Ex Parte Hamilton et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 16, 2016

12118829 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/118,829 05/12/2008
26681 7590 09/20/2016
Driggs, Hogg, Daugherty & Del Zoppo Co,, LP,A,
38500 CHARDON ROAD
DEPT. IEN
WILLOUGHBY HILLS, OH 44094
Rick A. Hamilton II
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.
END920070354US1-IEN106413 1854
EXAMINER
NAZAR, AHAMED I
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2178
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/20/2016 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):
usptocommunications@driggslaw.com
carole@driggslaw.com
mwheeler@driggslaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICK A. HAMILTON, II, BRIAN M. O'CONNELL,
CLIFFORD A. PICKOVER, and KEITH R. WALKER
Appeal2015-002359
Application 12/118,829
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judges.
RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 12-14, 21, 22, and 33--47, which constitute all of the
claims currently rejected in the application. See Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2015-002359
Application 12/118,829
INVENTION
Appellants' invention is directed to reducing resource requirements in
rendering internet web pages. Spec. i-f 1.
Claim 12 is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal:
12. A method for deploying an application enabling
selective alternative rendering of a web page, comprising:
integrating computer-readable program code into a
computer system comprising a processing unit, a computer
readable memory and a computer readable tangible storage
device, wherein the computer readable program code is
embodied on the computer readable tangible storage device and
comprises instructions that, when executed by the processing
unit via the computer readable memory, cause the processing unit
to perform the steps of:
in response to a request by a viewer to view a web page
that comprises object data, parsing energy usage annotation
instructions on the web page that are associated with the web
page object data to determine instructions for rendering the
object data to the viewer, wherein the energy usage annotation
instructions comprise an energy-conserving mode that specifies
that a new central processing unit should not be allocated by a
load-balancing server to render the object data to serve the
request for the web page, and a standard mode;
in response to a selection of the energy-conserving mode,
delaying implementation of a new central processing unit for a
rendering of the object data to the viewer to thereby use only a
first total number of central processing units that are already
allocated in a load-balancing environment; and
in response to a selection of the standard mode, rendering
the object data to a web page viewer by using a second total
number of central processing units comprising the new central
processing unit that is not already allocated in the load-balancing
environment in addition to the first total number of central
processing units, wherein the first total number of central
2
Appeal2015-002359
Application 12/118,829
processing units is less than the second total number of central
processing units.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL 1
Claims 12, 13, 21, 22, 33, 34, 36-39, 41--44, 46, and 47 rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Ims (US 2004/0049579 Al; publ.
Mar. 11, 2004).
Claims 14, 35, 40, and 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over the combination Ims and Sally (US 2005/0097121 A 1;
publ. May 5, 2005).
ISSUE
Appellants' contentions present us with the following issue: A) Did
the Examiner err in finding Ims discloses parsing energy usage instructions
on the web page ("parsing" limitation), as recited in independent claim 12?2
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend Ims does not disclose the "parsing" limitation
recited in claim 12. See App. Br. 12-14; Reply Br. 2-3. Specifically,
Appellants argue the Ims system chooses a consistent mode for rendering
1 The Examiner withdrew the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection. Adv. Act. 2.
2 For the first time in the Reply Brief, Appellants contend Ims does not
disclose additional limitations. See Reply Br. 2-3. In the absence of
showing of good cause explaining why these arguments could not have been
presented in the principle Brief, these arguments are waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(b)(2) (2013); In re Hyatt, 211F.3d1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
(noting that an argument not first raised in the brief to the Board is waived
on appeal).
3
Appeal2015-002359
Application 12/118,829
objects on each of different web pages regardless of any differences in
instructions on the web pages themselves. App. Br. 13. Appellants further
argue that the energy instructions are determined not from a parsing of the
web page itself, but from an external document, the sample document type
definition (DTD). Reply Br. 2.
The Examiner finds that Ims discloses users may specify their content
not to be copied or cached in proxy servers (energy usage instructions).
Ans. 7. The Examiner further finds that Ims discloses parsing these
annotation instructions (HTML tags on a web page) during processing of
requests. Ans. 7-8. We agree with the Examiner's findings. In particular,
the cited sections of Ims describe determining if an HTML file (web page) is
marked as non-cacheable (energy usage instruction on the web page) and
accordingly, determining whether or not to redirect the request for embedded
content to a content delivery server. See Ims ,-r 132.
For the reasons stated above, Appellants fail to persuade us the
Examiner errs in finding Ims discloses the "parsing" limitation.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of: (1) claim 12;
(2) independent claims 33, 38, and 43, for which Appellants rely on the
same arguments made for claim 12; and (3) dependent claims 13, 21, 22, 34,
36, 37, 39, 41, 42, 44, 46, and 47, which are not argued separately.
With respect to the obviousness rejection of dependent claims 14, 35,
40, and 45, Appellants merely reiterate the argument that Ims does not
disclose the "parsing" limitation, and contend Sally does not make up for the
purported deficiencies present in Ims. See App. Br. 14--16. For the reasons
discussed supra, Appellants fail to establish any deficiencies in the rejection
4
Appeal2015-002359
Application 12/118,829
of the independent claims. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claims 14, 35, 40, and 45.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 12-14, 21, 22, and
33--47.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
5