Ex Parte Xu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 29, 2018

14203774 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/203,774 03/11/2014 Hui Xu
26192 7590 05/31/2018
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
PO BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
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.
16113-5446001 1031
EXAMINER
FERRER, JEDIDIAH P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2164
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/31/2018 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):
P ATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HUI XU, ERIK HENDRICKS, and CHEN WANG
Appeal 2017-011219 1
Application 14/203,774
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JON JURGOV AN, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify the real party in Google Technology Holdings LLC.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-011219
Application 14/203,774
Introduction
According to Appellants, the claimed subject matter is directed to a
method and system for verifying native application content on a user device.
Spec. i-f 4. In particular, in response to receiving a search query, a search
system (110) accesses from a publisher website (104) address pairs
including first addresses corresponding to first contents for display in a
native application (107) on the user device (108), and second addresses
corresponding to second contents for display in a web browser application
(105) on the user device (108). Spec. i-fi-123-26, 28-33, and Fig. 1. Upon
determining that the comparison of a first content in the native application
(107) and a second content in the web application browser (105) are
consistent or similar, a content verifier (120) in the search system (110)
validates the address pair associated therewith, and subsequently stores the
address pair in a validation index. Id. i-fi-135-37.
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1 below is representative, and reads as follows:
1. A computer-implemented method performed by data processing
apparatus comprising one or more computers in data communication,
the method comprising:
accessing data describing, for a native application, address pairs
of first addresses and second addresses, each address pair being a first
address and a corresponding second address, each first address being
accessible by the native application and from which the native
application receives first content and displays the first content on a
user device, and each second address being an address for a web
resource that respectively provides second content for display as part
of the web resource in the web browser at a user device;
for each address pair:
receiving the first content for the first address, wherein
the first content that is received is content for display in a native
application to a user;
2
Appeal 2017-011219
Application 14/203,774
receiving the second content for the second address,
wherein the second content that is received is content for display in a
web browser application to a user;
determining, based on a comparison of the first content
that the native application displays on the user device to the second
content that the web browser displays on the user device, whether the
first content and the second content are consistent content;
for only each address pair for which the first content and the
second content are determined to be consistent content, validating the
address pair and storing in an index validation data for the address
pair.
Majumder
Macbeth et al.
("Macbeth")
French et al.
("French")
Kumar et al.
("Kumar")
Prior Art Relied upon
US 2007/0130123 Al
US 2012/0124061 Al
US 2012/0179955 Al
US 2012/0323898 Al
Rejections on Appeal
June 7, 2007
May 17, 2012
July 12, 2012
Dec. 20, 2012
Claims 1--4, 6, 7-10, 12, 13-16 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the combination MacBeth, Kumar, and
French. Final Act. 3-13.
Claims 5, 11, and 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination MacBeth, Kumar, French, and Majunder.
Final Act. 14--15.
3
Appeal 2017-011219
Application 14/203,774
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants' arguments as they are presented in the
Appeal Brief pages 5-18, and the Reply Brief pages 1-2.2
Appellants argue that Kumar does not teach or suggest determining,
based on a comparison, that the first content in the native application
displayed on the user device and the second content in the web application
browser displayed on the user device are consistent, as recited in
independent claim 1. App. Br. 5---6. In particular, Appellants argue that
Kumar's disclosure of associating applications with a website based upon
the characteristics of the website does not teach the disputed limitations to
thereby cure the admitted deficiencies of MacBeth. Id. at 6 (citing Kumar
iii! 32, 95).
This argument is persuasive. At the outset, we note the Examiner
finds that Kumar's disclosure of "information from the application" teaches
the "first content," and Kumar's disclosure of "information from the
website" teaches the "second content." Ans. 5 (citing Kumar iii! 32, 94, 95.
97, Fig. 2). Therefore, the Examiner finds Kumar's disclosure of associating
apps with websites using characteristics of the websites teaches the disputed
limitations. Id. (citing Kumar if 95-96). We agree with Appellants that the
Examiner's findings are insufficient to substantiate the obviousness
rejection. Reply Br. 1. As persuasively argued by Appellants, the Examiner
2 Rather than reiterate all the arguments of Appellants and all the
Examiner's findings/conclusions, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed
February 24, 2017) ("App. Br."), the Reply Brief (filed August 30, 2017)
("Reply Br."), the Final Action from which the appeal is taken (mailed June
2, 2016) ("Final Act."), and the Answer (mailed June 30, 2017) ("Ans.") for
the respective details.
4
Appeal 2017-011219
Application 14/203,774
has not established that the contents of the applications as well as the
contents of the website are displayed on the user device, and that said
contents are compared, as required by the claim. Id. Even assuming that
Kumar's applications relied upon by the Examiner somehow teaches the
native applications, as recited in the claim, the Examiner has not established
that the applications are displayed on the user device such that their contents
can be extracted. Instead, Kumar teaches that contents of websites being
browsed on the user device are examined in order to find suitable
applications associated therewith. See Kumar i-f 32. Thus, although the
association of applications with websites is based upon the characteristics of
the websites browsed by the user, the Examiner has not established that such
association is based upon the comparison of applications and websites
displayed on the user device, as required by the claim. Because Appellants
have shown at least one reversible error in the Examiner's obviousness
rejection, we need not reach Appellants' remaining arguments.
Accordingly, we are persuaded of error in the Examiner's rejection of
claim 1, as well as of claims 2-18, which recite commensurate limitations.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims
1-18 as set forth above.
REVERSED
5