Ex Parte Liu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 23, 2016

12826540 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/826,540 06/29/2010
26183 7590 09/27/2016
FISH & RICHARDSON P,C (APPLE)
PO BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Alice Liu
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.
APL-P8787US1 3571
EXAMINER
GORTAYO, DANGELINO N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2168
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2016 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):
P ATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALICE LIU and GA VIN BARRACLOUGH
Appeal2015-003982
Application 12/826,540
Technology Center 2100
Before KEVIN C. TROCK, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-22, 24, and 25. Claim 23 has been
canceled. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Apple, Inc. Br. 1.
Appeal2015-003982
Application 12/826,540
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 'Invention
Appellants' invention generally relates to location based grouping of
browsing histories. Title. Separate browsing histories for different locations
(e.g., work and home) are generated for a user using a browser. Spec. 25.
The browser presents different browsing histories based on a current
location of the user. Id. For example, when a user is at home, the browser
may display a browsing history that reflects web pages accessed by the user
while at home. Id. Additionally, when a user is at work, the browser may
display a browsing history that reflects web pages accessed by the user while
at work. Id. Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows:
1. A machine implemented method comprising:
storing a history of records for a browsing history, each
record including a Universal Resource Locator (URL) and
location data, the location data indicating where a device
physically was when the device accessed a web page of the URL;
clustering the records into groups of records based on the
location data in the records; and
presenting URLs from the groups of records, the
presenting comprising displaying indicators of the URLs in each
group of records in relation to positions on a map with which
each group of records is associated.
References
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Hamynen et al.
Eisenstadt et al.
Chakra et al.
US 2005/0228860 Al
US 7,801,950 B2
US 8,635,219 B2
2
Oct. 13, 2005
Sept. 21, 2010
Jan. 21, 2014
Appeal2015-003982
Application 12/826,540
Rejections
Claims 1-14, 16-22, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Chakra and
Hamynen. Final Act. 3-15.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Chakra, Hamynen, and Eisenstadt.
Final Act. 15.
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Chakra and
Hamynen teaches or suggests "presenting URLs from the groups of records,
the presenting comprising displaying indicators of the URLs in each group
of records in relation to positions on a map with which each group of records
is associated," as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Final Office Action from which this appeal is taken and the
reasons set forth in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants'
Appeal Brief. Final Act. 3-17; Ans. 2---6. We highlight and address specific
findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
Appellants do not separately argue claims 1-22, 24, and 25. Br. 9-11.
We select claim 1 as representative. Accordingly, claims 2-22, 24, and 25
stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
3
Appeal2015-003982
Application 12/826,540
The Examiner finds Chakra teaches the limitations of claim 1, except
the Examiner finds "Chakra does not specifically teach the presenting
comprising displaying indicators of the URLs in each group of records in
relation to positions on a map with which each group of records is
associated." Final Act. 4. As to that limitation, the Examiner relies on
Hamynen. Id. (citing Hamynen i-fi-1 61, 67).
Appellants argue the Examiner's findings are in error because
"Hamynen is limited to providing an indication of an area of interest to a
search engine from a mobile device, either via the search query or via
interacting with a map, and displaying search results within the area of
interest." Br. 11.
We do not find Appellants' contention persuasive. We agree with
Appellants (Br. 11) that Hamynen teaches displaying search results within
an area of interest (Hamynen 60). However, Hamynen teaches that the
search results may be stored in the location based bookmark folder and that
each location based bookmark is associated with a particular location.
Hamynen i1 61. Hamynen further teaches "subsequent needs for gas station
locations while in the Tampere area simply requires a recall of the 'gas
stations' sub-folder" of the location based bookmark associated with
Tampere and that map data similar to that rendered in figure 5 is displayed
to the user. Hamynen i1 66. Hamynen teaches that figure 5 depicts a
graphical display of search results (e.g., indicators of URLs) in relation to
positions on a map. Hamynen 60; see also Hamynen, Fig. 5. As such,
Hamynen teaches or suggests "presenting URLs from the groups of records,
the presenting comprising displaying indicators of the URLs in each group
of records in relation to positions on a map with which each group of records
4
Appeal2015-003982
Application 12/826,540
is associated," as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and
claims 2-22, 24, and 25, which fall with claim 1.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-22, 24, and 25 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5