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.
12/488,195 06/19/2009 Chad C. Gibson 327347.01 8964
69316 7590 12/13/2016
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
EXAMINER
BHARGAVA, ANIL K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2142
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/13/2016 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):
u sdocket @ micro soft .com
chriochs @microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHAD C. GIBSON, SARA TAHIR,
CHRISTOPHER A. EVANS, MARCUS E. PINA, and
RICHARD L. MAINS1
Appeal 2015-007115
Application 12/488,195
Technology Center 2100
Before JASON V. MORGAN, KEVIN C. TROCK, and SHARON FENICK,
Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 3—12, 14—19, 22, 24, and 25. Claims 2, 13, 20, 21, and
23 are canceled. Br. 27, 29, and 31. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE and enter a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION.
1 Appellants identify Microsoft Corporation as the real party in interest. Br.
3.
Appeal 2015-007115
Application 12/488,195
Invention
Appellants disclose persistent media playback techniques using web
pages configured for integration with a media player persistently displayed
by a browser during navigation among web pages.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized, is
1. A method comprising:
serving a media player by one or more servers as a first
webpage via a network for display by a browser of a device, the
first webpage comprising the media player being configured to
play media of a website which contains the first webpage, the
media player served from the website without client side
components for installation by the device; and
causing one or more other web pages of the website,
served via the network by the one or more servers for display
by the browser of the device, to be integrated within the first
webpage of the website comprising the media player so that the
media player is persistently displayed by the browser to play
the media of the one or more other webpages of the website
displayed within the first webpage of the website comprising
the media player during navigation of the website.
Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3—12, 14—19, 22, 24, and 252 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rogers (US 2009/0164641 Al;
published June 25, 2009), Messer (US 2007/0260700 Al; published Nov. 8,
2 The Examiner erroneously includes clam 23 in the statement of the
rejection (Final Act. 2) even though this claim is canceled. Br. 31.
2
Appeal 2015-007115
Application 12/488,195
2007), and Windes (US 2010/0281042 Al; published Nov. 4, 2010). Final
Act. 2-9.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Rogers, Messer,
and Windes teaches or suggests: (1) a “first webpage comprising the media
player being configured to play media of a website which contains the first
webpage, the media player served from the website without client side
components for installation by the device” and (2) “one or more other web
pages of the website . . . integrated within the first webpage of the website
comprising the media player so that the media player is persistently
displayed by the browser . . . during navigation of the website,” as recited in
claim 1?
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Rogers’ display of
controls as part of a web browser status bar that allows for playback of
media, even when the user navigates away from a content service’s web
page, teaches or suggest a first webpage comprising the media player where
the media player is persistently displayed by the browser. Final Act. 3
(citing, e.g., Rogers H 51, 68). The Examiner relies on Messer, which uses
browser plug-ins to provide persistent media across web pages, to teach or
suggest one or more other web pages of the website being integrated within
the first webpage of the website comprising the media player. Final Act. 3^4
(citing, e.g., Messer Figs. 1, 2, || 6—12, 20-23). The Examiner relies on
Windes, which teaches the use of tags that can be used to embed video on a
web page that includes video player functionality, to teach or suggest the
3
Appeal 2015-007115
Application 12/488,195
media player served from the website without client side components for
installation by the device. Final Act. 4 (citing Windes 82, 89).
Appellants contend the Examiner erroneously relies on Messer’s use
of a persistent media player that is part of browser plug-in, rather than as
part of a first webpage, in combination with the single, non-persistent media
player of Windes to teach or suggest the claimed media player. See Br. 12-
lb. In particular, Appellants argue that Messer embeds its persistent media
player via a browser, rather than providing it through a web page, and that
the Examiner’s findings do not show that it would have been obvious to an
artisan of ordinary skill to provide the persistent media player as part of a
web page given that the Windes’ media player is not persistent. Id. at 15.
The Examiner notes that Windes, rather than Messer, was cited to
teach or suggest a media player that is part of a web page. Ans. 4.
However, the Examiner relies on Messer to teach or suggest providing a
persistent media player without providing findings showing that the media
player of Windes could be made persistent. See id. (citing Messer || 6—9).
The Examiner’s findings show that it would have been obvious to an
artisan of ordinary skill, based on Rogers, Messer, and Windes, that
embedding a media player in a web page in the manner of Windes, but
allowing navigation to other web pages in the manner of Rogers and Messer,
would have been a desirable feature. However, the Examiner’s findings
only provide evidence that it was known to provide media player persistence
through monitoring code that displays controls as part of a status bar (see,
e.g., Rogers 1 68) or as a browser plug-in (see, e.g., Messer 121). The
Examiner’s findings do not show it would have been obvious to implement
such persistence through a web page itself. Thus, the Examiner’s findings
4
Appeal 2015-007115
Application 12/488,195
do not show that the combination of Rogers, Messer, and Windes teaches or
suggests: (1) a “first webpage comprising the media player being configured
to play media of a website which contains the first webpage, the media
player served from the website without client side components for
installation by the device” and (2) “one or more other web pages of the
website . . . integrated within the first webpage of the website comprising the
media player so that the media player is persistently displayed by the
browser . . . during navigation of the website,” as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 1, or claims 3—12, 14—19, 22, 24, and 25, which contain
similar recitations and that are similarly rejected.
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
Although the Examiner’s findings do not show that it would have
been obvious to implement persistence of a media player through a web
page, such persistence would have been obvious in further light of the use of
inline frames, which allowed authors to insert an HTML document (i.e., a
web page) in the middle of another HTML document. See Dave Raggett, et
al., eds., HTML 4.0 Specification, W3C Working Draft, available at https://
www.w3.org/TR/WD-html40-970708/html40.txt (July 8, 1997) (“Raggett”).
As Appellants acknowledge, the web page of Windes provides a non-
persistent media player. See Br. 15. The Examiner’s findings as they relate
to Rogers and Messer show that it would have been desirable to make this
media player persist while other web pages integrated within the web page
providing the media player are navigated. See Ans. 3^4 (citing, e.g., Rogers
1 68; Messer || 6—12). Raggett teaches or suggests that a first web page can
persist while other web pages integrated—using inline frames—within that
5
Appeal 2015-007115
Application 12/488,195
first web page are navigated. It would have been obvious to an artisan of
ordinary skill that the media player persistence of Rogers and Messer could
have been implemented in the media player Windes embeds in a web page
by integrating other web pages within the media player web page as inline
frames. Such an implementation would have been a predictable use of inline
frames—which allow a web page to persist while navigating additional web
pages integrated within the persistent web page—to yield the predictable
result of providing persistence of a media player provided by a web page,
where it would have been known that making a media player persist while
navigating web pages was a desirable feature (see, e.g., Messer 1 6; Rogers
168).
We adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings and conclusions (Final
Act. 2—11; Ans. 3—11), as modified by the findings presented herein with
respect to Raggett. Therefore, we newly reject claims 1, 3—12, 14—19, 22,
24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Messer,
Rogers, Windes, and Raggett.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3—12, 14—19,
22, 24, and 25.
We newly reject claims 1, 3—12, 14—19, 22, 24, and 25 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides that, “[a] new ground of rejection
pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.”
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellants, 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
6
Appeal 2015-007115
Application 12/488,195
to avoid termination of proceedings (37 C.F.R. § 1.197 (b)) 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 37 C.F.R. § 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 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
REVERSED
37 C.F.R, $ 41.50(b)
7
Appeal 2015-007115
Application 12/488,195
APPENDIX
Excerpt from HTML 4.0 Specification W3C Working Draft 8-July-1997
Inline frames: the IFRAIVE element
[Your user agent does not support frames or is currently configured
not to display frames. Click to retrieve
t he related document .]
Inline frames may not be resized (and thus, they do not take the noresize
at t ribut e).
Note: FfTIVL documents may also be embedded in other FfTIVL documents with the
OBJECT element. See the section on including files in FfTIVL documents for
details.
8