows:

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed October 22,
2007; (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed January 10, 2008; and (3) the
Reply Brief filed March 10, 2008.
Appeal 2009-011710
Application 10/106,466

4

ISSUE
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Kanevsky:
(1) arranges data on a primary processing apparatus in at least two
information levels, where each level (a) is a subset of data held on a primary
processing apparatus, and (b) summarizes the same set of information at a
different level of conciseness with respect to another information level; and
(2) sends at least one of the information levels to a data-receiving
device when the primary processing apparatus receives a data request?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
1. Kanevsky’s system adapts web pages to large and small display
screens (e.g., standard PC monitors, laptop screens, web phones, digital
cameras, etc.) so that content is automatically optimized for viewing on a
particular display. To this end, web page adaptor server 107 transforms web
pages received from web site 106 via server 104 to (1) adapt the pages’
content to the size of display 113, and (2) satisfy the user’s requirement
specified in a display mode message 103 accompanying the user’s request
message 102. Kanevsky, Abstract; 1:4-8; 6:29–7:10; 7:44–9:43; Fig. 1.
2. The web page adaptor server can (1) strip objects from a web page
for small display sizes, and (2) add content of links to a web page for large
display sizes. Kanevsky, 9:43–10:1.
3. The web page adaptor server’s matching module 203 compares
display parameters from the user’s display mode message with numeric data
received from the interpreter module 202 to determine whether objects
Appeal 2009-011710
Application 10/106,466

5
(icons, pictures, texts, links, etc.) in the web page will fit the particular size
of a user’s display. If not, alternative URL/CGI instructions (models) 201a-
d for displaying web page objects for other displays are provided to search
module 205. If an approximate match between the user’s display and the
appropriate URL/CGI file is found, the file is forwarded to the client. If not,
the appropriate URL/CGI model is sent to adaptation module 207 where, for
example, (1) web pages are folded into several pages; (2) objects are
stripped, and links stripped and re-mapped for smaller displays; and (3)
objects and links are added for larger pages. Kanevsky, 10:23–12:37; Fig. 3.
4. Kanevsky’s Figure 6 shows an example of a transformed URL 507
for a smaller display size that (1) omits an instruction line 503 in the original
URL, and (2) transforms instruction line 502 into a new instruction line 508
such that the corresponding line 509 takes up half the space of the original
line. Kanevsky, 12:39–13:34; Fig. 6.
5. Kanevsky notes the importance of preserving lines’ functionality
or semantic properties in adapted web pages since some lines are links, but
others are merely decorative. Kanevsky, 13:15-24.
6. Kanevsky’s Figure 7 shows (1) an original web page 701 for
display on a PC, and (2) a stripped-down version 702 of that page for display
on a smaller screen (e.g., a web phone). The stripped-down version contains
the terms “YAHOO,” “NEWS,” “Top Stories,” “Business,” and “Others,”
four of which are also contained in the original version. Kanevsky, 13:42–
14:8; Fig. 7.
7. Kanevsky’s Figure 10 shows the web page adaptor server’s
prioritizing objects according to their importance. For example, if a first
object (e.g., “MY BRIEFCASE” icon) has a higher priority than another
Appeal 2009-011710
Application 10/106,466

6
object (“JUNK” icon), and both objects cannot fit together on a small
display screen, then the higher-priority object is displayed along with a
hypertext link to another page displaying the lower-priority object.
Kanevsky, 14:38–15:17; Fig. 10.
8. The web page adaptor server’s operator module 804 includes a
semantic interpretation module 905 with a semantic unification/separation
module that combines (unifies) objects that contain or point to information
with similar topics into one set. An icon or button is created on an adapted
web page that is linked to the combined data. Kanevsky, 18:24 – 19:44;
Figs. 8-9, 13.
9. The operator module’s textual transformation module 904 adapts
text on web pages to a new size using, for example, abbreviations, deletions,
insertions, movements, zoom, font changes, etc. Kanevsky, 19:45–20:20;
Figs. 13-14.
10. The operator module’s icon transformation module 903
transforms icons to fit on adapted web screens by, for example, (1) cutting
each icon in half, and (2) combining the icons’ halves together. Kanevsky,
20:21-40; Fig. 14.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-20, and 25
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of representative claim 1 which recites, in pertinent
part, arranging data in at least two information “levels,” where each level
summarizes the same set of information at a different “level of conciseness”
with respect to another information level.
Appeal 2009-011710
Application 10/106,466

7
First, the Examiner’s interpretation of this multi-level data-
arrangement limitation is reasonable based on the Examiner’s plain-meaning
construction of the key terms “conciseness” and “summarize.” Ans. 21
(citing published definitions of these terms). Based on this construction, we
find—as does the Examiner—that Kanevsky fully meets the disputed
limitations.
Kanevsky tailors web-page content for smaller displays, and sends
this customized content to users upon request. FF 1. In essence, Kanevsky
condenses the pages’ content to a leaner version that is more suitable for a
smaller screen. To this end, Kanevsky (1) determines whether objects
(icons, pictures, texts, links, etc.) for requested web pages will fit on a
particular screen, and, if not, (2) condenses the content accordingly by
stripping objects and links, omitting various graphical elements,
abbreviating and deleting text, combining objects that point to similar topics,
merging icons into a single icon, etc. FF 1-10.
In Kanevsky’s prioritizing technique in Figure 10, for example,
Kanevsky arranges data regarding displayed icons and their representations
in multiple information “levels” including not only the “MY BRIEFCASE”
and “JUNK” icons themselves, but also the hypertext link to a page
containing the “JUNK” icon. See FF 7. By pointing to a page with an icon
identical to the “JUNK” icon, the data corresponding to this displayed
pointer essentially summarizes the same set of information (i.e., the
representation of “JUNK” information) at a more pronounced “level of
conciseness” than the page with that icon. In short, the pointer to the icon
more concisely summarizes the “JUNK” information representation than
Appeal 2009-011710
Application 10/106,466

8
does the icon itself.2 See id. Indeed, that is the very point of linking to the
icon: the link’s smaller size, or “conciseness,” more efficiently conveys the
representation information to the user with minimal screen area, thus
enabling display on a smaller screen.
Kanevsky’s other condensation techniques similarly summarize the
same set of representation information at different “levels of conciseness,”
whether via abbreviating text (FF 9), merging icons (FF 10), combining
objects (FF 6, 8), or omitting various objects (e.g., graphical elements), yet
retaining the pages’ functionality (FF 2-5).
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 1, and claims 2-5, 7, 8, 10-20, and 25 not separately
argued with particularity.

Claims 24, 26-33, and 35-37
Although Appellant nominally argues the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 24, 26-33, and 35-37 separately (App. Br. 12-22), Appellant reiterates
similar arguments we considered above with respect to claim 1. We
therefore sustain the rejection of these claims for the reasons discussed
above. We add, however, that nothing in claim 35 precludes Kanevsky’s
alternative edition of data tailored for smaller screens that contains
essentially the same semantic content as any other editions. See FF 1-10.

2 Appellant’s assertion that each reduced web page in Kanevsky’s Figure 10
has half the content of the original page 1201 (App. Br. 8-9) is inaccurate,
for reduced web page 1202 contains not only the “MY BRIEFCASE” icon
(i.e., half the original page’s content), but also the pointer to the “JUNK”
icon page—a pointer not in the original web page 1201. See FF 7. Reduced
page 1202 therefore has more than half the content of the original page.
Appeal 2009-011710
Application 10/106,466

9
That Kanevsky stresses the importance of an adapted web page preserving
the original page’s semantic properties (FF 5) only bolsters this conclusion.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 6, 9,
21-23, and 34. Ans. 13-19. Appellant does not particularly point out errors
in the Examiner’s reasoning to overcome the Examiner’s obviousness
conclusion for these claims, but merely (1) reiterates similar arguments
made in connection with claim 1, and (2) alleges that the additional cited
references do not cure Kanevsky’s deficiencies. App. Br. 22-28. We are not
persuaded by these arguments, however, for the reasons previously
discussed. The rejections are therefore sustained.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting (1) claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-20, 24-
33, and 35-37 under § 102, and (2) claims 6, 9, 21-23, and 34 under § 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-37 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

llw