Ex Parte KujdaDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 5, 201511873373 (P.T.A.B. May. 5, 2015) 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. 11/873,373 10/16/2007 David P. Kujda YAHOP193 1530 76133 7590 05/06/2015 MPG, LLP AND YAHOO! INC. 710 LAKEWAY DRIVE SUITE 200 SUNNYVALE, CA 94085 EXAMINER PAN, PHOEBE X ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2142 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/06/2015 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 DAVID P. KUJDA __________ Appeal 2012-009818 Application 11/873,373 Technology Center 2100 __________ Before DONALD E. ADAMS, DEMETRA J. MILLS, and SCOTT E. KAMHOLZ, Administrative Patent Judges. MILLS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134. The Examiner has rejected the claims for obviousness. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Appeal 2012-009818 Application 11/873,373 2 STATEMENT OF CASE The following claims are representative. 1. A method comprising: receiving a URL (Uniform Resource Locator) of a web page, wherein the web page comprises at least two modules which, when displayed together, fills more than 100% of a screen at a user terminal; loading the at least two modules of the web page at the user terminal; during said loading of the at least two modules of the web page at the user terminal, displaying a preview of the web page, wherein the preview comprises a small representation of each of the modules and is fitted into one screen at the user terminal, wherein the web page including the at least two modules is operable to be displayed in a full size at the user terminal upon completion of said loading of the at least two modules; and during said loading of the at least two modules of the web page at the user terminal, expanding at least a user-selected small representation to full size. 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the modules are loaded in parallel. 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the modules are loaded one after another. 8. The method of claim 1, further comprising: displaying the name of a module on one side of its small representation. Cited References Nicolas et al. US 6,593,944 B1 July 15, 2003 (hereinafter “Nicolas”) Khoo et al. US 2007/0038718 A1 Feb. 15, 2007 (hereinafter “Khoo”) Appeal 2012-009818 Application 11/873,373 3 Maguire US 7,302,637 B1 Nov. 27, 2007 Grounds of Rejection 1. Claims 1, 4–7, and 9–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable for obviousness over Maguire and Khoo. 2. Claims 2, 3, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Maguire in view of Khoo and Nicolas. FINDINGS OF FACT The Examiner’s findings of fact are set forth in the Answer at pages 4–14. The following facts are highlighted. 1. Figure 4 of Maguire is reproduced below. Figure 4 of Maguire shows a flow diagram of the preferred steps for generation of an abbreviated information page. 2. Khoo ¶ 49 discloses that The total payload of all the previews in a typical e-mail listing can be quite large, thus slowing down the overall loading of a Appeal 2012-009818 Application 11/873,373 4 page. This effect can be mitigated by ensuring that the initial loading of a page does not include the loading of the “heavy” objects in the preview content, such as graphics. One method to achieve this is to initially put in lightweight content or images in place of the heavyweight graphical preview content during initial loading of the page (in the HTML code), and then trigger the loading of the heavyweight graphical preview by JavaScript code after the page listing of e-mails has finished loading to the user’s browser or application. The JavaScript code can load the heavyweight graphical previews from the preview server, and replace the lightweight content or images with the heavyweight content before a preview is shown. Another method to achieve a fast loading of the page is to activate loading of the heavyweight content only after the user has activated the preview trigger mechanism. This may result in the user being subjected to a delay in the loading of the preview, but this may be more acceptable than a larger delay to load the page with all of the content. 3. Khoo, ¶ 50 discloses that The preferred embodiment of the invention may further include a predictive loading algorithm that determines the order in which preview contents are loaded in the background. The algorithm may take into account any priority given to a promotion and the size of the preview content. In addition, the algorithm may load previews based on the real-time triggering pattern of the previews by the user, and may include the proximity of not-yet-loaded previews to previously viewed and loaded previews. An example would be when the user activates a preview trigger 232 (FIG. 2b) of an e-mail 231, any not yet loaded previews in close proximity to the triggered preview may be loaded in the background. The pre-loading of the preview content is independent of the generation of the preview window and may be initiated by a separate routine triggered, for example, when a page is loaded or by an on Load() event of the page (in the case of web-based email). Appeal 2012-009818 Application 11/873,373 5 PRINCIPLES OF LAW In making our determination, we apply the preponderance of the evidence standard. See, e.g., Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Office). The Board “determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction ‘in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Only if that burden is met, does the burden of coming forward with evidence or argument shift to the applicant.” In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). In order to determine whether a prima facie case of obviousness has been established, we consider the factors set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966): (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the relevant art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness, if present. “[O]bviousness requires a suggestion of all limitations in a claim.” CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Intern. Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (CCPA 1974)). Appeal 2012-009818 Application 11/873,373 6 Claim Interpretation Claim 1 recites that the “web page comprises at least two modules.” Claim 1 further recites a step of “during said loading of the at least two modules of the web page at the user terminal, displaying a preview of the web page.” (Emphasis added.) We interpret claim 1 as requiring the downloading of the full webpage, i.e., all the modules of the web page. See (App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 5.) Discussion 1. Claims 1, 4–7, and 9–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable for obviousness over Maguire and Khoo. ISSUE The Examiner finds that: Maguire teaches . . . during loading of the web page, displaying an abbreviated graphical representation of the webpage, displaying the multiple frames of the webpage on the viewing device 28, where the page is reduced to fit in the smaller display screen. Maguire teaches . . . during selective loading of the web page, expanding a user selected reduced webpage frame module to the full size representation. Khoo supplements the teachings of Maguire by further teaching a system for previewing the content of a whole html page (see paragraph 9), similar to that of Maguire, and further teaches while loading the HTML content to the clients workstation allowing for selective preview of individual portions of the HTML document . . . along with delaying the preview display until the preview content has completely loaded. (Ans. 16–17.) Appeal 2012-009818 Application 11/873,373 7 The Examiner concludes that: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Maguire and Khoo before him at the time the invention was made to modify the HTML document loading system of Khoo to allow selective viewing of desired portions of the HTML document during download. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because this allows a user to choose the order in which content is presented. (Ans. 17.) Appellant contends that: In order to disclose claim 1, the prior art must disclose the same device (user terminal) applying the same action (loading or displaying) to the same content (small version or full version of the same multi-module webpage or a full-size module of the webpage) at the same time (during loading or after loading of the full version of the webpage). (Reply Br. 4.) Appellant argues that: Maguire discloses communications between Website 22, Proxy (gateway) 24 and small screen device 28, as shown in FIG. 2. The Office Action equates small device 28 to the claimed user terminal. However, unlike the claimed subject matter, small screen device 28 does not display anything during download of a webpage, does not display a preview, let alone during download of a full-size webpage, and teaches away from downloading and displaying a full-size framed page 100 in favor of small device 28 only downloading and displaying an abbreviated page 110. (App. Br. 13–14, emphasis added.) Appeal 2012-009818 Application 11/873,373 8 Appellant argues that, in Maguire, “NEVER will a full size framed page 100 be downloaded to device 28. As such, NEVER will anything be displayed by a small device 28 during download of a full-size framed page 100.” (App. Br. 15.) Appellant also argues that, “Maguire teaches away from modifying Maguire to send ‘large data files, such as framed web pages’ 100 along with abbreviated page 110 to small device 28 with limited display, limited memory, limited processing, limited user inputs and limited transmission bandwidth.” (Reply Br. 7.) The issue is: Does the cited prior art support the Examiner’s finding that the claimed subject matter is obvious? ANALYSIS We do not find that the Examiner has provided sufficient evidence to support a prima facie case of obviousness. In particular, we do not find that the Examiner has pointed to specific evidence in the prior art of the claimed steps of displaying a preview page during the loading the full webpage, as claimed. (Claim 1.) The Examiner admits that, “Maguire teaches a previewing of content of a web page . . . but doesn't specifically teach the previewing while in the process of downloading the complete document as well as waiting until download is complete to display the full size representation.” (Ans. 5, emphasis added). The Examiner argues that: Khoo supplements the teachings of Maguire by further teaching allowing for selective preview of individual portions of the HTML document during a loading (see paragraphs 49 and 50) along with delaying the preview display until the Appeal 2012-009818 Application 11/873,373 9 preview content has completely loaded (see paragraphs 49 and 52). (Ans. 18.) Appellant argues that: Khoo does not pertain to any part of displaying a small-size webpage preview or a full-size user-selected webpage module while downloading a full size multiscreen webpage. Instead, Khoo discusses loading and displaying a listing of emails including advertisements on a webpage for a web-based email program before displaying ‘previews’ of contents of emails represented by links on the webpage. (App. Br. 18, emphasis added.) We find that the Appellant has the better argument. Khoo addresses downloading of heavy and light “preview” content only and not simultaneous downloading of preview content during the loading of a webpage. In particular, Khoo discloses mitigating the slow downloading of a preview page by, ensuring that the initial loading of a page does not include the loading of the “heavy” objects in the preview content, such as graphics. One method to achieve this is to initially put in lightweight content or images in place of the heavyweight graphical preview content during initial loading of the page (in the HTML code), and then trigger the loading of the heavyweight graphical preview by JavaScript code after the page listing of e-mails has finished loading to the user’s browser or application. (FF2.) No mention is made of displaying a preview page during the loading of the full web page, as in claim 1. Appeal 2012-009818 Application 11/873,373 10 The Examiner has failed to point to evidence in the cited art of the steps of loading the at least two modules of the web page at the user terminal; during said loading of the at least two modules of the web page at the user terminal, displaying a preview of the web page . . . wherein the web page including the at least two modules is operable to be displayed in a full size at the user terminal upon completion of said loading of the at least two modules. (Claim 1.) Claims 12 and 17 are reversed for the same reason as claim 1. In view of the above, the obviousness rejection over Maguire in view of Khoo is reversed. 2. Claims 2, 3, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Maguire in view of Khoo and Nicolas. Appellant contends that, “Nicolas is not asserted to and it does not remedy the deficiencies of Maguire and Khoo relative to claim 1. (Br. 28.) We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has failed to show that Nicolas makes up for the deficiency of displaying a preview page during the loading of the full web page, as set forth in the rejection based on Maguire and Khoo. Rejection 2 is reversed. CONCLUSION OF LAW The cited references do not support the Examiner’s obviousness Rejections 1 and 2 in the grounds of rejection, which are reversed. REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation