Ex Parte Badge et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 26, 201914576089 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/576,089 12/18/2014 93379 7590 Setter Roche LLP 14694 Orchard Parkway Building A, Suite 200 Westminster, CO 80023 03/28/2019 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Gaurav Badge 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. 648.0128 4295 EXAMINER POPHAM, JEFFREY D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2491 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/28/2019 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): sarah@setterroche.com pair_avaya@firsttofile.com uspto@setterroche.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GAVRA V BADGE, RAMANUJAN S. KASHI, and BISW AJYOTI PAL Appeal2018-006214 Application 14/576,089 1 Technology Center 2400 Before KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, JOHN R. KENNY, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellants' Brief ("App. Br.") identifies Avaya Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal2018-006214 Application 14/576,089 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to an enhanced privacy and agent control in a co-browsing session. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a co- browsing system, direct the co-browsing system to perform a method of facilitating control in a co-browsing session, the method comprising: establishing a co-browsing session for a website with a first client device and a second client device, wherein the co- browsing session is capable of accepting input from users at both the first client device and the second client device to control the website; receiving first permission from the first client device allowing input from the second client device to be presented on the website at the first client device; after receiving the first permission, receiving first input from the second client device; and applying an indication of the first input to the website for presentation at the first client device. App. Br. 11 (Claims Appendix). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Yang Roy US 2014/0164934 Al US 2015/0067181 Al 2 June 12, 2014 Mar. 5, 2015 Appeal2018-006214 Application 14/576,089 REJECTIONS Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. Final Act. 12-15. Claims 1-5, 8-15, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yang. Final Act. 15-20. Claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yang and Roy. Final Act. 20-23. ISSUES First Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Yang discloses "wherein the co-browsing session is capable of accepting input from users at both the first client device and the second client device to control the website," as recited in claim 1? Second Issue: Has the Examiner erred in concluding the claims are indefinite? ANALYSIS First Issue In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that the limitation "wherein the co-browsing session is capable of accepting input from users at both the first client device and the second client device to control the website," is disclosed by Yang. Final Act. 16 (citing Yang ,r,r 36-39, 41, 46, 47, 50, 53, and 54). The Examiner finds Yang discloses a collaborative information sharing system which provides a co-browsing session between two users at 3 Appeal2018-006214 Application 14/576,089 separate client devices, which allows inputs from both users and that those inputs control a website. Final Act. 16. Appellants argue Yang is deficient in two respects. First, Appellants argue Yang is deficient because the communications session disclosed is not a co-browsing session. App. Br. 7. Instead, Appellants argue, Yang "explicitly teach[ es] that no co-browsing session is established" and "merely discloses an information sharing system that, in part, allows images to be captured of a website so that the website can be shared among computers 'instead of capturing or sharing the window as is performed for example with co-browsing."' App. Br. 7 ( quoting Yang ,r 10). Second, Appellants argue that even if the session disclosed in Yang could be considered a co- browsing session, "Yang does not disclose that an information sharing session allows for any type of control over a website captured in such an image." App. Br. 7. We agree with Appellants. Anticipation is a test of strict identity. Trintec Indus., Inc. v. Top- U.S.A. Corp., 295 F.3d 1292, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2002). That is, to meet the strict identity test for anticipation, all elements must be disclosed in exactly the same way as they are arranged or combined in the claim. Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Here, Yang discloses a "collaborative information sharing system" which allows a user to capture an image in a shared space on their desktop which allows other remote users to be able to concurrently view the image. Yang ,r 36. When using Yang's system, "[i]f a first user wishes to point out a particular area of interest for example, the system is configured to accept a first input associated with a first location in the shared space associated with the first computer." Yang ,r 3 6. Yang further discloses that the 4 Appeal2018-006214 Application 14/576,089 collaborative information sharing system "may also receive a second input associated with a second location in the shared space associated with a second computer that is associated with a second user." Yang ,r 3 6. However, nowhere does Yang disclose that the operation of a website is controlled via input from users at the first and second client devices. Rather, because Yang discloses only presenting an image of a website within the shared space, rather than the website itself, the user inputs have no impact on the content or operation of the website, and instead only modify the appearance of an image. 2 Modifying the appearance of an image of a website is not exactly the same as controlling the website, and as we noted above, anticipation is a strict identity test. Accordingly, Yang does not identically disclose the invention as recited in claim 1, and we do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2). Second Issue The Examiner rejects the claims as indefinite, concluding that the meaning of "co-browsing session" is unclear because the construction advanced by Appellants is inconsistent with examples of "co-browsing" provided in the Specification. The Examiner notes that Appellants' arguments to overcome Yang assert that displaying images of a website in a shared space is not "co-browsing." Ans. 3--4. The Examiner further notes that the Specification describes the "co-browsing system" as being one 2 The Examiner posits that the limitation that "the co-browsing session is capable of accepting input from users at both the first client device and the second client device to control the website" is merely an intended use and not entitled to patentable weight. Ans. 6. We disagree because this limitation recites a characteristic of the co-browsing session itself, and not merely an intended use. 5 Appeal2018-006214 Application 14/576,089 which, in some embodiments, "renders the website and transfers a rendered image of the website to client devices 101 and 102 for display." Final Act. 13 (quoting Spec. ,r 30). According to the Examiner, on the one hand Appellants maintain that displaying images is not co-browsing, but on the other hand, the Specification indicates that it is-which makes the meaning of "co-browsing session" unclear. Appellants argue the Examiner incorrectly interprets the cited passage in the Specification because it makes clear that even though a "rendered image of a website may be transferred to client devices," it also makes clear that the "rendered image allows a user at a client device to interact with the website, such as by typing information into the website." App. Br. 7 ( citing Spec. ,r 30). Because Yang provides no mechanism for interacting with the website, Appellants assert that their argument that Yang does not disclose co-browsing is "not in conflict with the disclosure of the present application." App. Br. 7. We agree. "[W]e apply the approach for assessing indefiniteness approved by the Federal Circuit in Packard, i.e., '[a] claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.'" Ex parte McAward, No. 2015-006416, 2017 WL 3669566, at *5 (PTAB Aug. 25, 2017) (precedential) (quoting In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1310, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Here, the Examiner concludes the phrase "co-browsing session" is unclear. When read in light of the Specification, however, we conclude the phrase "co-browsing session" is readily understood as a communications session during which multiple devices view interactions with a website. See, e.g., Spec. ,r 2 ("Co-browsing systems exist that allow multiple devices to 6 Appeal2018-006214 Application 14/576,089 view interactions with a website across the multiple devices."); Spec. ,r 28 ("co-browsing system 103 allows both client devices to present the same website at each of client devices 101 and 102"); Spec. ,r 30 ("Client devices 101 and 102 exchange communication with co-browsing system 103 to synchronize website interactions across client devices 101 and 102."). We also agree with Appellants that their assertions regarding Yang do not conflict with the disclosure in paragraph 30 of the Specification because, as Appellants correctly argue, Yang does not provide a way for multiple users to interact with the website itself. Their argument is consistent with the repeated statements in the Specification indicating that website interaction capability is a requirement of any "co-browsing session." As such, we are persuaded the Examiner has erred in rejecting the claims as indefinite, and we do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Summary Because Yang does not identically disclose the invention recited in claim 1, we are constrained by the record before us to reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102. For the same reason, we also reverse the§ 102 rejection of independent claim 11 as well as dependent claims 2-5, 8-10, 12-15, and 18-20. We also do not sustain the rejections of dependent claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as the Examiner does not find Roy remedies the identified deficiency in Yang with respect to the independent claims. Because we agree with Appellants the meaning of "co- browsing session" is clear, we also do not sustain the indefiniteness rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b ). 7 Appeal2018-006214 Application 14/576,089 DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20. REVERSED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation