Ex Parte Ivory et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2017

13911953 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2017)

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.
13/911,953 06/06/2013 Andrew J. Ivory RSW920130086US1 6006
58139 7590
IBM CORP. (WSM)
c/o WINSTEAD P.C.
P.O. BOX 131851
DALLAS, TX 75313
05/02/2017 EXAMINER
NGUYEN, CHAU T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2177
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2017 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):
patdocket@winstead.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREW J. IVORY, TODD E. KAPLINGER,
AARON K. SHOOK, and DAVID M. STECHER
Appeal 2017-000605
Application 13/911,953
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-000605
Application 13/911,953
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1—14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
The invention relates to optimizing the loading of a web page based
on aggregated user preferences for the elements of the web page (Spec. 11).
Specifically, the invention provides “a means for loading elements of a web
page based on the relative priority of the elements of the web page thereby
loading elements of interest prior to elements of non-interest” (Spec. 138).
The relative priority of web page elements is determined by receiving
indications of elements of interest from users who have requested and loaded
the web page, and dynamically updating a list of the web page elements
sorted based on popularity in accordance with the received indications (see
Spec. 1140-50). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A computer program product embodied in a non-transitory
computer readable storage medium for optimizing the loading of
a web page, the computer program product comprising the
programming instructions for:
receiving indications of web page elements of interest of a
web page from a plurality of client devices;
updating a list of web page elements of said web page
sorted in terms of popularity based on said received indications
of web page elements of interest of said web page;
receiving a request to retrieve said web page;
2
Appeal 2017-000605
Application 13/911,953
accessing said sorted list of web page elements of said web
page; and
transmitting data to populate content of web page elements
of said web page in an order based on said sorted list.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
James Burk, “Simplicity and JavaScript Modules” (Jan. 11, 2012)
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ehring and Lee.
Claims 3 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Ehring, Lee,
and Suesserman.
Claims 4 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ehring, Lee, Suesserman, and Fisher.
Claims 6 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ehring, Lee, and Wistendahl.
Claims 7 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ehring, Lee, and Burk.
REFERENCES
Wistendahl
Suesserman
Ehring
Lee
Fisher
US 5,708,845 Jan. 13, 1998
US 2005/0086344 A1 Apr. 21,2005
US 2005/0097008 A1 May 5, 2005
US 2009/0043732 A1 Feb. 12, 2009
US 2009/0287824 A1 Nov. 19, 2009
REJECTIONS
3
Appeal 2017-000605
Application 13/911,953
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds the combination of Ehring and Lee discloses all
the limitations of independent claim 1, including that Lee teaches
“transmitting data to populate content of web page elements of said web
page in an order based on said sorted list” (Final Act. 3—4). Appellants
contend there is no “language in Lee that teaches transmitting data to
populate content of web page elements of the web page in an order based
on the sorted list” (App. Br. 12). We agree with Appellants.
Lee discloses a method for providing a search result list to a user,
where the list is sorted according to “importance information” (Lee, 133).
Lee further discloses the search results may be included in a web page (Lee,
1 51). In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner asserts:
Lee discloses . . . transmitting for displaying a search result list
information through a browser. As explained above, the web
page elements are implied here. Regarding “in an order based on
the sorted list”—that is supported by displaying a search result
list in the browser because it is implied that the list would be
displayed in the browser in the order it was sorted.
(Ans. 18). We interpret the Examiner’s findings as mapping Lee’s list of
search results to the claimed “web page elements.” However, even if we
were to find Lee’s search results—i.e., the “web page elements”—are
transmitted to a client computer in the order of the sorted importance of the
search results as part of the loading of a search result web page, the
Examiner has not shown the order of search results is based on a pre-sorted
list of web page elements, as in claim 1. That is, claim 1 requires first
“updating a list of web page elements of said web page sorted in terms of
popularity based on said received indications of web page elements of
4
Appeal 2017-000605
Application 13/911,953
interest of said web page,” then “transmitting data to populate content of
web page elements of said web page in an order based on said sorted list.” In
other words, the claimed transmission order is based on prior user feedback
regarding the web page elements in the particular web page that comprises
the web page elements. In Lee, the search result list web page is
dynamically generated from a database based on a user’s search query (see
Lee, H72, 83), and is not a web page for which there is prior user feedback
indicating the popularity of web page elements that are a part of that web
page. Accordingly, we find the Examiner has not shown Lee teaches
“transmitting data to populate content of web page elements of said web
page in an order based on said sorted list"
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 1, independent claim 8, and dependent
claims 2—7 and 9—14 for similar reasons.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—14 are
reversed.
REVERSED
5