Ex Parte Artz

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 24, 2016

12457758 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
12/457,758
100692 7590
AOL Inc./Finnegan
FILING DATE
06/19/2009
03/28/2016
901 New York Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20001
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David Ryan Artz
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10587.0022-00000 9428
EXAMINER
PATEL, MANGLESH M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2178
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2016 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):
regional-desk@finnegan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
u-NITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte DAVID RYAN ARTZ
Appeal2014-005301
Application 12/457 ,758
Technology Center 2100
Before JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant 1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--8, 10, 11, 13-17, 19, 20, 22-26,
and 28-33. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest is identified as AOL Inc. (App. Br. 3.)
Appeal2014-005301
Application 12/457,758
Claimed Subject Matter
The invention generally relates to systems and methods for improved
web-based document retrieval and object manipulation. (Title.) Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. A computer-implemented method for manipulating
objects in a web document, the method comprising the following
steps, performed by one or more processors:
identifying a portion of a retrieved web document that is
visible to a user, the visible portion having a first boundary in a
first scrolling direction and a second boundary in a second
scrolling direction;
identifying at least one object within the retrieved web
document, the identified object being associated with a
corresponding manipulation;
expanding at least one of the first boundary in the first
scrolling direction or the second boundary in the second scrolling
direction to establish an expanded portion of the retrieved web
document, the expanded portion comprising the visible portion
and a portion of the retrieved web document that is invisible to
the user, and the expanded portion having a corresponding first
boundary in the first scrolling direction and a corresponding
second boundary in the second scrolling direction;
detecting whether a portion of the identified object falls
between the first and second boundaries of the expanded portion;
performing the corresponding manipulation of the
identified object when the portion of the identified object fails
between the first and second boundaries of the expanded portion;
and
adding the identified object to a polling queue when no
portion of the identified object falls between the first and second
boundaries of the expanded portion.
2
Appeal2014-005301
Application 12/457,758
Rejection
Claims 1, 2, 4--8, 10, 11, 13-17, 19, 20, 22-26, and 28-33 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Breen2 and Lazy
Loader. 3 (Final Act. 2-11.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments the Examiner erred (App. Br. 14--23; Reply Br. 2-6). We are not
persuaded by Appellant's arguments. We adopt as our own the findings and
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and set forth in the Answer (see Ans. 10-14). We highlight and
address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28-31, and 33
Appellant argues "the 'jQuery plugin' in Lazy Loader at most 'loops'
through HTML code of a web page to identify unloaded images that become
visible as a user scrolls through the web page." (App. Br. 16.) According to
Appellant, Lazy Loader does not teach or suggest a "polling queue" or that
HTML code corresponds to a "polling queue," and is silent with respect to
any process that adds an unloaded image to such a polling queue when that
unloaded image is invisible to the user. (Id.)
We agree with the Examiner that Lazy Loader's loop process
constitutes a polling queue under the broadest reasonable interpretation of
2 Christopher Breen, The iPhone Pocket Guide, Peachpit Press (2008).
3 Lazy Load Pluginfor }Query, appelsiini.net, available at web.archive.org/
web/20090228221452/http://www.appelsiini.net/projects/lazyload (archived
Feb. 28, 2009).
3
Appeal2014-005301
Application 12/457,758
the claim term. (See Final Act. 4; Ans. 11-12.) Lazy Loader teaches that
the plugin initially loads all visible images and is then in ready state. (Lazy
Loader 1; see Ans. 11.) After any scrolling has taken place, "Lazy Load
loops through unloaded images. In loop it checks if image has become
visible. By default loop is stopped when first image below the fold (not
visible) is found." (Lazy Loader 3; see Ans. 11.) We agree with the
Examiner these teachings in Lazy Loader at least suggest to one of ordinary
skill in the art that the plugin stores the unloaded images (adding them to the
queue) and loops through them to determine the appropriate time for display
(polling the queue). (Ans. 11.)
Moreover, even if the unloaded image links remained in the original
HTML code, where they may have other code portions separating them,
Lazy Loader's ability to loop through the code and identify the next image to
display teaches that each link is still waiting in a queue to be polled to
determine if it should be loaded next. The images are added to this queue
when Lazy Loader initially determines they are not visible and begins to
loop through them after scrolling. Appellant has not persuaded us that the
presence of additional HTML code precludes such a process from being
considered polling a "polling queue," as recited in claim 1.
Appellant also contends the rejection relies on impermissible
hindsight, but this argument is premised on Appellant's contention the cited
prior art fails to disclose or suggest all of the features recited in claim 1.
(See App. Br. 16-17.) As discussed above, we have rejected Appellant's
argument that Lazy Loader does not teach adding the identified object to a
polling queue, as recited in claim 1. We, therefore, are not persuaded by
Appellant's argument as to impermissible hindsight.
4
Appeal2014-005301
Application 12/457,758
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Breen and Lazy Loader. For the
same reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17,
19, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28-31, and 33, which are not argued separately with
particularity (App. Br. 17).
Claims 5, 14, and 23 4
Dependent claim 5 recites, among other limitations, storing a source
of the identified object as a temporary variable, and replacing the source
with a blank placeholder, wherein the blank placeholder blocks a
manipulation of the identified object, and replacing the blank placeholder
with the stored source when the portion of the identified object falls between
the boundaries of the additional portion of the retrieved web document.
Appellant argues that although "Lazy Loader may establish a 'placeholder
image' within HTML code to trigger loading of a corresponding image,
nothing in Lazy Loader teaches or suggests that such a 'placeholder image'
would block a manipulation of the corresponding image." (App. Br. 19.)
Appellant further contends "Lazy Loader neither discloses nor suggests that
the 'jQuery plugin' stores a source of the corresponding image as a
4 In the Appeal Brief, Appellant presents additional arguments for claims 5,
14, and 23 as a subgroup, claims 7, 16, and 25 as a subgroup, and claim 32
under one subheading with all other dependent claims not argued separately.
(App. Br. 17-22.) Although we have considered Appellant's additional
arguments related to these claims, we direct Appellant's attention to 37
C.F.R. § 41.37, which provides: "Under each heading identifying the ground
of rejection being contested, any claim(s) argued separately or as a subgroup
shall be argued under a separate subheading that identifies the claim( s) by
number."
5
Appeal2014-005301
Application 12/457,758
temporary variable before replacing the corresponding image with the
placeholder image in the HTML code." (Id.)
We are not persuaded of error in the rejection of claim 5. Lazy
Loader states a user may "set placeholder image and custom event to trigger
loading." (Lazy Loader 2.) Appellant misinterprets Lazy Loader in stating
the placeholder image triggers loading (App. Br. 19), as it is the custom
event that triggers loading (see, e.g., Lazy Loader 2 under "Event to trigger
loading"). The Examiner finds, and we agree, "it is only when a trigger is
invoked that a placeholder is replaced with an image, till that point their [sic]
most certainly is blocking manipulation/loading of an image." (Ans. 13.)
The Examiner further finds "Lazy Loader already states that the source of the
image is stored has [sic] a temporary variable in this case a URL to the
image." (Ans. 13 (citing Lazy Loader 2, para. 1).) We agree, and note
Appellant does not persuasively rebut this finding in the Reply Brief.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claim 5 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Breen and Lazy Loader. For the
same reasons, we sustain the rejection of dependent claims 14 and 23,
argued together with claim 5 (App. Br. 17-19).
Claims 7, 16, and 2 5
Dependent claim 7 recites that the detecting of claim 1 comprises
determining a position of the identified object within the retrieved web
document using a stored position of the identified object. Appellant argues
"Lazy Loader at most enables a user to specify a dimension of a 'scrolling
container' associated with a displayed web page," and contends this does not
teach the limitations of claim 7. (App. Br. 20.)
6
Appeal2014-005301
Application 12/457,758
In the Answer, the Examiner finds Lazy Loader's sensitivity setting
suggests Lazy Loader tracks the distance/location of objects within the web
page to know that they are within a certain pixel range of the visibility
window. (Ans. 13 (citing Lazy Loader 1 under "Setting sensitivity").) We
agree with this finding, which Appellant does not persuasively rebut in the
Reply Brief.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claim 7 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Breen and Lazy Loader. For the
same reasons, we sustain the rejection of dependent claims 16 and 25,
argued together with claim 7 (App. Br. 19-21).
Claim 32
Dependent claim 32 recites:
The method of claim 32, further comprising:
determining whether a displacement between the first and
second scroll positions exceeds a threshold displacement; and
identifying the additional portion of the retrieved web
document when the displacement between the first and second
scroll positions exceeds the threshold displacement.
(Amendment filed April 15, 2013, at 12.)5 Appellant argues in the Appeal
Brief that the portions of Breen cited by the Examiner do not teach the
limitations of claim 32. In the Answer, the Examiner finds Lazy Loader
teaches the threshold displacement of claim 32 in teaching the sensitivity
setting "allows the user to fine tune a threshold displacement." (Ans. 13-14
(citing Lazy Loader 1 under "Setting sensitivity").) In the Reply Brief,
5 We note page 10 of Appellant's Claim Appendix filed with the Appeal
Brief indicates dependent claim 32 depends from claim 4, but we do not find
in the record that an amendment to that effect was entered.
7
Appeal2014-005301
Application 12/457,758
Appellant summarizes Lazy Loader and states the reference does not "teach
or suggest that the loading of a previously unloaded object depends on a
scroll position within the retrieved web document, much less on a
displacement between first and second scroll positions within the retrieved
web document." (Reply Br. 5.)
Neither Appellant nor the Examiner indicates how the terms
displacement or the first and second scroll positions recited in claim 32
should be interpreted. We note claim 3 2 lacks an antecedent basis for the
first and second scroll positions because "a first scroll position" and "a
second scroll position" are not recited or defined in claim 32, 6 but the
Examiner did not identify how this circumstance may affect interpretation of
the claim. We find, however, that even interpreting the first and second
scroll positions to correspond to first and second identified portions of the
web document that are visible to a user, as in dependent claim 31, the
Examiner's findings with respect to Lazy Loader as applied to claim 1 are
sufficient to sustain the rejection of claim 32. Relevant to claim 1, the
Examiner finds the Lazy Loader plugin "constantly checks which object has
become visible by looping through unloaded images having a specific
order." (Ans. 11.) We agree, and we find Lazy Loader thus teaches or
suggests its threshold for displacement between scroll positions is zero.
Claim 32 does not recite a minimum threshold.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Breen and Lazy
6 We note claims 4 and 1 also do not provide antecedent basis for the first
and second scroll positions recited in claim 32.
8
Appeal2014-005301
Application 12/457,758
Loader. Because our reasoning differs from that of the Examiner, however,
we designate our affirmance of this rejection a new ground of rejection.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4--8, 10, 11,
13-17, 19, 20, 22-26, and 28-33.
We designate our affirmance of the rejection of claim 32 a new
ground of rejection pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). "A
new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered
final for judicial review." 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Section 41.50(b) provides
that the Appellant, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE
DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to
the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the
rejected claims:
( 1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating
to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter
reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the proceeding
will be remanded to the examiner. ...
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record ....
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a )(1 )(iv).
AFFIRMED; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
9