Ex Parte Liu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2016

12755662 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121755,662 04/07/2010 JianLiu
30449 7590 09/28/2016
SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS
22 CENTURY HILL DRIVE
SUITE 302
LATHAM, NY 12110
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.
CN920090015US 1 9075
EXAMINER
HOFFLER, RAHEEM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2155
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2016 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):
30449@IPLA WUSA.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JIAN LIU, DIKRAN S. MELIKSETIAN,
YANG SUN, and ZHI JUN W ANG 1
Appeal2015-001819
Application 12/755,662
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify International Business Machines Corporation as the
real party in interest. (App. Br. 1.)
Appeal2015-001819
Application 12/755,662
Introduction
According to Appellants, "[t]he present invention relates to the field
of web page browsing and, more particularly, to a breadcrumb method and
system for a website." (Spec. 1.)
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A breadcrumb method for a website, said method
compnsmg:
in response to a request for visiting the website, a
processor of a computer system generating a breadcrumb root
node in a tree structure;
after said generating the breadcrumb root node and in
response to receiving a request for visiting a first web task
associated with the website, said processor generating a first task
node in the tree structure at the breadcrumb root node;
after said generating the first task node and in response to
sequentially receiving requests for multiple subtasks of the first
web task, said processor sequentially establishing in the tree
structure multiple subtask nodes of the first task node, wherein
the subtask nodes of the multiple subtask nodes of the first task
node are respectively associated with the subtasks of the multiple
subtasks of the first web task and are sequentially connected to
the first task node according to a sequential order of the
sequentially received requests for the multiple subtasks of the
first web task; and
after said sequentially establishing in the tree structure the
multiple subtask nodes of the first task node, said processor
processing the multiple subtask nodes of the first task node based
a policy of the first web task.
2
Appeal2015-001819
Application 12/755,662
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Stumpf US 2003/0172078 Al Sept. 11, 2003
REJECTION
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Stumpf. (Final Act. 2-10.)
ISSUE2
The dispositive issue presented on appeal is whether the Examiner
erred in finding Stumpf teaches the limitations of independent claim 1.
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites, inter alia, "after said generating the
breadcrumb root node and in response to receiving a request for visiting a
first web task associated with the website, said processor generating a first
task node in the tree structure at the breadcrumb root node." (App. Br. 23
(Claims App'x).) This limitation is commensurately recited in independent
claims 8 and 15. (Id. at 26-27, 30, 31.) The Examiner finds this limitation
is taught in Stumpf, citing "Fig. IA-IC" and paragraphs 26 and 47, which
the Examiner states teach "generating branches representing tasks within the
breadcrumb structure." (Final Act. 3.)
2 Appellants' contentions present additional issues. Because the identified
issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional issues.
3
Appeal2015-001819
Application I2/755,662
Although we agree with the Examiner's finding Stumpf teaches
generating a breadcrumb representation of a data structure (e.g., Stumpf
i-f 2 I; Final Act. 2-3), and does so for data retrieved via an Internet browser
(e.g., Stumpfi-f 36), we disagree with the Examiner's finding Stumpf teaches
"generating a first task node in the tree structure at the breadcrumb root
node," as recited in claim I (emphasis added). The portions of Stumpf cited
by the Examiner ("Fig. IA-IC" [sic, Fig. I] and i-fi-126 and 47) do not
support this finding. These portions of Stumpf, teach organizing retrieved
data into one of several possible structures, one of which is a breadcrumb
structure. (E.g., Stumpfi-fi-12I, 26, 36-42, 47, 49.) The Examiner has made
no findings, however, to bridge the gap between the "data" that form nodes
in Stumpf s breadcrumb structure, and the one or more "web task[ s ]" that
form the nodes as recited in claim I . In other words, the Examiner has not
found that Stumpf s teaching of "data" in a breadcrumb structure necessarily
teaches "web task[ s ]" in a breadcrumb structure.
This gap in the Examiner's findings is even more pronounced with
regard to the final limitation in claim I, which recites ''processing the
multiple subtask nodes of the first task node based [on] a policy of the first
web task." (App. Br. 24 (Claims App'x) (emphases added).) The Examiner
finds Stumpf teaches this limitation because "the system determines how to
represent the data structure based on such factors as the amount of data
associated with the data structure, characteristics, user profile, etc." (Final
Act. 3--4 (citing Stumpf Tables I-3 and i-fi-1IO,49, 52) (emphasis added).)
We disagree. Although we agree Stumpf discloses various presentation
forms for displaying the data to the user, taking into account the type of data
to be represented (e.g., Stumpf i-f 49), Stumpf does not disclose processing
4
Appeal2015-001819
Application 12/755,662
the nodes as tasks, much less a policy for processing the nodes, as recited in
independent claim 1.
In short, the Examiner has failed to make findings, supported by the
evidence, that Stumpf teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. On this
record, therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of independent claim 1. Independent claims 8 and 15 contain
similar limitations to those addressed herein for claim 1. Accordingly, we do
not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 15, or
the rejections of the claims dependent thereon.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 is
reversed.
REVERSED
5