Singhal, Tara Chand.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 16, 2020

13136610 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 16, 2020)

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.
13/136,610 08/04/2011 Tara Chand Singhal 11195.234 7258
103550 7590 01/16/2020
Tara Chand Singhal
P.O. Box 5075
Torrance, CA 90510
EXAMINER
DYER, ANDREW R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/16/2020 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):
chand@internetpromise.com
singhal@att.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TARA CHAND SINGHAL
____________

Appeal 2019-000541
Application 13/136,610
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JAMES B. ARPIN, and
ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judges.

ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the final rejection of
claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 16, and 17. Final Act. 2.2 Claims 2, 4–7, 9, 11–15, and
18–20 are withdrawn. Appeal Br. 30–35 (Claims App.). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 “Appellant” here refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies the real party-in-interest as Tara Chand Singhal. Appeal
Br. 4.
2 In this Decision, we refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
January 27, 2018) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed June 15, 2018); the
Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed September 26, 2017) and the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed March 20, 2018); and the originally-
filed Specification (“Spec.,” filed August 4, 2011). Rather than repeat the
Examiner’s findings and determinations and Appellant’s contentions in their
entirety, we refer to these documents.
Appeal 2019-000541
Application 13/136,610

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to devices, methods, and
systems “for a wireless browser for use in handheld wireless devices that
makes efficient utilization of the wireless network resources and in the
wireless device provides a user friendly and efficient rendering of the web
pages on the limited size display screens of the wireless devices.” Spec.,
1:20–23.
As noted above, claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 16, and 17 stand rejected.
Claims 1, 8, and 16 are independent. Appeal Br. 30 (claim 1), 32 (claim 8),
34 (claim 16) (Claims App.). Claim 3 depends directly from claim 1,
claim 10 depends directly from claim 8, and claim 17 depends directly from
claim 16. Id. at 30–35.
Claim 1 recites “[a] mobile handheld wireless computing and
communication device of a type of a smart phone and a tablet computer,
comprising: the handheld wireless mobile device has a processor, a memory
and a wireless browser logic stored in the memory and operating in the
processor,” which performs functions, substantially as recited in claim 8. Id.
at 30, 32. Claim 16 recites “[a] system for rendering of webpage content on
a screen of a handheld mobile wireless computing and communication
device of a type of a smart phone and a tablet computer, comprising: . . . the
handheld wireless mobile device has a processor, a memory, and a wireless
browser logic stored in the memory and operating in the processor,” which
performs functions, substantially as recited in claim 8. Id. at 32, 35. The
Examiner relies on the same references and substantially similar arguments
in rejecting claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 16, and 17 (Final Act. 2–9), and Appellant
does not contest the rejections of claims 3, 10, and 17 separately from their
Appeal 2019-000541
Application 13/136,610

3

base claims (Appeal Br. 12, 20–21, 28). Moreover, Appellant’s contentions
with respect to claims 8 and 16 are substantially similar to those with respect
to claim 1. See, e.g., id. at 12, 20, 28. Therefore, we focus our analysis on
independent claim 1, and the disputed and overlapping elements recited in
independent claims 8 and 16.
Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed elements emphasized, is
illustrative.
1. A mobile handheld wireless computing and
communication device of a type of a smart phone and a tablet
computer, comprising:
the handheld wireless mobile device has a processor, a
memory and a wireless browser logic stored in the memory and
operating in the processor, the wireless browser logic on a
request from the device to a server on a global computer network
receives from the server and stores in a temporary memory of the
device an HTML formatted web page;
the wireless browser logic, in the HTML formatted web
page, first identifies ad-server reference links and then disables
execution of the identified ad-server reference links from fetching
ad-server image files from their respective ad-servers and by
disabling the ad-server reference links to their respective ad-
servers, the logic minimizes use of wireless bandwidth and
processing in the processor of the device;
the wireless browser logic in the HTML web page then
deletes these ad-server reference links and collapses
corresponding cells of the ad-server reference links, and creates
a modified webpage in the temporary memory and displays the
modified webpage on a display screen of the wireless device.
Id. at 30 (emphases added).
REFERENCE AND REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following reference in rejecting the
claims:
Appeal 2019-000541
Application 13/136,610

4

Name3 Number Pub’d Filed
Anderson US 2004/0095400 A1 May 20, 2004 Nov. 19, 2002
Specifically, claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 as anticipated by Anderson. Final Act. 2–9.
Appellant contests the anticipation rejection of independent claims 1,
8, and 16 and relies on similar deficiencies in the rejection of each
independent claim to overcome the rejection of the dependent claims.
Appeal Br. 12–29. Because we determine that reversal of the rejection of
independent claim 1 is dispositive, except for our ultimate decision, we do
not discuss the merits of the rejection of claims 3, 8, 10, 16, and 17 further
herein. We review the appealed rejection of independent claim 1 for error
based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments
and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075
(BPAI 2010) (precedential). We address the rejection of claim 1 below.
ANALYSIS
1. Lack of Anticipation of Claim 1 By Anderson
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631
(Fed. Cir. 1987). The elements must be arranged as required by the claim,
but this is not an ipsissimis verbis (i.e., in the identical words) test. See In re
Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Moreover, “it is proper to take
into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2019-000541
Application 13/136,610

5

inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw
therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968). Nevertheless,
unless a reference discloses within the four corners of the
document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of
the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited
in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the
thing claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102.
Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008);
accord In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586 (CCPA 1972).
As noted above, the Examiner rejects independent claim 1 as
anticipated by Anderson. Final Act. 2–4. First, the Examiner finds that
Anderson discloses:
A mobile handheld wireless computing and
communication device of a type of a smart phone and a tablet
computer, comprising:
the handheld wireless mobile device has a processor, a
memory and a wireless browser logic stored in the memory and
operating in the processor, the wireless browser logic on a
request from the device to a server on a global computer network
receives from the server and stores in a temporary memory of the
device an HTML formatted web page,
as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 2–3 (citing Anderson ¶¶ 35, 47, 48).
Second, the Examiner finds that Anderson discloses
the wireless browser logic, in the HTML formatted web page,
first identifies ad-server reference links and then disables
execution of the identified ad-server reference links from
fetching ad-server image files from their respective ad-servers
and by disabling the ad-server reference links to their respective
ad-servers, the logic minimizes use of wireless bandwidth and
processing in the processor of the device,
as recited in claim 1. Id. at 3 (citing Anderson ¶¶ 35, 47, 48). Third, the
Appeal 2019-000541
Application 13/136,610

6

Examiner finds that Anderson discloses
the wireless browser logic in the HTML web page then deletes
these ad-server reference links and collapses corresponding cells
of the ad-server reference links, and creates a modified webpage
in the temporary memory and displays the modified webpage on
a display screen of the wireless device,
as recited in claim 1. Id. at 3 (citing Anderson ¶¶ 35, 47, 48, 52).
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as
anticipated by Anderson for three reasons: “Main Arguments,” “[Broadest
Reasonable Interpretation (BRI)] Arguments,” and “Detailed Arguments.”
Appeal Br. 12–28. For the reasons given below, Appellant persuades us of
dispositive Examiner error.
a. Main and BRI Arguments
In the Main Arguments, Appellant contends:
As is clear from Anderson Abstract: The prior cited art of
Anderson is directed to a server and its operation on a global
computer network, wherein the server is used for reconfiguring
the source content, the source content may be transmitted to and
displayed at any of the wide variety of devices.
Appeal Br. 12 (emphasis added); see id. at 12–13 (citing Anderson, Fig. 3
(In Fig. 3, steps 158, 160, and 162 are “Receive response from server,”
“Reconfigure response content,” and “Transmit reconfigured content to
client device,” respectively). Appellant concludes:
Because in the claimed subject matter there is, no notion
or concept of a server, receiving and reconfiguring content and a
client device as, Anderson is directed to a wholly different art
that of a server on the global computer network and not to a
wireless mobile device features and functions wholly contained
in the mobile device.
Appeal 2019-000541
Application 13/136,610

7

Id. at 13; see Reply Br. 5–10 (citing Anderson, Abstract, ¶ 35). We
disagree.
As the Examiner notes, Anderson discloses:
The reconfiguration application 102, in one embodiment,
can be executed independent of the operating systems utilized by
the device 110. For example, the reconfiguration application 102
may be executed on a device 110 that utilizes the Palm, WinCE,
Symbian, RIM (Research in Motion), or any other suitable
operating system. The reconfiguration application 102 is also
preferably device-independent such that the reconfiguration
application 102 can be utilized regardless of the particular device
110. In addition, the device 110 is optionally compatible with
and can handle HTML3.x.
Anderson ¶ 37; see Ans. 9–10. Thus, reconfiguration application 102 may
be executed on operating systems for handheld devices. We further note
Anderson discloses that reconfiguration application 102 may be
implemented in any suitable location or form and on any suitable device,
including handheld or mobile devices, such as cellular telephones. See
Anderson ¶¶ 4–6, 11, 29, 32, 35; cf. Spec., 2:2–10. Therefore, we are
persuaded Anderson makes more than a “mere and isolated reference to a
‘mobile device browser,’ as above in Anderson paragraph [0035],” and find
Appellant’s Main Arguments are not persuasive. Appeal Br. 14; Reply
Br. 8; see Ans. 10–11.
Similarly, in the BRI Arguments, Appellant contends, “[u]nder BRI,
with due respect, Examiner has erred in equating a ‘wireless browser and its
features’ of the claimed subject matter with a prior art software functions
resident in a network server that have nothing to with a wireless browser in
a wireless device.” Appeal Br. 17 (emphasis added); see Reply Br. 12. As
noted above, however, Anderson clearly discloses a wireless browser with
Appeal 2019-000541
Application 13/136,610

8

its features resident on a wireless device. Ans. 13–15; see Anderson ¶¶ 7
(describing interface between wireless application protocol (WAP) and a
microbrowser on the wireless device), 30 (“The web server 106 is in
communication with the Internet 108 such that client applications such as
web browsers on devices such as personal computers or any web-enabled
devices may gain access to the source document or content 104 via the
Internet 108.”), 35 (“For example, the reconfiguration application 102 may
be implemented as a separate application, such as a plug-in for an existing
browser, that can be executed in conjunction with a browser. As another
example, the reconfiguration application 102 may be implemented as an
algorithm in a web-intelligent web browser for the device 110.”).
Accordingly, we find Appellant’s BRI Arguments are not persuasive.
Consequently, neither Appellant’s Main nor BRI Arguments are
persuasive.
b. Detailed Arguments
The Examiner finds that Anderson discloses the web-browser logic
operations of “first identif[ing] ad-server reference links and then
disable[ing] execution of the identified ad-server reference links from
fetching ad-server image files from their respective ad-servers” and “then
delet[ing] these ad-server reference links and collaps[ing] corresponding
cells of the ad-server reference links, and creat[ing] a modified webpage in
the temporary memory and display[ing] the modified webpage on a display
screen of the wireless device.” Appeal Br. 30 (Claims App.) (emphases
added); see Final Act. 3–4. In particular, the Examiner finds that “Anderson
discloses a web browser with a plugin [paragraph 35] that filters webpage
advertisements out of an html webpage” and “[s]ince the device does not
Appeal 2019-000541
Application 13/136,610

9

request the advertisement, the processing in the wireless device and the use
of the wireless network is reduced. The cell is ‘collapsed’ in that the link is
deleted. [paragraph 52].” Final Act. 3–4. Thus, the Examiner finds that
Anderson’s disclosure of filtering discloses both the identifying and
disabling functions and the deleting and collapsing functions, as recited in
claim 1. Id. at 8–9; Ans. 21.
Claim 1 recites that the identifying and disabling functions prevent the
links from fetching ad-server image files from their respective ad-servers,
and, thus, “by disabling the ad-server reference links to their respective ad-
servers, the logic minimizes use of wireless bandwidth and processing in the
processor of the device.” Id.; see Spec., 3:10–4:2 (discussing “fetch”
operations), 4:11–5:15 (discussing bandwidth issues). The deletion of the
reference links and the collapsing of the cells are part of the creation of the
display for the wireless device. Appeal Br. 30 (Claims App.); see Spec.,
9:21–30 (discussing deleting adserver links and collapsing empty cells).
Appellant contends the Examiner fails to demonstrate that Anderson’s
disclosure of filtering discloses these separate functions recited in the
elements of claim 1. Appeal Br. 27–28; Reply Br. 21–22. The Examiner
does not demonstrate that Anderson discloses that filtering encompasses the
separate functions of identifying and disabling adserver links, and we do not
find such disclosure in Anderson. See Final Act. 3–4, 8–9; Ans. 21–22.
Specifically, even if the Examiner is correct that Anderson’s filtering
function removes an advertisement to accommodate the smaller display of a
wireless device (see Anderson ¶ 47), the Examiner does not explain or show
how Anderson’s filtering function disables a reference link from fetching the
advertisement’s image files (see Final Act. 3–4, 8–9; Ans. 21–22). To show
Appeal 2019-000541
Application 13/136,610

10

anticipation, the Examiner must demonstrate that Anderson discloses each
and every element of the claimed device in the manner that it is recited in the
claim. The Examiner fails to do so here, and Appellant persuades us that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, as anticipated by Anderson.
Consequently, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 1.
2. The Remaining Claims
Each of claims 8 and 16 includes substantially similar elements to the
relevant elements of claim 1 discussed above. Appeal Br. 30, 32, 34 (Claims
App.). Each of claims 3, 10, and 17 depends directly from independent
claim 1, 8, or 16, respectively. Id. at 31–35. As noted above, Appellant
challenges the rejection of independent claims 8 and 16 for the same reasons
as claim 1 and of dependent claims 3, 10, and 17 for the same reasons as
their base claims. See Appeal Br. 29. Because we are persuaded the
Examiner erred with respect to the anticipation rejection of claim 1, we also
are persuaded the Examiner erred with respect to the anticipation rejection of
claims 3, 8, 10, 16, and 17. For this reason, we do not sustain the rejection
of those claims.
DECISIONS
1. The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 16, and 17 as
anticipated by Anderson.
2. Thus, on this record, claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 16, and 17 are not
unpatentable.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 16, and 17.
Appeal 2019-000541
Application 13/136,610

11

In summary:
Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 8, 10, 16, 17 102 Anderson

1, 3, 8, 10, 16, 17

REVERSED