Avaya Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 22, 2022

2021001205 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 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. 15/830,744 12/04/2017 Avinash Anand 4366-1052 6123 48500 7590 02/22/2022 SHERIDAN ROSS P.C. 1560 BROADWAY, SUITE 1200 DENVER, CO 80202 EXAMINER SCHALLHORN, TYLER J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2176 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/22/2022 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): cjacquet@sheridanross.com edocket@sheridanross.com pair_Avaya@firsttofile.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte AVINASH ANAND, DIVAKAR RAY, and ANJUM SIDDIQUE Appeal 2021-001205 Application 15/830,744 Technology Center 2100 Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, AMBER L. HAGY, and DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges. CUTITTA, 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 AFFIRM. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Avaya Inc., as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief filed August 11, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”) at 2. Appeal 2021-001205 Application 15/830,744 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Summary The subject matter of Appellant’s application relates generally to “co- browsing web systems” that provide an agent such as a customer service agent the ability to view a customer/visitor’s browser interactions. Spec. ¶¶ 1, 2.2 By way of background, Appellant explains that graphical changes in the visitor’s browser made by Cascading Style Sheet (CSS) classes/pseudo elements are not logged in the Document Object Model (DOM) and, thus, cannot be detected and sent to an agent browser in the co- browsing session, resulting in an inaccurate representation of the visitor browser session by the agent browser: When a web page contains Cascading Style Sheet (CSS) classes/pseudo elements, such as “visited,” “hover,” “active,” “first child,” etc., the browser runs rules associated [with] the CSS classes/pseudo elements without generating any changes in the DOM or event generation. This causes problems in a web co-browsing environment because the CSS classes/pseudo elements can change the display of graphical elements that [] are not captured by the DOM [Document Object Model] or event generation in the browser. In other words, the graphical changes made by the CSS classes/pseudo elements cannot be detected and sent to a remote browser in the co-browsing session. This results in an inaccurate representation of a first browser session being sent to a second browser in the co- browsing session. 2 In addition to the above-noted Appeal Brief, throughout this Decision we refer to: (1) Appellant’s Specification filed December 4, 2017 (“Spec.”); (2) the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed March 11, 2020; (3) the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed October 6, 2020; and (4) the Reply Brief filed December 7, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2021-001205 Application 15/830,744 3 Id. ¶ 2. To avoid inaccurate representation of the visitor browser session, Appellant’s claimed subject matter determines that a change made in the first (visitor) browser is neither identified by a user interface event in the web page nor logged in a DOM, and based on the determination, converts a code element from a first programming language to at least a second programming language. Id. ¶ 3. The first browser then sends the converted first code element and the identifier of the user interface event to a second (agent) browser to provide a similar view of the first browsing session in the second browser. Id. Exemplary Claim Claims 1, 7, and 12 are independent claims. Claim 1, reproduced below with limitation at issue italicized, exemplifies the claimed subject matter: 1. A co-browsing server comprising: a microprocessor; and a computer readable medium, coupled with the microprocessor and comprising microprocessor readable and executable instructions that program the microprocessor to: determine that the co-browsing server has established a co-browsing session between a first browser and a second browser; receive, from the first browser, a first code element wherein the first code element modifies a view of a web page in the first browser; determine that the modification of the view of the web page in the first browser is not identified by a user interface event in the web page; Appeal 2021-001205 Application 15/830,744 4 determine that a document object model of the web page in the first browser is unchanged; in response to determining that the modification of the view of the web page in the first browser is not identified by the user interface event in the web page and in response to determining that the document object model of the web page in the first browser is unchanged, convert the first code element from a first programming language to at least a second programming language; receive, from the first browser, an identifier of the user interface event in the web page; and send the first code element and the identifier of the user interface event to a second browser to provide a similar view of the first web page in the second browser. Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.). REFERENCE AND REJECTION The Examiner rejects claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a)(1) as anticipated by Mendez et al. (US 2015/0149916 A1, published May 28, 2015) (“Mendez”). Final Act. 2-18. OPINION We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in light of Appellant’s arguments and evidence. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). We disagree with Appellant that the Examiner errs in rejecting claims 1-20, and we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner for these claims to the extent consistent with our analysis herein. Final Act. 2- 18; Ans. 3-6. Appeal 2021-001205 Application 15/830,744 5 Anticipation Rejection of Claim 1 The dispositive limitation at issue in claim 1 recites, “convert the first code element from a first programming language to at least a second programming language.” Appeal Br. 14. Appellant’s Specification provides an example of the converting that includes “convert[ing] CSS/HTML code to a java script.” Spec. ¶ 59. Mendez relates to a “co-browse service [that] uses JavaScript to allow a web page shown in a user’s browser to be viewed remotely” and on which “[u]pdates to the web page are rendered into HTML and forwarded on the co-browse session.” Mendez, Abstract. The Examiner finds Mendez’s co- browse service’s use of “JavaScript [to] pass instructions [including CSS selectors] to the agent to enable the agent to recreate the hover state at the agent side” discloses the limitation at issue. Final Act. 4; Ans. 3-4 (citing Mendez ¶¶ 61, 109-111, 115, 116, 121-124). Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 as anticipated by Mendez. Appellant notes the Examiner “interprets Mendez as disclosing the above-highlighted claim features because the Office Action interprets a CSS selector to be in the first language, which is then converted to JavaScript instructions, which are interpreted as the second language.” Appeal Br. 9. Appellant also notes that “Mendez discloses sharing a list of hoverable CSS selectors between browsers” but argues “[t]here is no disclosure in Mendez of converting a CSS selector from one programming language to at least a second programming language” because the “CSS selectors are [instead] shared between browsers.” Id. The Examiner responds by finding that the CSS code in the original web page has been converted to JavaScript or HTML or both: Appeal 2021-001205 Application 15/830,744 6 Mendez scans the web page and style sheets (CSS) to generate a list of elements which are hoverable, i.e. it determines view modifications that do not generate UI events or modify the DOM (Mendez, ¶¶ 115-116). The JavaScript on the visitor’s side is used to detect when the visitor’s mouse cursor is moved over a hoverable element (Mendez, ¶ 121). When such a movement is detected by the script, it sends a list of styles to the agent that are applied to the relevant elements by the JavaScript on the agent’s side (Mendez, ¶ 61, 121-124). In other words, the “hover” functionality originally provided solely by the CSS code in the original web page has been “converted” to JavaScript (the “cobrowse.js” script) and HTML (the “script” tag referring to or embedding the JavaScript code). Ans. 4. Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because Appellant fails to show error in the Examiner’s finding that Mendez discloses converting CSS code to JavaScript or HTML, or both. Id. Appellant’s argument that “the Examiner has still failed to establish what programming language the CSS selectors of Mendez are originally provided in” (Reply Br. 3) is unpersuasive because the argument fails to address the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 3, n.1) that the CSS code in Mendez is identical to the CSS code discussed in Appellant’s Specification as a programming language. We agree with the Examiner’s determination (Ans. 3) that Mendez’s converting of CSS code to JavaScript is identical to the example provided in Appellant’s Specification in which “CSS/HTML code [is converted] to a java script” (Spec. ¶ 59). In addition, Appellant argues that “Mendez discloses the concept of sharing style sheets, which is not the same as converting code elements from a first programming language to at least a second programming language.” Appeal Br. 8. Appeal 2021-001205 Application 15/830,744 7 The Examiner, however, finds that rather than just sharing a list of hoverable CSS selectors between browsers, as argued by Appellant, “the ‘hover’ functionality originally provided solely by the CSS code in the original web page has been ‘converted’ to JavaScript . . . and HTML.” Ans. 4. Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive. We agree that the portions of Mendez cited by the Examiner discuss the first visitor machine using JavaScript to pass hover instructions including converted CSS selectors of the agent to enable the agent to use JavaScript to recreate the hover state at the agent side. Mendez ¶¶ 121-124. In view of this finding, we agree that the cited portions of Mendez, including Mendez’s disclosure of “hav[ing] the JavaScript pass instructions [from the visitor computer] to the agent to enable the agent to recreate the hover state of the agent side,” disclose the limitation at issue. Mendez ¶ 124. Appellant further argues that “the Examiner, at various points in the Examiner’s Answer, refers to the disclosure of Mendez and sometimes describes the CSS selector as a function, sometimes, as code, and sometimes as an attribute of a web page that is scanned to generate a list of element[s].” Reply Br. 2. Nevertheless, as discussed above, Appellant fails to address the specific finding by the Examiner that the CSS selector is a code element that is converted to JavaScript or HTML, or both. Ans. 4. For the reasons discussed, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 1. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of that claim, as well as the rejection of independent claims 7 and 12 and dependent claims 14, 18, and 20, which Appellant does not argue separately with particularity. Appeal Br. 9-12. Appeal 2021-001205 Application 15/830,744 8 Anticipation Rejection of Claims 6 and 10 The Examiner finds Mendez discloses the “co-browsing server of claim 1, wherein the co-browsing server supports a plurality of co-browsing sessions” as recited in representative dependent claim 6. Final Act. 7 (citing Mendez ¶ 125). Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 6 as anticipated by Mendez because “this passage does not fairly describe a co-browser server that supports a plurality of co-browsing sessions. At most this passage of Mendez discloses one or more customer service agents can view web browsing activity of visitors.” Appeal Br. 12. The Examiner supplements the original rejection with additional findings from Mendez: The cited portion of the reference teaches that one or more customer service agents [a plurality] can view the web browsing activity of web site visitors [co-browsing sessions] using a co-browse service. Mendez further teaches that the co- browse service is implemented using one or more servers that host, and control access to, co-browse sessions. Ans. 20 (citing Mendez, ¶¶ 28, 29, 47, 48, 133, 175, 176). We agree, based on the Examiner’s additional findings, that Mendez discloses “the co-browsing server supports a plurality of co-browsing sessions,” as recited in claim 6. Appellant, in turn, fails to address the Examiner’s additional findings from Mendez. See generally Reply Br. 2-3. Accordingly, Appellant fails to demonstrate error in the Examiner’s findings and we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of dependent claim 6. Appellant presents similar arguments for dependent claim 16 and so Appeal 2021-001205 Application 15/830,744 9 we sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 16 for the same reasons. Appeal Br. 61-65. Anticipation Rejection of Claims 2, 8, and 13 Although Appellant nominally argues the rejection of dependent claims 2, 8, and 13 separately, the arguments presented do not point out with particularity or explain why these claims are separately patentable. Appeal Br. 10. Instead, Appellant argues that “Mendez fails to disclose converting a first code element into multiple programing languages.” Id. Rather than presenting arguments pointing out with particularity how the limitations of these claims are distinguishable over Mendez, Appellant merely paraphrases the claim language and concludes that Mendez does not disclose the features of these dependent claims. Such a conclusory assertion, however, amounting to little more than a summary of the claim language and a general denial, is unpersuasive to rebut the Examiner’s findings. Cf. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv) (“A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.”); see In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”). We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 2, 8, and 13 over Mendez. Appeal 2021-001205 Application 15/830,744 10 Anticipation Rejection of Claims 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 15, 17, and 19 Although Appellant nominally argues the rejection of dependent claims 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 15, 17, and 19 separately, the arguments presented do not point out with particularity or explain why these claims are separately patentable. Appeal Br. 10. Instead, Appellant merely paraphrases the claim language and concludes that Mendez does not disclose the features of these dependent claims. Such a conclusory assertion, however, amounting to little more than a summary of the claim language and a general denial, is unpersuasive to rebut the Examiner’s findings. Cf. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv) (“A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.”). We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 15, 17, and 19 over Mendez. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2019). AFFIRMED Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-20 102(a) Mendez 1-20