Ex Parte ArtzDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 24, 201612457758 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation