Apple Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 30, 2022

2020004664 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2022)

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. 15/274,924 09/23/2016 Jean Sebastiaen Metz P31885US2 (APPL:0756B) 3821 73576 7590 03/30/2022 APPLE INC. - Fletcher c/o Fletcher Yoder, PC P.O. Box 692289 Houston, TX 77269-2289 EXAMINER ROY, SANCHITA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2178 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/30/2022 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@fyiplaw.com hill@fyiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JEAN SEBASTIAEN METZ, GLENN WOLTERS, and MATTHIJS JACOB FREDERIK ZOON Appeal 2020-004664 Application 15/274,924 Technology Center 2100 Before TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, HUNG H. BUI, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.2 1 The word “Appellant” herein refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Apple Inc. Appeal Br. 2. 2 We refer to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed June 10, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed November 1, 2019 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action mailed November 2, 2018 (“Final Act”). Appeal 2020-004664 Application 15/274,924 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a “two-step process to determine the layout of an electronic document (e.g., a webpage, article, etc.)” comprising a web object that includes a set of components. Spec. Abstr., 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of determining a layout for an electronic document comprising a web object, the web object comprising a set of components, the method comprising: for each component of the web object, injecting code by a layout generation application into a web frame used to retrieve the component of the web object; sending a request to a web content retriever to retrieve the web object; for each component of the web object, receiving a message at the layout generation application from the injected code in the corresponding web frame indicating a completion of the retrieving of the component, each message comprising a height of the corresponding web object component based in part on a characteristic of the electronic document; and determining a layout for the web object by the layout generation application using the height of the web object components after the messages received from the injected code indicate every component of the web object is retrieved. Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Lue US 2004/0148571 Al July 29. 2004 Wei US 2015/0046789 Al Feb. 12, 2015 Ying US 2015/0199708 Al July 16, 2015 Appeal 2020-004664 Application 15/274,924 3 REJECTIONS Claims 1-9 and 11-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Wei and Lue. Final Act. 3-8. Claims 10 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Wei, Lue, and Ying. Final Act. 8-9. OPINION We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the contentions and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). Arguments not made are forfeited.3 Appellant argues that “Wei and Lue, taken alone or in hypothetical combination, fail to teach or suggest ‘determining a layout for the web object by the layout generation application . . . after the messages received from the injected code indicate every component of the web object is retrieved,’ as recited by independent claims 1 and 11.” Appeal. Br. 8 (emphasis omitted). Specifically, Appellant argues that Wei does not teach determining the layout of an object after messages indicating that every component of the web object is received. Id. 9. Appellant notes that the Specification supports that the height of the content is provided to the layout 3 See In re Google Tech. Holdings LLC, 980 F.3d 858, 863 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“Because Google failed to present these claim construction arguments to the Board, Google forfeited both arguments.”); 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2013) (“Except as provided for in §§ 41.41, 41.47 and 41.52, any arguments or authorities not included in the appeal brief will be refused consideration by the Board for purposes of the present appeal.”). Appeal 2020-004664 Application 15/274,924 4 generator after a message indicating that the component is fully received. Id. (citing Spec. ¶ 84). In support of the obviousness rejection of independent claims 1 and 11, the Examiner finds Wei and Lue teach for each component of a web object “receiving a message at the layout generation application from the injected code in the corresponding web frame indicating a completion of the retrieving of the component, each message comprising a height of the corresponding web object component based in part on a characteristic of the electronic document.” Final Act. 4-5 (citing Wei ¶¶ 55-60; Lue ¶ 16, 72, 116, 135). The Examiner finds Wei teaches that fragments may be injected into the HTML page as they become available, fragments may alter the layout of a web object (page portion or page), and a web object may be updated as and when fragments are received and Wei . . . teaches that injected code may provide layout and content information affecting the subsequently generated layout of a page Ans. 5 (citing Wei ¶¶ 52, 55-60, 151). Thus, the Examiner argues that because “Wei . . . teaches that web objects may receive more than one message regarding a page portion” and the “layout of the web object may be modified based on available information,” a message specifying the end of information for a web object is disclosed in Wei. Id. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s citations regarding Wei altering the layout of web objects when fragments are received does not sufficiently teach determining a layout using the height of a web object after messaging that every component of a web object is retrieved as recited in claim 1, and similarly in claim 11. Ans. 3. We find that the Examiner has not shown that Wei discloses one or more fragments that alter layout of web Appeal 2020-004664 Application 15/274,924 5 objects sufficiently discloses a message specifying the end of the information of a web object before determining a layout using the height of a web object as required in claim 1. See Reply Br. 3; Ans. 5; Wei ¶¶ 52, 55- 60, 151. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1, or the rejection of independent claim 11, which include language similar to the disputed limitation of claim 1. Nor do we sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2-10, and 12-20, each of which stands with its respective base claim. Because we agree with at least one of the Appellant’s contentions of error, we do not reach the merits of Appellant’s other contentions. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Wei and Lue; and rejection of claims 10 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Wei, Lue, and Ying. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-9, 11-19 103 Wei, Lue 1-9, 11-19 10, 20 103 Wei, Lue, Ying 10, 20 Overall Outcome 1-20 REVERSED