Ex Parte SONGDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 13, 201612853827 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 12/853,827 08/10/2010 Dong-hyun SONG 784-75 (SH-36999-US-DMC) 6596 66547 7590 12/15/2016 THF FARRFT T T AWFTRM PC EXAMINER 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 210E WU, QING YUAN Melville, NY 11747 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2199 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/15/2016 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): pto @ farrelliplaw. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DONG-HYUN SONG Appeal 2015-0076111 Application 12/853,827 Technology Center 2100 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN A. EVANS, and DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. Per Curiam. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 3—7, and 9—11, which constitute all of the claims pending in this appeal. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 2 and 8 have been canceled. Claims App’x. We affirm. 1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Samsung Electronics Co, Ltd. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2015-007611 Application 12/853,827 Appellant’s Invention Appellant invented a web browser 200 (for facilitating communication of data between a first web application A (210) and a second web application B (220) via a data transferring unit (235) located in a web application controller (230). Spec. 3, Fig. 2. Illustrative Claim Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows: 1. An apparatus for data communication between web applications using a web browser, wherein the web browser comprises: a hardware processing unit configured to execute a web application controller that executes a first web application and a second web application, and a data transferring unit configured to receive, from the first web application, data and identification information of a target web application to which the data is to be transmitted, determine the second web application corresponding to the identification information as the target web application, and transmit the data to the determined target web application. Prior Art Relied Upon Zerber US 6,175,877 B1 Jan. 16, 2001 Rejections on Appeal Claims 1, 4—7, 10, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Zerber. Ans. 2-4. Claims 3 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zerber. Ans. 4. 2 Appeal 2015-007611 Application 12/853,827 ANALYSIS We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 3—11, and the Reply Brief, pages 1—9.2 Anticipation Rejection Appellant argues Zerber does not describe “a data transferring unit configured to receive, from the first web application, data . . . and transmit the data to the . . . target web application,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 6— 7; Reply Br. 4—5. In particular, Appellant contends Zerber neither illustrates nor describes data provided from the view applet to the compose applet. App. Br. 6—7 (citing Zerber Fig. 1); Reply Br. 4—5. Appellant asserts Zerber discloses a compose applet running in the compose page as opposed to the compose applet running the compose page. App. Br. 7 (citing Zerber 2:48— 3:20); Reply Br. 5. Appellant disputes the Examiner’s characterization of sending a command from the view applet to the compose page run by the compose applet as transmitting the command to the compose applet. App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 5. Appellant argues Zerber describes a compose page generated in response to an HTTP command. App. Br. 7, 8; Reply Br. 5, 6. According to Appellant, there is no disclosure in Zerber of the HTTP command being transferred to the compose applet. Id. These arguments are not persuasive. 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed February 23, 2015), the Reply Brief (filed August 17, 2015), and the Answer (mailed June 17, 2015) for the respective details. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). 3 Appeal 2015-007611 Application 12/853,827 The Examiner responds that Zerber describes the view applet sending a command corresponding to a user selected operation to the compose applet. Ans. 5—6. Specifically, the Examiner finds Zerber discloses that the view applet sends one of various commands that correspond to a user selected operation through the local HTTP server to the mail applet 46 assembling “a compose page [42] including the compose applet 48 to perform the user selected compose operation.” Ans. 5 (quoting Zerber 7:45— 48) (emphasis omitted). The Examiner finds Zerber describes that applets are run on corresponding pages to perform various tasks. Ans. 6 (citing Zerber 3:4—28); see Zerber 3:13—16 (“The compose applet 48, which runs in the compose page 42, causes the web browser 38 to display portions of the compose page 42, which provides a template to compose new messages, and reply to and forward received messages.”). We agree with the Examiner that the compose applet necessarily receives the command because Zerber describes that the compose applet provides the template specified in the command. Ans. 6. The compose applet carries out the command to provide the template whether or not the compose applet runs the compose page. Id. Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s finding that the compose applet runs in the compose page. App. Br. 7 (citing Zerber 2:48—3:20); Reply Br. 5 (citing Zerber 2:48—3:20); Ans. 6 (citing Zerber 3:14—17). Appellant asserts Zerber does not describe “a data transferring unit configured to receive . . . identification information of a target web application to which the data is to be transmitted,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 6. Appellant argues Zerber discloses a mail applet assembling a compose page which had not yet existed at the time of the 4 Appeal 2015-007611 Application 12/853,827 initial request. App. Br. 8. The Examiner finds Zerber describes specific operations handled by specific applets. Ans. 7 (citing Zerber 7:7—8:5). The Examiner finds Zerber discloses that the invocation of a specific operation includes identification information for the applet intended to carry out the operation. Ans. 7. We agree with the Examiner because Zerber enumerates commands used to initiate compose operations, such as “CREATE,” “FORWARD,” and “REPLYTOSENDER,” having names identifying the compose applet used to carry them out. Zerber 7:24-48; Ans. 7. We further note Appellant’s argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim, which does not require the target application to exist before the information identifying the target application. Because we agree with the Examiner that Zerber describes the disputed limitations, Appellant has not shown the Examiner erred in finding Zerber anticipates claim 1. Regarding claim 3, Appellant contends Zerber neither teaches nor suggests: wherein the first web application includes a first java script controller, and generates java script data comprising the data by using the first java script controller, and wherein the second web application includes a second java script controller, and receives the java script data by using the second java script controller, as recited in the claim. App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 8. Appellant argues that the Examiner has not provided evidence of replacing Java in Zerber with JavaScript controllers. Id. We find Appellant’s arguments unavailing. The Examiner finds that JavaScript is well-known in the art as a substitute for Java applets. Ans. 8. The Examiner is taking Official Notice which Appellant has not challenged. Appellant has provided no evidence or 5 Appeal 2015-007611 Application 12/853,827 argument as to why the noticed fact of JavaScript is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art in accordance with MPEP § 2144.03(C).3 Consequently, we find that Appellant has failed to adequately traverse the Examiner’s taking of Official Notice that JavaScript is well-known in the art as a substitute for Java applets. Ans. 8—9. It therefore follows that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Zerber and Official Notice renders claim 3 unpatentable. Regarding claims 4—7 and 9—11, because Appellant has either not presented separate patentability arguments or has reiterated substantially the same arguments (App. Br. 8—9, 10-11; Reply Br. 7—8, 9) as those previously discussed for patentability of claims 1 and 3 above, claims 4—7 and 9—11 fall therewith, respectively. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). 3 Our reviewing court has held that an Appellant adequately traverses a finding of Official Notice where the Appellant’s argument “contain[s] adequate information or argument” to create on its face “a reasonable doubt regarding the circumstances justifying the . . . notice” of what is well known to an ordinarily skilled artisan. In re Boon, 439 F.2d 724, 728 (CCPA 1971). “To adequately traverse such a finding [of Official Notice], an [AJpplicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the [EJxaminer’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art.” Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) § 2144.03(C) (Ninth Ed., Rev. R- 07.2015, Nov. 2015). 6 Appeal 2015-007611 Application 12/853,827 DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3, 4—7, and 9—11. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F. R. 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation