Ex Parte MatiasDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 14, 201612283819 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 14, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/283,819 09/15/2008 63649 7590 06/16/2016 DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC C/O FARJAMI & FARJAMI LLP 26522 LA ALAMEDA A VENUE, SUITE 360 MISSION VIEJO, CA 92691 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Joven Michael Matias 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. 0260178 8280 EXAMINER PARK, GRACE A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2157 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/16/2016 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): docketing@farj ami. com farjamidocketing@yahoo.com ffarj ami @farj ami. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOVEN MICHAEL MATIAS Appeal2014-007127 Application 12/283,819 Technology Center 2100 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, ADAM J. PYONIN, and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Disney Enterprises, Inc. App. Br. 2. Appeal2014-007127 Application 12/283,819 THE INVENTION Appellant's invention generally relates to a web snapshot that enables the user to selectively sample new, timely web content relevant to a subject matter of interest to them, across a variety of presentation formats. Spec. 3:10-12. Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. A method for producing a web snapshot, the method compnsmg: determining a search subject from a received input; designating a plurality of content sources on which to search for contents relating to the search subject; executing a respective search protocol for finding the contents on each of the plurality of content sources; selecting the contents found on each of the plurality of content sources according to a time associated with each of the contents; composmg a v1ewmg pane including a visual representation and a location for each of a predetermined number of the selected contents from each of the plurality of content sources, the plurality of content sources shown as visual recognition cues; applying a single time stamp to the viewing pane to produce the web snapshot; storing the web snapshot in a memory; retrieving, from the memory, the web snapshot and one or more other web snapshots sharing the search subject matter and each having a single time stamp different than the single time stamp for the viewing pane; and presenting the web snapshot and the one or more other web snapshots for observation of an evolution of the contents sharing the search subject matter over time. 2 Appeal2014-007127 Application 12/283,819 REFERENCES and REJECTION Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Maghoul (US 2009/0144244 Al, June 4, 2009), Gadkari (US 200610206460 Al, Sept. 14, 2006), and Gossweiler (US 2008/0270449 Al, Oct. 30, 2008). Final Act. 3-9. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds Gadkari teaches or suggests "applying a single time stamp to the viewing pane to produce the web snapshot," as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 4. Specifically, the Examiner finds Gadkari teaches a viewing pane in the form of a webpage providing search results to a user via a display device. Final Act. 4 (citing Gadkari i-f 24 ); see also Ans. 3. The Examiner further finds that the search results presented in the webpage are associated with a date/time which acts as a timestamp for the webpage. Final Act. 4 (citing Gadkari i-f 21); Ans. 2-3. Appellant argues2 "Gadkari merely states 'associating date/time with searches,'" which, according to Appellant, "is quite different than applying 2 Appellant additionally argues, for the first time in their Reply Brief, the term "a plurality of content sources" in claim 1 refers to a plurality of commercial web search engines. Reply Br. 3. Based on this interpretation, Appellant argues "[t]he web page of Gadkari ... includes only the search results from one search engine, and ... is [therefore] not a collection of search results from a plurality of search engines." Reply Br. 3--4. We do not address this argument because it is a new argument not raised in the Appeal Brief and is therefore waived. See 37 CPR§ 41.4l(b)(2) (2012) ("Any argument raised in the reply brief which was not raised in the appeal brief, or is not responsive to an argument raised in the examiner's answer, including any designated new ground of rejection, will not be considered by the Board for purposes of the present appeal, unless good cause is shown."). 3 Appeal2014-007127 Application 12/283,819 a single time stamp to the viewing pane to produce the web snapshot." App. Br. 9. Appellant further argues, "[t]here is no 'viewing pane,' [in Gadkari] as defined in claim 1 ... let alone a viewing pane that has a content source shown as a visual recognition cues." App. Br. 10. Appellant contends Gadkari discloses each search result would have one associated time, but does not disclose a single timestamp used for multiple searches. Reply Br. 3. We are unpersuaded by Appellant's arguments. We agree with the Examiner that Gadkari' s webpage displaying search results teaches or suggests a viewing pane as required by claim 1. The webpage of Gadkari displays URLs which constitute visual representations of the contents and identify the location of the contents. Final Act. 4 (citing Gadkari i-fi-f 19, 24, and 37). Further, Gadkari teaches that the search results from a search have an associated date/time stamp. Final Act. 4 (citing Gadkari i121 ); see also Gadkari i-f 18 ("the search engines ... assign a date/time stamp for the search .... "). Since the search results listed on a webpage (viewing pane) are assigned a single date/time, we agree with the Examiner that the date/time teaches applying a single timestamp to the viewing pane as required by claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Appellant does not present substantive arguments for separate patentability of any other pending claims (see App. Br. 10), and thus we sustain the Examiner's rejection of those claims. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 is affirmed. 4 Appeal2014-007127 Application 12/283,819 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation