Ex Parte VUONG et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2016

12395475 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/395,475 0212712009
112594 7590 09/21/2016
BlackBerry Limited (CRGO Cases)
2200 University A venue East
Waterloo, ON N2K OA 7
CANADA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Thanh Vinh VUONG
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.
1400-051U 4405
EXAMINER
NAZAR, AHAMED I
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2178
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2016 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@dimock.com
portfolioprosecution@blackberry.com
ptoboca@fggbb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THANH VINH VUONG and JOHN JONG-SUK LEE
Appeal2015-006722
Application 12/395,475
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC B. CHEN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-006722
Application 12/395,475
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1 and 3-19. Claim 2 has been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to producing pinned bookmarks for a
browser application. (Abstract.)
Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A method for managing pinned bookmarks, said method
compnsmg:
selecting a portion of a first visual representation of browser
data displayed in a browser in a display device;
creating and storing a positional data record in a memory of
said computing device corresponding to the selected portion, said
positional data record comprising coordinates of said selected
portion, an identifier of said browser data and a subset of said
selected portion;
retrieving, from said positional data record of said memory
device, said coordinates, said identifier and said subset of said
selected portion; and,
controlling said display device to provide a pinned bookmark
visual representation of said identifier and said subset, such that said
subset can be identified and selected in the pinned bookmark
representation, and that upon selection of said subset, said browser
data can be requested and received via said identifier, and said display
device can be controlled, using said coordinates to provide a second
representation of said browser data, said second representation
including said selected portion of said positional data record.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 19 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Girouard (US 2008/0256194 Al; Oct.
16, 2008) and Sharma (US 8,042,036 Bl; Oct. 18, 2011).
2
Appeal2015-006722
Application 12/395,475
Claims 4, 11, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Girouard, Sharma, and Goldeen (US 2008/0301260 Al;
Dec. 4, 2008).
Claims 5 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Girouard, Sharma, and Arav (US 2006/0155809 Al; July
13, 2006).
Claims 8 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Girouard, Sharma, and Vuong (US 2007/0143421 Al;
June 21, 2007).
ANALYSIS
§ 103 Rejection-Girouard and Sharma
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 10; see also
Reply Br. 4 ! that the combination of Girouard and Sharma would not have
rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation
"creating and storing ... browser data and a subset of said selected portion."
The Examiner found that generating the Uniform Resource Identifier
(URI) links and Figure 7 of Girouard, which illustrates the bookmarked
content containing an extracted subset of an email message, collectively
correspond to the limitation "creating and storing ... browser data and a
subset of said selected portion." (Final Act. 3.) We agree with the
Examiner.
Girouard relates to "bookmarking and automatic archiving of email
message content." (i-f 2.) Girouard explains that "[l]inks to the identification
information comprising the bookmarked content subsets are ... generated"
such that "the link comprises one or more uniform resource identifiers
3
Appeal2015-006722
Application 12/395,475
(URI)." (if 35.) Figure 7 illustrates the user interface for email client 402,
which includes "email messages 722 comprising the bookmarked content
directory 524 further comprise the sender, the send date and an extracted
subset 726 of the bookmarked subset 720 of email message content." (if 46.)
Because Girouard explains that bookmarked content includes a link to a
URL and Figure 7 of Girouard illustrates that bookmarked content includes
extracted subset 726 from bookmarked subset 720, Girouard teaches the
limitation "creating and storing ... browser data and a subset of said
selected portion."
Appellants argue that "Sharma fails to disclose a positional data
record that also includes the claimed feature of 'an identifier of browser data
and a subset of the selected portion'" and "[t]he hyperlink in Sharma does
not include a subset of the selected portion" because "it contains a pointer to
the beginning and ending characters in a text string identified by the
character counts." (App. Br. 10 (emphases omitted); see also Reply Br. 4.)
However, the Examiner cited to Girouard, rather than Sharma, for teaching
the limitation "creating and storing ... browser data and a subset of said
selected portion." (Final Act. 3.)
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Girouard
and Sharma would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which
includes the limitation "creating and storing ... browser data and a subset of
said selected portion."
We are further unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 8-
10; see also Reply Br. 2-3) that the combination of Girouard and Sharma
would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the
4
Appeal2015-006722
Application 12/395,475
limitation "creating and storing a positional data record ... said positional
data record comprising coordinates of said selected portion."
The Examiner found that the beginning and end character positions of
Sharma for the selected words of a paragraph correspond to the limitation
"creating and storing a positional data record ... said positional data record
comprising coordinates of said selected portion." (Final Act. 3--4; see also
Ans. 3.) We agree with the Examiner.
Claim 1 recites "creating and storing a positional data record ... said
positional data record comprising coordinates of said selected portion"
(emphasis added). Appellants' Figure 2 illustrates browser application 131
with browser data 133 (i-f 28), including portion 240 that is selectable via
input device 126 (i-f 29). Figure 2 illustrates that portion 240 includes three
lines of text with respect to "Edgar Allen Poe." Appellants' Specification
discloses that "[t]he positional data can comprise at least one of: coordinates
for a beginning and end of the portion." (i-f 24.) Accordingly, under the
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, we
interpret "coordinates of said selected portion" to include the beginning
portion and the end of the portion for one or more lines of text.
Sharma relates to "the generation of a link to a portion of a resource."
(Col. 1, 11. 17-18.) Figure 3A of Sharma illustrates a screenshot of Web
browser 302 such that "a user selects portion 304, which is a paragraph of
words, of the Web page by dragging cursor 312 over the portion" and "[a]s a
result, portion 304 is highlighted." (Col. 4, 11. 64---67.) In one embodiment,
Sharma explains that "the portion identifier is configured to define a
character count associated with the beginning and end of portion 304" for
example, the beginning character position and the end character position.
5
Appeal2015-006722
Application 12/395,475
(Col. 5, 11. 6-10.) Because Sharma explains that highlighted portion 304 can
be defined by the beginning character position and the end character
position, Sharma teaches the limitation "creating and storing a positional
data record ... said positional data record comprising coordinates of said
selected portion."
Appellants argue that "character counts by definition count characters
in text; they are not coordinates in a display" and "the portion identifier
embedded into the URL to define the beginning and ending characters of a
text string as described in Shanna is not equivalent to the storage of
coordinates of a selected portion of a visual representation of browser
content in a positional data record." (App. Br. 9 (emphases omitted); see
also Reply Br. 3.) However, as discussed previously, the broadest
reasonable interpretation of "coordinates of said selected portion" includes
the beginning portion and the end of the portion for one or more lines of
text. Accordingly, the limitation "said positional data record comprising
coordinates of said selected portion" is broad enough to encompass
portion 304 of Sharma because the beginning character position and the end
character position are used to define the position of portion 304.
Appellants further argue that "[a]s described in Appellants'
specification at paragraph [0047], it is important to recognize that 'positional
data 410 can comprise an indication of a graphical portion of browser data
133 and/or a textual portion of said browser data 133 "' (App. Br. 9) and "the
character counts of a text string as disclosed in Sharma cannot identify
graphical elements or a picture of browser data" (id. at 10). Again, the
broadest reasonable interpretation of "coordinates of said selected portion"
includes the beginning portion and the end of the portion for one or more
6
Appeal2015-006722
Application 12/395,475
lines of text. Moreover, the importation of a narrow embodiment (i.e.,
graphical portion of browser data 133) into the broader independent claim 1
is improper. See SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870,
875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("For example, a particular embodiment appearing in
the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language
is broader than the embodiment.").
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Girouard
and Sharma would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which
includes the limitation "creating and storing a positional data record ... said
positional data record comprising coordinates of said selected portion."
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 3, 6, and 7 depend from claim 1, and Appellants
have not presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to
these claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 3, 6, and 7 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for the same reasons discussed with respect to
independent claim 1.
Independent claims 9 and 12 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellants have not
presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims.
We sustain the rejection of claims 9 and 12, as well dependent claims 10, 13,
16, 1 7, and 19, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
§ 103 Rejection-Girouard, Sharma, and Goldeen
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claims 4, 11, and 14 separately (App. Br. 11 ), the arguments presented do
not point out with particularity or explain why the limitations of the
7
Appeal2015-006722
Application 12/395,475
dependent claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants merely
argue that "Goldeen fails to remedy the deficiencies in the disclosures of
Girourard and Sharma." (Id.) We are not persuaded by these arguments for
the reasons discussed with respect to claims 1, 9 and 12, from which claims
4, 11, and 14 depend. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.
§ 103 Rejection- Girouard, Sharma, and Arav
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claims 5 and 15 separately (App. Br. 11 ), the arguments presented do not
point out with particularity or explain why the limitations of the dependent
claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants merely argue that
"Arav fails to remedy the deficiencies in the disclosures of Girourard and
Sharma." (Id.) We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons
discussed with respect to claims 1 and 12, from which claims 5 and 15
depend. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.
§ 103 Rejection-Girouard, Sharma, and Vuong
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claims 8 and 18 separately (App. Br. 12), the arguments presented do not
point out with particularity or explain why the limitations of the dependent
claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants merely argue that
"Vuong fails to remedy the deficiencies in the disclosures of Girourard and
Sharma." (Id.) We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons
discussed with respect to claims 1 and 12, from which claims 8 and 18
depend. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1 and 3-19 is affirmed.
8
Appeal2015-006722
Application 12/395,475
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
9