Ex Parte Maczuba

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2017

12582851 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2017)

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.
12/582,851 10/21/2009 Jed Maczuba END920090059US1 5445
79980 7590 06/02/2017
Keohane & D'Alessandro
1881 Western Avenue Suite 180
Albany, NY 12203
EXAMINER
PAN, PHOEBE X
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2142
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2017 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):
drubbone @ kdiplaw. com
Docket @ Kdiplaw .com
lcronk @ kdiplaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JED MACZUBA
Appeal 2017-000724
Application 12/582,851
Technology Center 2100
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., BETH Z. SHAW, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—21, which are the only claims currently pending
in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
INVENTION
The invention is for a display for preemptive caching for improving
web page performance for recognized users. Spec. 11.
Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows, with disputed
limitations emphasized:
1 Appellant identifies International Business Machines Corporation as the
real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-000724
Application 12/582,851
1. A method in a system having a web server having a
cache and a web browser for a user, the method for pre­
fetching, to the cache, customized web content for the user, the
system having a user profile for the user, the user profile having
a unique user identifier identifying the user, the method
comprising:
associating the customized web content with the user;
storing the customized web content in the user profile for
the user;
receiving a request for a web page from a user;
determining, in response to the request, whether a user
cookie exists for the user;
rendering the web page to the user;
retrieving, in response to a determination that the user
cookie exists, the customized web content for the user from the
user profile having the user identifier associated with the
cookie;
receiving via the web browser an entry from the user of a
username input on the web page;
in response to a determination that the user cookie does
not exist, prior to an entry of a password associated with the
username, retrieving, based on the username, the customized
web content for the user from the user profile having the user
identifier associated with the username;
pre-fetching the associated customized web content to the
cache based upon the username and the user profile, wherein
the associated customized web content comprises dynamically
generated user-tailored web content only available to the user
following authentication; and
receiving, in response to an entry of the password, a user
authentication authenticating the user to the web server
following the pre-fetching.
2
Appeal 2017-000724
Application 12/582,851
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE2
The Examiner rejected claims 1—6 and 8—21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Jacobs (US 6,789,170 Bl, Sept. 7, 2004),
Landsman (US 2007/0033588 Al, Feb. 8 2007), and “The Emperor’s New
Security Indicators” by Stuart E. Schechter et al. (2007) (“Schechter”).
Final Act. 5—17.
The Examiner rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Jacobs, Landsman, Schechter, and Jim Challenger et al.’s
“Engineering Highly Accessed Web Sites for Performance” in “Web
Engineering” (2001). Final Act. 17.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejections are in error. App. Br. 6—
10. We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Brief, the Examiner’s
rejection, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments. We adopt
as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejection from which this
appeal is taken and in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s
Appeal Brief. See Ans. 2—4, Final Act. 2—17.
Appellant argues that Landsman does not teach the claimed “pre­
fetching” because Landsman’s pre-fetching can be done even before the
authentication process. App. Br. 7. Thus, Appellant argues, “the Examiner
has failed to prove that Landsman requires a username entry for the pre­
fetch.” Id. The Examiner responds by finding Landsman teaches a pre-
2 The Final Action states that claims 15 and 16 are “construed to invoke
35 U.S.C. § 112(f).” Final Act. 4—5. Because the Briefs do not address this
portion of the Final Action, we need not reach it.
3
Appeal 2017-000724
Application 12/582,851
fetching method that pre-fetches dynamic web contents that are viewable
only upon specific user actions such as user authentication. Ans. 2 (citing
Landsman || 46-49). The Examiner further finds Landsman gives an
example of user checking email via web browser where the dynamic content
of the user’s emails are pre-fetched either simultaneously or even before a
user performs an authentication process such as logging in. Id. at 2—3 (citing
Landsman 149). The Examiner also explains that Schechter is relied on to
teach using a username to retrieve customized content after the username has
been entered, but before user input of a password. Ans. 3 (citing Schechter
pp. 14, 15).
In the Reply Brief, Appellant disputes the Examiner’s characterization
of Landsman and argues that the Examiner’s interpretation “is an apparent
attempt to officially notice a fact.” Reply Br. 2. We are not persuaded by
this argument. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Landsman
teaches a user checking email via a web browser where the dynamic content
of the user’s emails are pre-fetched either simultaneously or even before a
user performs an authentication process such as logging in. Landsman 149;
Final Act. 7 (“it’s obvious that the user need[s] to enter [a] username the first
time when signing on, before it can be used to preload secure user data”).
Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner’s interpretation of Landsman, as
requiring some user input at some point in time before the claimed pre­
fetching, is unreasonable. We understand the Examiner to explain that it
would be obvious to one skilled in the art that for Landsman’s system to pre­
fetch dynamic content related to the user, some kind of user identifier is
needed to perform the pre-fetch. Ans. 2—3.
4
Appeal 2017-000724
Application 12/582,851
Appellant also argues Schechter’s content that is displayed is not user-
tailored web content that is only available to the user following
authentication because it is available to the user before the user is prompted
for a password. Reply Br. 3. Appellant argues Schechter’s image is
therefore not content that is “only available to the user following
authentication.” Id. (emphasis omitted). However, we agree with the
Examiner that Schechter is relied on to teach using a username to retrieve
customized content after the username has been entered, and before user
input of a password, whereas Landsman is relied on to teach “wherein the
associated customized web content comprises dynamically generated user-
tailored web content only available to the user following authentication.”
Final Act. 8—9; Ans. 3 (citing Schechter pp. 14, 15).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Because Appellant has not presented separate patentability arguments
or has reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously
discussed for patentability above (see App. Br. 2—10), the remaining pending
claims fall for the same reasons as claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—21 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5