Ex Parte Punaganti et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 6, 2014

11241884 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 6, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MURALI PUNAGANTI, SAMEH GALAL, and CHAND MALU
____________

Appeal 2012-003542
Application 11/241,884
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, STEPHEN C. SIU, and DAVID M. KOHUT,
Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-16, and 18-23. Claims 6, 12, and 17
were canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention enables browsing received information feeds
and accessing associated data on mobile devices with limited display areas.
See generally Spec. 1; Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method comprising:

-constructing a list view comprising a plurality of identifiers each
representing an item of content of a subscribed information feed comprising
content that is for receipt by a terminal device via a communication network,
Appeal 2012-003542
Application 11/241,884

2
wherein said plurality of identifiers are configured for visualization on a
display of the terminal device;

- determining a first control input defining a selection of an identifier
of said plurality of identifiers in the list view;

-constructing, by a processor, an abstract view comprising a
description of said item of said content represented by said selected
identifier in response to said first control input, wherein said description of
said item of said content comprises at least a title of said item, and said
abstract view is configured for visualization on the display of the terminal
device;

-determining a second control input defining a selection of the abstract
view; and

-performing an action in response to the second control input to access
the item of said content relating to the abstract view in greater detail than
presented in the abstract view.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-11, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 22,
and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Vayssiere (US
2006/0155698 A1; July 13, 2006) and Wang (US 7,310,633 B1; Dec. 18,
2007). Ans. 5-23.1
The Examiner rejected claims 2, 8, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Vayssiere, Wang, and Demartines (US 2003/0038788
A1; Feb. 27, 2003). Ans. 23-26.

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed September
20, 2011 (“App. Br.”); (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed October 18, 2011
(“Ans.”); and (3) the Reply Brief filed December 16, 2011 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2012-003542
Application 11/241,884

3
The Examiner rejected claims 20 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Vayssiere, Wang, Mitchelmore (US 2002/0090934 A1;
July 11, 2002), and Hartman (US 5,960,411; Sept. 28, 1999). Ans. 26-31.

THE REJECTION OVER VAYSSIERE AND WANG
The Examiner finds that Vayssiere constructs a “list view” in Figure 4
comprising plural identifiers, namely the names of the listed feeds, where
each identifier is said to represent an item of content of a subscribed
information feed. Ans. 5-7, 32-34, 36-37. Vayssiere is also said to
determine a first control input defining an identifier selection. Id. Although
the Examiner acknowledges that Vayssiere does not (1) construct an abstract
view, (2) determine a second control input defining that view’s selection,
and (3) perform an action responsive to that input to access the related item,
the Examiner cites Wang as teaching these features in concluding that the
claim would have been obvious. Ans. 8-10, 35-36.
Appellants argue that Vayssiere not only fails to construct a list view
comprising items of content of a single subscribed information feed, but also
does not determine a first control input defining a selection of an identifier
from the plural identifiers as claimed. App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 3-6. The
Examiner’s reliance on Wang is also said to be flawed, for Appellants
contend that Wang’s summaries (that the Examiner equates to an abstract
view) are not constructed responsive to the recited first control input, nor
does this “abstract view” contain a title-based item description as claimed.
App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 7-9.

Appeal 2012-003542
Application 11/241,884

4
ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Vayssiere and Wang collectively would have taught or suggested (1)
constructing a list view comprising plural identifiers each representing an
item of content of a subscribed information feed; (2) determining a first
control input defining a selection of an identifier of the plural identifiers; and
(3) constructing an abstract view comprising a description of the item
represented by the selected identifier responsive to the first control input,
where the description comprises at least the item’s title?

ANALYSIS
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. As noted above, the
Examiner maps the recited “list view” to Vayssiere’s Figure 4 whose feed
names are said to constitute “identifiers” representing an item of content of a
subscribed information feed. Ans. 6, 32, 36. Vayssiere’s Figure 4 shows a
conceptual view of a web page 410 to set various preferences, including feed
name and associated URL. Vayssiere ¶ 36. These feed-name identifiers are
listed in a respective row underneath the “Feed Name” field, and each
represent at least one item of content of their respective information feeds,
namely the content linked via a feed’s associated URL. See id.
¶ 37 (noting that the URL in Figure 4 (1) identifies the web site that the user
wishes to receive alerts of changes from, and (2) is associated with the feed
name of the same row); see also id. ¶ 2 (noting that an RSS feed is an XML
document associated with a URL and contains, among other things, a list of
items, each of which includes a (1) title, (2) web link to an associated
document, and (3) description of recent document changes). The RSS feed
Appeal 2012-003542
Application 11/241,884

5
of Vayssiere’s Figure 1, for example, has three such items and associated
titles, links, and descriptions identified by their respective tags.
Based on this functionality, we also see no error in the Examiner’s
position to the extent that Vayssiere at least suggests determining a first
control input defining an identifier selection, namely the control input
associated with a particular feed’s URL hyperlink. Determining this
particular link effectively defines a selection of the associated identifier of
that particular feed. Accord Vayssiere ¶ 31 (noting that a user can select
from a list of feeds and, upon such selection, display a list of the most recent
and unread items); Ans. 7-8 (quoting this passage). Appellants’ contention
that Vayssiere’s feed selection does not teach or suggest the recited first
control input determination (App. Br. 8) is unavailing and not commensurate
with the scope of the claim that does not preclude Vayssiere’s above-noted
functionality.
Nor do we find error in the Examiner’s reliance on Wang at least to
the extent that constructing an abstract view comprising a title-based item
description would have been an obvious enhancement to Vayssiere. As
Wang indicates, search engines provide document or website summaries or
“snippets” responsive to queries. Wang, col. 1, ll. 30-35. The user then
browses the summaries and selects an associated link that best matches their
search criteria to view the entire document or navigate to the desired web
page. Id., col. 1, ll. 35-38. These summaries, therefore, reasonably suggest
an abstract view that describes the associated content, for they summarize
and describe the underlying content. Even assuming, without deciding, that
Wang’s summaries lack titles as Appellants seem to suggest (see App. Br.
10), including a title in these summaries would have nevertheless been an
Appeal 2012-003542
Application 11/241,884

6
obvious variation, particularly in light of Vayssiere’s including titles in
connection with respective content items as shown in Figure 1.
Appellants’ contention that Wang’s summaries are not constructed
responsive to a control input, let alone the recited first control input (App.
Br. 10), is unavailing. Wang’s summaries are not only constructed
responsive to a user’s query (which at least suggests a control input), but
when considered in light of Vayssiere’s hyperlink-based control input noted
above, providing an abstract view of the content items responsive to such an
input in lieu of more detailed content would have been at least an obvious
variation. Accord Ans. 36 (noting that the cited references collectively teach
the list view (Vayssiere) and abstract view (Wang)). Although Appellants
argue the individual shortcomings of the cited references, such individual
attacks do not show nonobviousness where, as here, the rejection is based on
the references’ collective teachings. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In short, enhancing Vayssiere by providing an
abstract view such as that in Wang as the Examiner proposes predictably
uses prior art elements according to their established functions—an obvious
improvement. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 1, and claims 2-5, 7-11, 13-16, and 18-23 not argued
separately with particularity.

THE REMAINING OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 2, 8,
15, 20, and 21. Ans. 23-31. Despite nominally arguing these claims
separately, Appellants reiterate similar arguments made in connection with
Appeal 2012-003542
Application 11/241,884

7
claim 1 that we find unpersuasive for the reasons previously discussed. See
App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 10.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-16, and 18-
23 under § 103.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-16, and 18-23
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)(iv).

AFFIRMED

rwk