Ex Parte Silyaev et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 22, 2016

12650140 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/650,140 12/30/2009
121312 7590 09/12/2016
Foley & Lardner LLP/ Broadcom Corporation
3000 K Street N.W
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20007-5109
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Vladimir Silyaev
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.
106861-0455 6760
EXAMINER
PATEL,DHAIRYAA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2455
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/12/2016 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):
ipdocketing@foley.com
cmckenna@foley.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VLADIMIR SIL Y AEV, MARCUS KELLERMAN,
XUEMIN CHEN, and DAVID ERICKSON
Appeal2015-001943
Application 12/650, 140
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-7, 9-21, and 23-24. Claims 8 and 22 are canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
Appeal2015-001943
Application 12/650, 140
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claims 1, 12, and 23 are independent claims. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for networking, the method comprising:
performing by one or more circuits, one or more processors,
or any combination thereof in a network device:
retrieving content for display in a browser window of a client
device, the retrieved content including a first partial portion that
is initially displayed in said browser window and additional
portions that may be subsequently displayed in said browser
window; and
processing said first partial portion of said retrieved content
by said network device before said additional portions of said
retrieved content are processed;
communicating said processed first partial portion of said
retrieved content to said client device; and
concurrent with said communication of said processed first
partial portion of said retrieved content to said client device,
processing a second partial portion included in said additional
portions of said retrieved content by said network device in
anticipation of being viewed in said browser window and before
said additional portions are communicated to said client device.
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1-7, 9-21, and 23-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable in view of various combinations of Wannamaker (US
2004/0031052; Feb. 12, 2004); Goodwin (US 7,667,719 B2; Feb. 23, 2010);
Morrisroe (US 2004/0070600 Al; Apr. 15, 2004); Borger (US 7,653,748
B2; Jan. 26, 2010); Batey (US 2008/0232430 Al; Sept. 25, 2008); and
Morimoto (US 6,247,013 Bl; June 12, 2001).
2
Appeal2015-001943
Application 12/650, 140
ANALYSIS
According to Appellants, "[ c ]laim 1 recites a method of retrieving and
processing content that reduces latency problems." App. Br. 9. Claim 1
recites content for display in a browser window (e.g., web pages and
associated content (see Spec. 27)) and defines a first partial portion of the
content and a second partial portion of the content. Claim 1 requires
concurrently (a) communicating the first partial portion to a client device
and (b) processing the second partial portion by a network device. As one
example consistent with the "concurrent" requirement of clam 1, Appellants
Specification describes a web server processing a web page and sending a
first portion of the web page to a user's web browser while continuing to
render and/or transcode the remaining portions of the web page. See Spec.
i-f 69 ("In step 612, upon completion of the rendering and/or transcoding of a
first portion of the web page 500 - a portion that corresponds to the portion
to be initially displayed in a web browser of the [set-top box] 120-the
server 162 may send the first portion to the [set-top box] 120. In parallel
with this communication, the server 162 may continue rendering and/or
transcoding the web page 500.").
The Examiner cites as a teaching of the "concurrent" limitation of
claim 1, Goodwin's server that processes and communicates to a user an
initial set of pages of a document and then waits until the user scrolls
through the first set of pages to begin processing a second set of pages.
Final Act 3--4; Ans. 3-5. The cited portions of Goodwin explain how the
server determines when to process the second set of pages as follows: "if
the current set of image pages includes image pages 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, as the
user scrolls ... from image page 3 to image page 4, it can be predicted that
3
Appeal2015-001943
Application 12/650, 140
image page 5 will soon need to be displayed, followed by image pages 6 and
7." Goodwin col. 6, 11. 19--23. Further, "[b]ecause the current set of image
pages stored in the [user's] temporary memory does not include image pages
6 and 7, in order to provide the continuous display from image page 5 to the
next image pages, image pages 6 and 7 will be downloaded and added to the
current set of image pages stored in the temporary memory, thereby making
the new current set of image pages." Goodwin col. 6, 11. 23-29.
Because Goodwin teaches a server that processes and communicates a
first set of pages and then subsequently processes a second set of pages, we
agree with Appellants that Goodwin does not teach a network device
processing a second partial portion "concurrent with" communication of the
first partial portion to a client device, as required by claim 1. Accordingly,
we are constrained by the record before us to reverse the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 2-7, 9-21, and 23-24, each of which
includes the same or a similar "concurrent" limitation.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims
1-7, 9--21, and 23-24.
REVERSED
4