Ex Parte Labrogere et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 28, 201512675251 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 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. 12/675,251 05/13/2011 Paul Labrogere LUTZ 201120US01 3023 48116 7590 12/28/2015 FAY SHARPE/LUCENT 1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor The Halle Building Cleveland, OH 44115-1843 EXAMINER BILGRAMI, ASGHAR H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2645 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/28/2015 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 PAUL LABROGERE, VINCENT BILLAULT, and NICOLAS BOUCHE ____________ Appeal 2014-000694 Application 12/675,2511 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Introduction Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–10, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Appellants indicate the real party in interest is Alcatel Lucent. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2014-000694 Application 12/675,251 2 Invention The claimed invention relates to a method for enriching content of a web page displayed for a user on a computer connected to a network. Spec. 1: 6, 7. Exemplary Claim Exemplary claim 1 is reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized: 1. Method for enriching content of a web page displayed for a user on a computer connected to a computerized network and provided with a web browser, said method comprising: the web browser sending a request for a web page to a distant web server, upon receipt of the web page from the web server, the web browser parsing the web page for contact information, upon detection of contact information within the web page, the web browser sending a request for presence information associated with said contact information to at least one presence server, upon receipt of the presence information from the presence server(s), the web browser displaying the web page on the computer together with the presence information. Applied Prior Art The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims: AGAPIEV US 2002/0120714 A1 Aug. 29, 2002 MANDALIA et al. US 2008/0205625 A1 Aug. 28, 2008 Rejections Claims 1–10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Agapiev and Mandalia. Appeal 2014-000694 Application 12/675,251 3 ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments. We concur with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of the references teaches or suggests “upon detection of contact information within the web page, the web browser sending a request for presence information associated with said contact information to at least one presence server,” as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly in independent claims 8 and 9. We highlight specific findings and argument for emphasis as follows. Appellants contend the Examiner erred rejecting independent claim 1, as well as independent claims 8 and 9, because the combination of Agapiev and Mandalia does not teach or suggest a “web browser parsing the web page for contact information,” “upon detection of contact information within the web page, the web browser sending a request for presence information associated with the contact information,” and “displaying the web page . . . together with the presence information,” as recited in claim 1, and similarly in claims 8 and 9. App. Br. 5–7, 9–11. Appellants argue Mandalia’s paragraph 48, cited by the Examiner, teaches that a presence server can publish information, such as location, availability, capability, etc. to extended presence providers that can serve web pages. However, Appellants contend, paragraph 48 fails to teach or suggest a web browser sending a request for presence information to a presence server as recited in claim 1, and similarly in claims 8 and 9. App. Br. 6, 7; Reply Br. 3, 4. Similarly, Appellants argue Mandalia’s paragraph 66, also cited Appeal 2014-000694 Application 12/675,251 4 by the Examiner,2 fails to teach or suggest a web server sending a request for presence information to a presence server because paragraph 66 relates to an agent portlet, which is used by an agent whose presence information is to be published. The agent portlet calls the presence server to send the agent's presence information to the presence server. The agent portlet does not request presence information, let alone in response to detected contact information as set forth in claim 1. Moreover, the agent portlet is not a web server. Reply Br. 4, 5. We agree with Appellants. In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988). To establish prima facie obviousness of a claimed invention, all the claim limitations must be taught or suggested by the prior art. See In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (CCPA 1974). Here, the Examiner finds that Mandalia paragraph 66 (54) teaches “presence information being acquired for the server by utilizing the contact information (I.E. address, URI or embedded link) within the web page.” Ans. 8. However, acquiring presence information for a server is not “sending a request for presence information . . . to at least one presence server,” as required by independent claims 1, 8, and 9. Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner erred finding the combination of Agapiev and Mandalia teaches or suggests “upon detection 2 The Examiner cites to paragraph 54 of Mandalia (Ans. 8), but as Appellants correctly point out, actually reproduces and argues the text of Mandalia paragraph 66. Reply Br. 4. Appeal 2014-000694 Application 12/675,251 5 of contact information within the web page, the web browser sending a request for presence information associated with said contact information to at least one presence server,” within the meaning of independent claim 1, and similarly, independent claims 8 and 9. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 8, and 9, as well as dependent claims 2–7 and 10. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–10. REVERSED jagr Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation