NAVER CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 3, 2021

2020005106 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 3, 2021)

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.
15/009,336 01/28/2016 Hyeon Su Jeong 5624.123207 1750
24978 7590 12/03/2021
GREER, BURNS & CRAIN, LTD
300 S. WACKER DR.
SUITE 2500
CHICAGO, IL 60606
EXAMINER
BURKE, TIONNA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/03/2021 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):
docket@gbclaw.net
ptomail@gbclaw.net
verify@gbclaw.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte HYEON SU JEONG

___________

Appeal 2020-005106
Application 15/009,336
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ERIC B. CHEN, HUNG H. BUI, and DAVID J. CUTITTA II,
Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2020-005106
Application 15/009,336

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 5–7, 10–12, and 16–22. Claims 2–4,
8, 9, and 13–15 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to providing a contact interface for a web page
provider. (Abstract.)
Claims 1 and 5, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed
subject matter, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. An apparatus for providing a contact interface, the
apparatus comprising a controller configured to:
provide a web page list including information of at least
one web page to a user terminal, the web page list further
comprising a basic contact interface provided to enable contact
with each owner of the at least one web page;
receive a selection, from the user terminal, of one of the
at least one web page from the web page list,
provide the selected web page to the user terminal based
on a uniform resource locator (URL) and provide additional
data corresponding to an additional contact interface provided
to enable contact with an owner of the selected web page, to the
user terminal, wherein the additional data is stored in a
database in association with the web page information,

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
NAVER Corporation. (Appeal Br. 3.)
Appeal 2020-005106
Application 15/009,336

3
display the selected web page as a different page from
the web page list on the user terminal with the basic contact
interface associated with the web page list as a separate
interface from the additional contact interface associated with
the selected web page,
display the additional contact interface on the selected
web page as an upper layer of the different page of the selected
web page,
wherein the additional data comprises blank information
of the selected web page, whereby the additional contact
interface is automatically displayed on a blank region of the
selected web page, wherein the blank information is stored in
the database in association with the web page information, and
moving the additional contact interface within the
selected web page when the user scrolls the screen, whereby the
additional contact interface is displayed on the blank region of
the selected web page.

5. The apparatus of claim 1, configured to receive
first history information from the user terminal when a user
selects the basic contact interface and second history
information from the user terminal when a user selects the
additional contact interface, and to provide an inflow route
guide message to the owner to notify that the user contacted the
owner through the basic contact interface or through the
additional contact interface.

REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Shamis et al. US 8,407,590 B1 Mar. 26, 2013
Zhang US 8,738,448 B2 May 27, 2014
Rincon et al. US 9,374,446 B2 June 21, 2016
Baluja US 2006/0004627 A1 Jan. 5, 2006
Amoroso et al. US 2010/0153325 A1 June 17, 2010

Appeal 2020-005106
Application 15/009,336

4
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 6, 7, 11, 12, and 17–19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Rincon, Baluja, Zhang, and Shamis.
Claims 5, 10, 16, and 20–22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Rincon, Baluja, Zhang, and Amoroso.

OPINION
§ 103 Rejection—Rincon, Baluja, Zhang, and Shamis
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 17–18; see
also Reply Br. 7–9) that the combination of Rincon, Baluja, Zhang, and
Shamis would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which
includes the disputed limitation “display the selected web page as a different
page from the web page list on the user terminal with the basic contact
interface associated with the web page list as a separate interface from the
additional contact interface.”
The Examiner found that browser user interface 300 of Rincon, as
shown in Figure 3, which includes icon 304, corresponds to the limitations
“web page list” and “basic contact interface.” (Final Act. 3; see also
Ans. 3.) The Examiner also found that ad text 1000 of Baluja, in which icon
button 1020 launches a document having call-on-select links, as shown in
Figure 10, corresponds to the limitations “display the selected web page as a
different page” and “additional contact interface.” (Final Act. 4; see also
Ans. 4.) Based on these teachings, the Examiner concluded that “it would
have been obvious . . . to modify Rincon to include opening a new window
and including the functionality in the new page . . . having the primary
Appeal 2020-005106
Application 15/009,336

5
window always present, as taught by Baluja.” (Final Act. 4.) We agree with
the Examiner’s findings and conclusions.
Rincon relates to a web platform, in particular, a web browser such
that “[i]f the user wishes to place a telephone call . . . they can launch a
separate application to place a peer-to-peer call over a suitably-configured
network.” (Col. 1, ll. 6–14.)
Figure 3 of Rincon, reproduced below, shows an exemplary user
interface (col. 1, ll. 56–57), including browser user interface 300, with a
search results page (e.g., “Frank’s Pizza” and “Don’s Pizza Palace”) and
icon 304 that “may or may not be selected to place a call to the identified
number” (col. 7, ll. 5–9, 18–19).

Because Rincon explains that browser user interface 300 includes a search
results page and icon 304 that can be selected to call an identified phone
number, Rincon teaches the limitations “web page list” and “basic contact
interface.”
Appeal 2020-005106
Application 15/009,336

6
As a secondary reference, Baluja teaches an online ad environment
“to render Web pages in a manner satisfying to a user (e.g., due to small
displays, slow communications connection speeds, and/or slow rendering),
such as mobile phones.” (¶ 2.)
Figure 10 of Baluja, reproduced below, shows an exemplary ad
display (¶ 18), including text ad 1000 having icon button 1010 with call-on-
select functionality, and icon button 1020 with linked document
functionality (¶ 74).

Baluja explains that “a linked document is rendered on the browser when the
icon button 1020 is selected.” (¶ 74.) In particular, Baluja explains that “a
limited document (e.g., in terms of time to load and render) with one or more
call-on-select links can be loaded in response to an ad selection” (¶ 97), for
example, “CLICK HERE TO SPEAK WITH A TRAVEL AGENT” (¶ 98).
Because Baluja explains that selection of icon 1020 launches a “limited
document” with a call-on-select link (e.g., “CLICK HERE TO SPEAK
WITH A TRAVEL AGENT”), Baluja teaches the limitations “display the
selected web page as a different page” and “additional contact interface.”
The combination of Rincon and Baluja is nothing more than
incorporating known text ad 1000 of Baluja with icon button 1020 for linked
document functionality with known browser user interface 300 of Rincon, to
yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
Appeal 2020-005106
Application 15/009,336

7
416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known
methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results.”). This combination of Rincon and Baluja would result in the
incorporation of text ad 1000 of Baluja into browser user interface 300 of
Rincon. In particular, when the user selects “Frank’s Pizza” from browser
user interface 300 of Rincon, text ad 1000 of Baluja launches, and thus, the
combination of Rincon and Baluja teaches the limitation “display the
selected web page as a different page from the web page list on the user
terminal with the basic contact interface associated with the web page list as
a separate interface from the additional contact interface.” Thus, we agree
with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to combine Baluja with
Rincon. (Final Act. 4.)
Nevertheless, Appellant presents several arguments against the
application of Baluja. First, Appellant argues that “Figures 9–12 of Baluja
are examples of ads that have been served, but these examples are not web
pages that are the result of selecting a web page from a web page list, as in
the present invention” and “[a]ccordingly, as the cited references fail to
disclose or suggest the claimed ‘selected web page’ that is a ‘different page
from the web page list’ and that includes the claimed ‘additional contact
interface.’” (Appeal Br. 18–19.) Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, text ad
1000 and icon button 1020, as shown in Baluja’s Figure 10, were cited by
the Examiner for teaching the limitation “different page from the web page
list” with the “additional contact interface.” (Ans. 4.) Appellant has not
provided any persuasive arguments or evidence as to why the Examiner’s
findings with respect to Figure 10 of Baluja are in error.
Second, Appellant argues that “paragraph [0097] of the Baluja
Appeal 2020-005106
Application 15/009,336

8
reference fails to disclose or suggest Applicant’s claimed feature related to
providing and displaying both the ‘selected web page’ and the claimed
‘additional contact interface’ as an upper layer of the selected web page.”
(Reply Br. 7 (emphasis omitted).) In particular, Appellant argues that
“specifically, the first two sentences of paragraph [0097] of the Baluja
reference discuss embodiments where call initiation and document-load
initiation are triggered by selecting an ad or a button on an ad, and that such
initiations may occur in parallel or in series.” (Id. at 7–8 (emphasis
omitted).) Again, text ad 1000 and icon button 1020, as shown in Baluja’s
Figure 10, were cited by the Examiner for teaching the limitations “different
page from the web page list” with the “additional contact interface.”
(Ans. 4.) Appellant has not provided any persuasive arguments or evidence
as to why the Examiner’s findings with respect to Figure 10 of Baluja are in
error.
Third, Appellant argues that even if “the document download can be
considered as corresponding the claimed ‘selected web page,’ the call
initiation is not equivalent to displaying the claimed ‘additional contact
interface’ because the call initiation involves making the call, and not
displaying an icon to enable the user to contact the owner of the web page.”
(Reply Br. 8 (emphasis omitted).) However, as discussed previously, Baluja
explains that “a limited document . . . with one or more call-on-select links
can be loaded in response to an ad selection” (¶ 97) with the limited
document stating “CLICK HERE TO SPEAK WITH A TRAVEL AGENT”
(¶ 98). Accordingly, the limitation “additional contact interface,” as recited
in claim 1, is broad enough to encompass the limited document of Baluja
having call-on-select links. Moreover, Appellant’s arguments with respect
Appeal 2020-005106
Application 15/009,336

9
to Baluja are not commensurate in scope with claim 1, because the recitation
of “additional contact interface” does not require directly making the call
when icon button 1020 is selected.
Lastly, Appellant argues that “the Baluja reference . . . discuss[es] an
embodiment that involves providing and displaying only a contact interface
(or a plurality of contact interfaces), without also providing and displaying
the claimed ‘selected web page.’” (Reply Br. 8 (emphasis omitted).) In
particular, Appellant argues that “this embodiment includes two contact
interfaces, configured to initiate two different types of calls (a call to a live
operator and/or a call to an audio recording), but without also including the
claimed ‘selected web page’ that has been selected from the web page list.”
(Id. at 8–9 (emphasis omitted).) Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, text ad
1000, as shown in Baluja’s Figure 10, was cited by the Examiner for
teaching the limitation “selected web page.” (Ans. 4.) Appellant has not
provided any persuasive arguments or evidence as to why the Examiner’s
findings with respect to Figure 10 of Baluja are in error.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Rincon
Baluja, Zhang, and Shamis would have rendered obvious independent
claim 1, which includes the disputed limitation “display the selected web
page as a different page from the web page list on the user terminal with the
basic contact interface associated with the web page list as a separate
interface from the additional contact interface associated with the selected
web page.”
We are also unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 20;
see also Reply Br. 9–11) that the combination of Rincon, Baluja, Zhang, and
Shamis would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which
Appeal 2020-005106
Application 15/009,336

10
includes the disputed limitation “provide the selected web page to the user
terminal based on a uniform resource locator (URL) and provide additional
data . . . wherein the additional data is stored in a database in association
with the web page information.”
The Examiner found that ad text 1000, shown in Baluja’s Figure 10,
in which icon button 1020 launches a document having call-on-select links,
corresponds to the disputed limitation “provide the selected web page to the
user terminal based on a uniform resource locator (URL) and provide
additional data . . . wherein the additional data is stored in a database in
association with the web page information.” (Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 4.)
We agree with the Examiner’s findings.
As discussed previously, Baluja explains that text ad 1000 includes “a
linked document . . . rendered on the browser when the icon button 1020 is
selected” (¶ 74) and that “a limited document (e.g., in terms of time to load
and render) with one or more call-on-select links can be loaded in response
to an ad selection” (¶ 97). Moreover, Figure 2 of Baluja shows environment
200, which includes content server 230 and “ad server 210 may be used to
serve ads to user devices 250” (¶ 27), such that “[e]ach ad may also include
a link to a URL (e.g., a landing Web page, such as the home page of an
advertiser, or a Web page associated with a particular product or server)
and/or a telephone number” (¶ 26). Because Baluja explains that: (i)
environment 200 includes contents server 230 and ad server 210 for
providing ads with a URL and telephone numbers; and (ii) text ad 1000
includes icon button 1020 that launches a document having call-on-select
links, Baluja teaches the disputed limitation “provide the selected web page
to the user terminal based on a uniform resource locator (URL) and provide
Appeal 2020-005106
Application 15/009,336

11
additional data . . . wherein the additional data is stored in a database in
association with the web page information.”
First, Appellant argues that
the ad display of Figure 10 is more similar to that which would
be shown on Applicant’s claimed web page list (“provide a web
page list including information of at least one web page to a
user terminal, the web page list further comprising a basic
contact interface provided to enable contact with each owner of
the at least one web page,” as defined in independent Claim 1.
(Appeal Br. 20; see also Reply Br. 10–11.)
Other than a mere conclusory statement that Figure 10 of Baluja
teaches another limitation, “provide a web page list,” instead of the disputed
limitation “provide the selected web page to the user terminal based on a
uniform resource locator (URL) and provide additional data . . . wherein the
additional data is stored in a database in association with the web page
information,” Appellant has not provided any persuasive arguments or
evidence as to why the Examiner’s findings with respect to Figure 10 of
Baluja are in error.
Second, Appellant argues “the Baluja reference does not disclose
displaying a web page based on its URL along with additional data
(including an additional contact interface) from a database, where that
additional contact interface is displayed as an upper layer.” (Reply Br. 9–
10.) In particular, Appellant argues that “paragraph [0097] of the Baluja
reference teaches a first embodiment in which a web page is displayed and a
call is automatically initiated, or a second embodiment in which only a
contact page is displayed, without displaying the web page.” (Id. at 10.)
However the Examiner also cited to an alternative embodiment of Baluja
(Ans. 5), in which Baluja explains that “a limited document . . . with one or
Appeal 2020-005106
Application 15/009,336

12
more call-on-select links can be loaded in response to an ad selection” (¶ 97,
Figs. 8–10). Appellant’s arguments do not address the Examiner’s findings
based on this alternative embodiment of Baluja.
Lastly, Appellant argues that “this second embodiment of Baluja also
teaches away from providing the full web page by stating that only a limited
document is loaded to reduce the time required to load and render.” (Reply
Br. 10.) However, Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope
with claim 1, because the claim does not require a full web page.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Rincon
Baluja, Zhang, and Shamis would have rendered obvious independent
claim 1, which includes the disputed limitation “provide the selected web
page to the user terminal based on a uniform resource locator (URL) and
provide additional data . . . wherein the additional data is stored in a database
in association with the web page information.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103. Claims 6 and 17 depends from claim 1, and Appellant has not
presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 6 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1.
Independent claims 7 and 12 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellant has not
presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims.
We sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 12, as well as dependent claims 11,
18, and 19, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.

Appeal 2020-005106
Application 15/009,336

13
§ 103 Rejection—Rincon, Baluja, Zhang, and Amoroso
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 22–23; see
also Reply Br. 14–17) that the combination of Rincon, Baluja, Zhang, and
Amoroso would not have rendered obvious dependent claim 5, which
includes the disputed limitation
configured to receive first history information from the user
terminal when a user selects the basic contact interface and
second history information from the user terminal when a user
selects the additional contact interface, and to provide an inflow
route guide message to the owner to notify that the user contacted
the owner through the basic contact interface or through the
additional contact interface.
The Examiner found that browser user interface 300 of Rincon, as
shown in Figure 3, which includes icon 304, corresponds to the limitation
“basic contact interface.” (Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 3.) The Examiner
also found that icon button 1020 of Baluja’s Figure 10, in which icon button
1020 launches a document having call-on-select links, corresponds to the
limitation “additional contact interface.” (Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 4.)
The Examiner found that the classification system of Amoroso for Unified
Messaging, icon 304 of Rincon, and icon button 1020 of Baluja collectively
correspond to the limitation “configured to receive first history information
from the user terminal when a user selects the basic contact interface and
second history information from the user terminal when a user selects the
additional contact interface.” (Final Act. 8; see also Ans. 6.) The Examiner
concluded that “it would have been obvious . . . to modify Rincon, Baluja
and Zhang to include recommend action based on history information . . . as
taught by Amoroso.” (Final Act. 8.) We agree with the Examiner’s findings
and conclusions.
Appeal 2020-005106
Application 15/009,336

14
Amoroso teaches a “message reduction system that automatically
recommends actions for incoming messages based upon past behavioral
history” (¶ 1), in particular, Unified Messaging, which is “the integration of
different forms of communication (e-mail, SMS, Fax, voice, video, etc.) into
a single unified messaging system” (¶ 2). Amoroso explains that
“messaging processing system that may include a collection and storage
database and a classification system” (¶ 7), such that “[t]he classification
may be based on a comparison of the incoming message with the historical
email behavior information, such as how similar incoming messages were
handled by the user” (¶ 8). Moreover, Amoroso explains that “Identity of
Sender” can be used to classify messages. (¶ 22.)
The combination of Rincon, Baluja, and Amoroso, as modified by
Zhang, is nothing more than incorporating the known classification system
for Unified Messaging (e.g., voicemail) based upon “Identity of Sender,”
with the known icon 304 for phone numbers of Rincon and the known icon
button 1020 of Baluja, which launches a document having call-on-select
links, to yield predictable results. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416 (“The
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”). This
combination of Rincon, Baluja, and Amoroso would result in classifying
calls based upon call origination (e.g., “Identity of Sender”) from either
icon 304 of Rincon or icon button 1020 of Baluja, and accordingly, teaches
the limitation “configured to receive first history information from the user
terminal when a user selects the basic contact interface and second history
information from the user terminal when a user selects the additional contact
interface.” Thus, we agree with the Examiner that it would have been
Appeal 2020-005106
Application 15/009,336

15
obvious to combine Amoroso, with Rincon and Baluja, as modified by
Zhang. (Final Act. 8.)
Appellant argues the following:
In particular, the passages of the Amoroso et al. reference
relied upon by the Examiner (paragraphs [0006] – [0009])
discuss a classification system for classifying inbound email
messages based on how similar messages were previously
handled by the user.
(Appeal Br. 22.)
In contrast, in the present apparatus defined in dependent
Claim 5, the apparatus is “configured to receive first history
information from the user terminal when a user selects the basic
contact interface and second history information from the user
terminal when a user selects the additional contact interface,
and to provide an inflow route guide message to the owner to
notify that the user contacted the owner through the basic
contact interface or through the additional contact interface.”
(Id. at 22–23; see also Reply Br. 14–15.) However, other than providing a
summary of Amoroso and summarizing the subject matter of dependent
claim 5, Appellant has not provided any persuasive arguments or evidence
as to why the Examiner’s findings with respect to the combination of
Rincon, Baluja, and Amoroso is in error. Moreover, Amoroso further
explains that Unified Messages, which include voicemails (¶ 2) can be
classified using historical data (¶ 1).
Appellant further argues that “the method of Amoroso et al. relates to
incoming communications from a variety of different sources that are all
received by the same email address,” but “[i]n contrast, the present invention
of dependent Claims 5, 10 and 16 relates to collecting data about outgoing
communications sent from the same source, but that are sent via different,
alternate methods.” (Reply Br. 17 (emphasis omitted).) However, the
Appeal 2020-005106
Application 15/009,336

16
Examiner cited to Amoroso for the classification of Universal Messages
(e.g., voicemail) based upon history, rather than the origin of such messages.
(Ans. 6–7.)
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Rincon,
Baluja, Zhang, and Amoroso would have rendered obvious independent
claim 1, which includes the disputed limitation:
configured to receive first history information from the user
terminal when a user selects the basic contact interface and
second history information from the user terminal when a user
selects the additional contact interface, and to provide an inflow
route guide message to the owner to notify that the user contacted
the owner through the basic contact interface or through the
additional contact interface.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 5 under 35
U.S.C. § 103. Claim 20 depends from claim 5, and Appellant has not
presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to this claim.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the
same reasons discussed with respect to dependent claim 5.
Dependent claims 10 and 16 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to dependent claim 5, and Appellant has not
presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims.
We sustain the rejection of claims 10 and 16, as well as dependent claims 21
and 22, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 5.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 5–7, 10–12, and 16–22
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.

Appeal 2020-005106
Application 15/009,336

17
DECISION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 6, 7, 11,
12, 17–19
103 Rincon, Baluja,
Zhang, Shamis
1, 6, 7, 11,
12, 17–19

5, 10, 16,
20–22
103 Rincon, Baluja,
Zhang, Amoroso
5, 10, 16,
20–22

Overall
Outcome
1, 5–7, 10–
12, 16–22

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED