Ex Parte Moore et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2017

12687088 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 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.
12/687,088 01/13/2010 Jason F. Moore MS1-2697USC1 1855
22801 7590 03
LEE & HAYES, PLLC
601 W. RIVERSIDE AVENUE
SUITE 1400
SPOKANE, WA 99201
EXAMINER
NAZAR, AHAMED I
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2178
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2017 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):
lhptoms @ leehay es .com
u sdocket @ micro soft .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JASON F. MOORE, JUSTIN MANN, and
MARTIJN ELDERT VAN TILBURG
Appeal 2016-007381
Application 12/687,088
Technology Center 2100
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., IRVIN E. BRANCH, and
KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1—
12 and 15—20, all pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appeal 2016-007381
Application 12/687,088
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to managing browser tabs. Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. One or more computer-readable storage media comprising
processor-executable instructions that, when executed by at least
one processor, direct a device to perform actions comprising:
receiving user input on a first page at a first tab in a
browser to retrieve a second page;
launching a second tab for the second page in the browser;
including a historical entry pointing to the first page at the
first tab in a travelogue for the second tab, the historical entry
associating the first tab and the second tab by identifying the first
tab as a launching tab from which the second tab was launched;
receiving user input at the second tab in the browser to
perform a back operation; and
switching from the second tab to the first tab to display the
first page at the first tab in the browser responsive to the user
input to perform the back operation, the switching being
performed responsive to the historical entry pointing to the first
page at the first tab as the launching tab from which the second
tab was launched.
REJECTION1
Claims 1—12 and 15—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lee (“Using Tabbed Browsing in Internet Explorer 6”,
1 We note that the Examiner has withdrawn the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of
claims 1—12 and 15—20. Ans. 3.
We also note that the Examiner has maintained the Obviousness-type
Double Patenting rejection of claims 1, 7, and 12 because the Examiner
disapproved Appellants’ Terminal Disclaimer filed October 14, 2014. Id. 3.
We further note that Appellants have filed another Terminal Disclaimer and
that it has been approved. See Terminal Disclaimer Approval, July 28,
2
Appeal 2016-007381
Application 12/687,088
published June 14, 2005 by window devcenter.com, pages 1—6) and
McBrearty et al. (US 2003/0231216 Al, published December 18, 2003).
Final Act. 5—15.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments alleging error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,7, and 12. App. Br. 13—24; Reply Br. 4—6.
Claim 1
Appellants argue that the combination of Lee and McBrearty does not
teach claim 1 ’s “historical entry associating the first tab and the second tab
by identifying the first tab as a launching tab from which the second tab was
launched” and “switching from the second tab to the first tab to display the
first page at the first tab in the browser responsive to the user input to
perform the back operation” using the historical entry. App. Br. 14—19;
Reply Br. 4—5. In particular, Appellants argue that even if the combination
of Lee and McBrearty teaches that:
a single navigation tree could be generated to include web pages
visited in each of two different tabs (a point to which Appellant
does not concede), there is still no teaching of “switching from
the second tab to the first tab to display the first page at the
first tab in the browser responsive to the user input to perform
the back operation,”
App. Br. 17—18. See Reply Br. 5. We are unpersuaded.
The Examiner cites McBrearty for a multi-node navigation tree and
Lee for opening pages in new tabs in a tabbed browser. Final Act. 5—8
(citing McBrearty H 22—36 and Lee p. 3). The Examiner reasons that the
combination of Lee and McBrearty would have taught “a historical entry
2016. We treat the rejection as if it is withdrawn and leave it to the
Examiner to reassert the rejection if it is maintained.
3
Appeal 2016-007381
Application 12/687,088
pointing to the first page at the first tab in a travelogue for the second tab,
the historical entry associating the first tab and the second tab by identifying
the first tab as a launching tab from which the second tab was launched.” Id.
6—7. The Examiner also finds that:
if so many tabs have been opened or a device with small screen
area, the tabs would be stacked on top of each other as indicated
in fig. 8 of Lee’s reference and the browser application would
look like or behave as one window browser rather than tabbed
browser, navigating stacked tabbed pages because the user would
not be able to see the tabs for selection.
Ans. 6 (referring to Lee, Lig. 8).
We agree with the Examiner that some of Appellants’ arguments “are
clearly against the references individually.” Ans. 5. (see, e.g., App. Br. 17
(“Lee makes no mention of a ‘back’ or ‘forward’ command. While
McBrearty describes a ‘back’ operation, McBrearty makes no mention of
tabs within a browser application.”)) One cannot show nonobviousness by
attacking references individually where the rejections are based on
combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 L.2d 413, 426 (CCPA
1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 L.2d 1091, 1097 (Led. Cir. 1986).
To the extent Appellants’ additional arguments presented in the
Appeal Brief (App. Br. 17—18) and quoted in the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 4—
5) “clearly addresses the combined teachings of Lee and McBrearty” (Reply
Br. 4), Appellants’ arguments do not provide sufficient argument or
evidence to convince us of error in the Examiner’s findings and conclusion
that claim 1 is rendered obvious by the combination of Lee and McBrearty.
Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective
evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 L.3d 135, 139-40 (Led. Cir. 1996); In
re De Blauwe, 736 L.2d 699, 705 (Led. Cir. 1984).
4
Appeal 2016-007381
Application 12/687,088
We note the following from Appellants’ arguments:
In the rejection of claim 1, the Office acknowledges that
Lee does not disclose “including a historical entry pointing to the
first page at first tab in a travelogue for the second tab, the
historical entry associating the first tab and second tab by
identifying the first tab as a launching tab from which the second
tab was launched.” Office Action, pp. 6—7. The Office cites
McBrearty, paragraphs [0011] and [0022-0036] as allegedly
teaching this feature ....”
App. Br. 18. Appellants misstate the Examiner’s finding. The Examiner
found that “the combination of Lee and McBrearty would teach” the quoted
limitation. Final Act. 6—7. The Examiner reasoned that “the modified Lee
by McBrearty would allow the creation of relationship between pages in
different tabs.” Id. 7. Appellants have not persuasively rebutted the
Examiner’s case.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that modifying Lee’s tabbed
browser such that a navigation history as taught by McBrearty is maintained
across tabs would have been beyond the skill of the ordinarily skilled artisan
in view of the combined teachings of the references. See KSR Int 7 Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). We sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1.
Claim 7
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 7 because the Examiner’s
construction of “closing the second tab” is unreasonably broad and
inconsistent with Appellants’ Specification. The Examiner interprets
“closing the second tab” to mean “navigating back to the first tab because
there is no definition in the specification on what the term ‘close’ means.”
Ans. 8. Appellants’ Specification distinguishes “closing” a tab from
permitting a tab to continue to exist. Spec. 1 53.
5
Appeal 2016-007381
Application 12/687,088
Claim 12
We also do not sustain the rejection of claim 12 because the
Examiner’s construction of “re-launching the third tab” is unreasonably
broad and inconsistent with Appellants’ Specification. The Examiner
interprets “re-launching the third tab” to mean “navigating forward to the
third tab after closing it by navigating away from it to the second tab
because there is no definition in the specification on what the term ‘re­
launching’ means.” Ans. 9. Because the Examiner misconstrues “closing”
to mean navigating away from a tab, the Examiner misconstrues re­
launching as navigating back to a tab that is not “closed.”
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject
claim 1 and claims 2—6, which depend therefore and are not separately
argued. For the reasons stated above, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 7 or the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12. We also do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8—11 and 15—20, which depend
from claims 7 or 12.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—6 is affirmed. The Examiner’s
rejection of claims 7—12 and 15—20 is reversed.
6
Appeal 2016-007381
Application 12/687,088
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7