Ex Parte Elford et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 16, 201612978082 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 16, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/978,082 12/23/2010 31817 7590 06/20/2016 SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P,C c/o CPA GLOBAL 900 2nd A venue South, Suite 600 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Christopher L. Elford 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. 127079-180744 1559 EXAMINER PARKER, JEANETTE J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2175 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/20/2016 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): IPDocketing@SCHWABE.com intelpatent@schwabe.com inteldocs _ docketing@cpaglobal.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHRISTOPHER L. ELFORD and HOW ARD P. TSOI Appeal2014-009749 Application 12/978,082 Technology Center 2100 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection of claims 1, 3 through 5, 8, 10 through 12, 15, 18, 19, 22, 31, 32, and 35 through 44. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. Appeal2014-009749 Application 12/978,082 INVENTION This invention is directed to a method to enable indirect remote interaction with a web browser using gestures. See Abstract. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced below. 1. A method comprising: analyzing code for a web page to be displayed by a web browser application on a first device to identify an actionable area on the web page, the code having additional information, corresponding to the actionable area, such that if the web page is displayed with a second device, the second device different from the first device and having a positioning cursor, the additional information is displayed in response to a floatover by the positioning cursor of the second device; replacing or augmenting the actionable area in the display of the web page by the web browser application on the first device with a visual cue, prior to user interaction with the displayed web page, to suggest a user gesture to effectuate selection of the actionable area; identifying a user motion directed at the first device; identifying the user motion as an input gesture; processing the input gesture to determine a selection of the actionable area; and providing the selection to the web browser application to enable the associated additional information of the selected actionable area to be displayed on the first device. REJECTION AT ISSUE The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 3 through 5, 8, 10 through 12, 15, 18, 19, 22, 31, 32, and 35 through 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Park (US 2010/0107054 Al; Apr. 29, 2010), Wyler et al. 2 Appeal2014-009749 Application 12/978,082 (US 2009/0044098 Al; Feb. 12, 2009), and Amento et al. (US 2012/0151420 Al; June 14, 2012). Final Act. 3-20. 1 ISSUE Appellants present several arguments, on pages 7 through 15 of the Appeal Brief and pages 2 through 5 of the Reply Brief, directed to the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1 and 8. These arguments present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the skilled artisan would combine the teachings of Park and Wyler as recited in representative claim 1? ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief, the Examiner's rejections, and the Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments. Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3 through 5, 8, 10 through 12, 15, 18, 19, 22, 31, 32, and 35 through 39. In the Appeal Brief, Appellants assert the Examiner has not provided an articulated rationale to combine the teachings of Park and Wyler. Ans. 7- 11. Appellants argue Park teaches analyzing a web page to be displayed by a web browser to determine if there is a mouseover area and, when a non- mouse based navigation (focus based navigation) is moved to the mouseover 1 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief dated May 19, 2014 ("App. Br."); the Reply Brief dated September 15, 2014 ("Reply Br."); Final Office Action mailed December 18, 2013 ("Final Act."); and the Examiner's Answer mailed July 16, 2014 ("Ans."). 3 Appeal2014-009749 Application 12/978,082 area, lower level items are displayed. App. Br. 8. Appellants assert even if Park's list of lower level items corresponds to the claimed visual cues, they are only displayed in response to actuation of a key by the user and not prior to the user interaction as claimed. App. Br. 8. Further, Appellants argue Wyler teaches a system for displaying web content by arranging the web page to be readily viewable on a display screen. App. Br. 10. Additionally Appellants assert Wyler does not discuss displaying information in response to a float over as recited in claim 1. Based upon these arguments, Appellants assert the rejection is in error, as there is no indication of which portion of Wyler is meant to be relevant to Park. App. Br. 11. In response to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner finds Wyler teaches when a user requests a web page the web page is downloaded and converted to a representation that is analyzed for elements to be represented. Ans. 4. The Examiner finds this teaching of downloading and analyzing the whole web page, when combined with Park, teaches the claimed limitations. Ans. 4---6; Final Act. 4--6. The Examiner reasons this combination would improve functionalities for displaying web content. Ans. 5; Final Act. 6. We have reviewed the Examiners' findings, conclusions in the Examiner's Answer and Final Rejection and we concur with the Examiner and are not persuaded of error by Appellants' arguments. We additionally note Park teaches the lower level items that correspond to the claimed visual cues are displayed. There are a limited number of alternatives for the display, (i.e. prior to, or in response to user interaction); the claim merely represents one of two possibilities and the Wyler reference demonstrates that is it known to analyze and display information (while not necessarily disclosing mouseover) prior to user input. 4 Appeal2014-009749 Application 12/978,082 Appellants further assert modifying Park to display prior to the user interaction would render Park unusable, as several of the displays would overlap and not be viewable. App. Br. 12-14. Further, Appellants applying the same reasoning, assert the combination is contrary to the purpose of Wyler, to reduce the amount of information. App. Br. 14. The Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to these arguments on page 7 through 9 of the Answer. We concur with the Examiner. Appellants' arguments are relying on one example of Park's invention to assert the display would not be viewable. We do not consider the skilled artisan to take such a narrow view of Park's teachings and as such would not modify the teachings to produce a display where elements overlap and are un-viewable. "A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." K-SR lnt '!Co. v. Teleflex inc., 550 lLS. 398, 421 (2007). Thus, Appellants' arguments directed to the rejection of claim 1 have not persuaded us of e1Tor and we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and claims 3 through 5, l 0 through 12, 31, and 3 2 which are not separately argued. Claims 15, 18 through 22, 35 through 39 Appellants argue the Examiner's rejection of these claims is in enor as the Examiner has not addressed the limitation "prior to user interaction with the displayed vveb page" as recited in each of independent clairns 15, 19, and 37. App. Br. 15. Appellants acknovvledge the Exarniner cited \Vyler for this limitation in cfaim l, but that the discussion of claims 15, 19, and 37 do not address this limitation. App. Br. 15----16; Reply Br. 6. Further, 5 Appeal2014-009749 Application 12/978,082 Appellants argue the rejection of these claims is also in error for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1. \Ve are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's rejection by these arguments. \Vhile the Examiner's rationale addressing claims 15, 19, and 37, omitted this 1 imitation, this is merely a cut and paste error, and Appe11ants were apprised that the combination of \Vyler and Park is being relied upon to teach this limitation. The Examiner's rejection makes clear that each of independent claims 1, 15, 19, and 37 are subject to the same rejection and the Exarniner's discussion of claim 1 makes it clear that the Examiner was relying upon \Vyler in combination with Park to teach this limitation. Fmiher, as discussed above, Appellants' arguments has not persuaded us of error in the rejection of claim l. Claim 39 Appellants argue the Exarniner's rejection of this claim is in error because the Examiner states claim 39 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 29, however the Examiner's Final Rejection has not addressed claim 29, which has been canceled. Ans. 1 O; App. Br. 16. The Examiner states the rationale for claim 29 was provided in a prior action. Ans. 10. Thus, Appellants were apprised of the Examiner's findings and conclusions with respect to claim 39. Appellants have not asserted the prior office action presented an improper rejection of claim 39 nor have Appellants identified an error in the findings related to these claims. Thus, Appellants have not identified in error in the Examiner's findings or conclusion with respect to these claims. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 39 flw the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1. 6 Appeal2014-009749 Application 12/978,082 Claims 40 through 44 Appellants argue the Examiners has not shown the combination of the references teach the limitation directed to the apparatus which "does not include a positioning cursor." App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 7. In response to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner states: Park describes a typical mobile device that not only include the embodiment of web page navigation described in the specification but other features commonly found in mobile devices. A description of a mobile device would have suggested to a person having ordinary skill in the arts there would be no positioning cursor on an address book with a list of names a user would scroll through. Ans. 11. We disagree with the Examiner, as the Examiner has identified insufficient evidence to show the combination of the references teaches the disputed limitation. As each of dependent claims 40 through 44 recites a limitation directed to not including a positioning cursor, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims. DECISION We sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3 through 5, 8, 10 through 12, 15, 18, 19, 22, 31, 32, and 35 through 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 40 through 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation