Ex Parte Yao et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 23, 201612607317 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 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. 12/607,317 10/28/2009 Xuefeng Yao 20090062 4364 7590 12/28/201625537 VERIZON PATENT MANAGEMENT GROUP 1320 North Court House Road 9th Floor ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909 EXAMINER BELANI, KISHIN G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2443 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/28/2016 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): patents @ verizon.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte XUEFENG YAO, JACK JIANXIU HAO, DIEGO S. ROZENSZTEJN, YUHUI QIAN, JIAN HUANG, ZHIYING JIN, JOHN F. GALLAGHER, and MICHAEL R. OLIVER Appeal 2016-000360 Application 12/607,3171 Technology Center 2400 Before LARRY J. HUME, JOHN D. HAMANN, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. HUME, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1—4, 6, 7, and 10-24. Appellants have canceled claims 5, 8, and 9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Verizon Communications Inc. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2016-000360 Application 12/607,317 STATEMENT OF THE CASE2 The Invention Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention relates to systems and methods which, in one or more embodiments may include: receiving a primary resource in a user device, wherein the resource includes a plurality of addresses and each of the plurality of addresses identifying one of a plurality of additional resources. The method may further include aggregating the plurality of addresses and sending the aggregated addresses to a network device. The method may further include receiving the additional resources in the user device. Abstract. Exemplary Claims Claims 1 and 16, reproduced below, are representative of the subject matter on appeal (emphases added to contested limitations): 1. A method, comprising: receiving a web page in a user device, wherein the web page includes a plurality of Universal Resource Locators (URLs), wherein each of the plurality of URLs identifies one of a plurality of additional resources, and wherein the plurality of URLs includes a first URL and a second URL; extracting, in the user device, the first URL from the web page; extracting, in the user device, the second URL from the web page; 2 Our decision relies upon Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed Apr. 27, 2015); Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Sept. 30, 2015); Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed July 30, 2013); Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Sept. 2, 2014); Advisory Action ("Adv. Action" mailed Feb. 18, 2015); and the original Specification ("Spec.," filed Oct. 28, 2009). 2 Appeal 2016-000360 Application 12/607,317 aggregating, in the user device, the first URL and the second URL to generate a list of URLs including the first URL and the second URL; sending the list of URLs from the user device to a network device in a single request; and receiving the additional resources in the user device from the network device. 16. A system comprising: a network device comprising: a transceiver to transmit a primary resource to a user device, wherein the primary resource includes a first address and a second address, wherein the first address and the second address each identifies one of a plurality of additional resources, wherein the transceiver is configured to receive a list of addresses in a single request, wherein the list of addresses includes the first address and the second address and wherein the user device extracted the first address and the second address from the primary resource and aggregated the first address and the second address to generate the aggregated addresses', and a processor to extract the first address and the second address from the received list of addresses; wherein the transceiver is configured to send a request for each of the additional resources identified by the first address and the second address, to receive the additional resources, and send the additional resources to the user device. 3 Appeal 2016-000360 Application 12/607,317 Prior Art The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal: Lumelsky et al. ("Lumelsky") Lev Ran et al. ("Lev Ran") Souders et al. ("Souders") Koren et al. ("Koren") Rose US 6,516,350 B1 Leb. 4, 2003 US 7,139,811 B2 Nov. 21,2006 US 2008/0228920 Al Sept. 18, 2008 US 2010/0235329 Al Sept. 16, 2010 US 7,809,646 B2 Oct. 5,2010 Rejections on Appeal R1. Claims 1, 6, 7, 11—14, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Souders. Ans. 2; Linal Act. 2. R2. Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Souders and Lev Ran. Ans. 11; Linal Act. 12. R3. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Souders and Rose. Ans. 13; Linal Act. 14. R4. Claims 10 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Souders and Lumelsky. Ans. 14; Linal Act. 15. R5. Claims 16—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Souders and Koren. Ans. 16; Linal Act. 17. 4 Appeal 2016-000360 Application 12/607,317 R6. Claims 19, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Souders, Koren, and Rose. Ans. 23; Final Act. 24. R7. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Souders, Koren, Lev Ran, and Rose. Ans. 26; Final Act. 28. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS We agree with particular arguments advanced by Appellants with respect to claims 1—4, 6, 7, and 10-24 for the specific reasons discussed below. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claims 1 and 16 for emphasis as follows. 1. $ 102 Rejection R1 of Claims L 6, 7, 11—14, 23, and 24 Issue 1 Appellants argue (App. Br. 8—15; Reply Br. 3—10) the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Souders is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art discloses a method that includes, inter alia, the limitations of: extracting, in the user device, the first URL from the web page; extracting, in the user device, the second URL from the web page; aggregating, in the user device, the first URL and the second URL to generate a list of URLs including the first URL and the second URL; [and] 5 Appeal 2016-000360 Application 12/607,317 sending the list of URLs from the user device to a network device in a single request, as recited in claim 1? Analysis Appellants contend the contested "extracting," "aggregating," and "sending" limitations are all carried out in or from the claimed "user device." App. Br. 8. Claim 1 requires extracting URLs and aggregating URLs "in the user device" to generate a list of URLs. Claim 1 also requires sending the list of URLs "from the user device to a network device." Accordingly, when comparing claim 1 to Souders, it is important to understand where actions take place in the system disclosed by Souders. Id. (emphasis omitted). Appellants further argue, given the Examiner's claim mapping (Final Act. 2—5), if Souders discloses that colocation facility 128 stores the code in Table A and that client device 124 retrieves the code (e.g., as part of a larger web page), then the "extracting" of URLs and "aggregating" the URLs in Souders would not take place in client device 124 and the reference would not meet the requirements of claim 1. App. Br. 9. Appellants also contend, "Table A of Souders is not generated by client device 124 but instead retrieved by client device 124 from colocation facility 128." Id. Additionally, "Souders never indicates that content items (or the links or references therein) (e.g., Table A) are generated by client devices 124 or 126. The only evidence the Examiner cites for the argument that Table A is generated by client device 124 is the 'last four lines of paragraph 0022.'" 6 Appeal 2016-000360 Application 12/607,317 App. Br. 13—14 (citing Adv. Action 4). "Therefore, Souders does not disclose that client device 124 generates the code of Table A as argued by the Examiner and as would be required given the Examiner's interpretation of Souders and claim 1." App. Br. 14. The Examiner responds, in pertinent part, "[i]t is the client device 124/126 that forms the code shown in Table A. Souders very clearly teaches this in the last five lines of paragraph 0022. "3 Ans. 31. We do not agree with the Examiner's findings or interpretation of Souders' disclosure. See n.3. Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are persuaded of at least one error in the Examiner's reliance on the disclosure of the cited prior art to disclose the disputed limitations of claim 1, such that we find error in the Examiner's resulting finding of anticipation. Therefore, we cannot sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of independent claim 1. For essentially the same reasons argued by Appellants, supra, we cannot sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 11, which recites the disputed limitations in commensurate form. For the same reasons, we also reverse the rejections of claims 6, 7, 12—14, 23, and 24 that 3 The last five lines of paragraph 22 of Souders are as follows: "As is explained in greater detail herein, forming the request for the resource as a call to a function and providing a number of resources as parameters to the function eliminates the need to execute separate calls to retrieve each resource." Souders 122. 7 Appeal 2016-000360 Application 12/607,317 variously depend from claims 1 and 11, and which also stand rejected under Rejection Rl.4 2. $103 Rejection R5 of Claims 16—18 Issue 2 Appellants argue (App. Br. 18—19; Reply Br. 3—10) the Examiner's rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Souders and Koren is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches or suggests a system wherein, inter alia, "the user device extracted the first address and the second address from the primary resource and aggregated the first address and the second address to generate the aggregated addresses," as recited in claim 16? Analysis Appellants contend "[f]or reasons similar to those discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 11, Souders does not disclose or suggest this feature of claim 16. Further, Koren does not cure the deficiencies of Souders." App. Br. 18 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner does not respond to Appellants' arguments regarding claim 16 in the Answer. For the same reasons as discussed, supra, with respect to Rejection Rl, Issue 1, we cannot sustain the Examiner's Rejection R5 of claim 16. On this record, the Examiner has not shown how the additionally cited Koren 4 See In reFritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ("[Djependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious"). 8 Appeal 2016-000360 Application 12/607,317 reference overcomes the aforementioned deficiencies with Souder, as discussed above. Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are persuaded of at least one error in the Examiner's reliance on the combined teachings and suggestions of the cited prior art combination to teach or suggest the disputed limitation of claim 16, such that we find error in the Examiner's resulting legal conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we cannot sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 16. For the same reasons, we also reverse the rejections of claims 17 and 18 that depend from claim 16, and which stand rejected under Rejection R5. 3. Rejections R2—R4, R6, and R7 of Claims 2-4, 10, 15, and 19-22 In light of our reversal of the rejections of independent claims 1,11, and 16, supra, we also reverse obviousness Rejections R2—R4, R6, and R7 of claims 2-4, 10, 15, and 19-22 under § 103, which variously and ultimately depend from claims 1,11, and 16. On this record, the Examiner has not shown how the additionally cited secondary Lev Ran, Rose, Lumelsky, and Koren references overcome the aforementioned deficiencies with Souders for claims depending from claims 1 and 11, or the combination of Souders and Koren for claims depending from claim 16, as discussed above. CONCLUSIONS (1) The Examiner erred with respect to anticipation Rejection R1 of claims 1, 6, 7, 11—14, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over the cited prior art of record, and we do not sustain the rejection. 9 Appeal 2016-000360 Application 12/607,317 (2) The Examiner erred with respect to obviousness Rejections R2 through R7 of claims 2-4, 10, 15, and 16—22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the cited prior art combinations of record, and we do not sustain the rejections. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1—4, 6, 7, and 10-24. REVERSED 10 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation