Ex Parte LI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 21, 2016

13194824 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/194,824 07 /29/2011
82750 7590 11/23/2016
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP I Google
1400 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1124
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
JIANLI
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.
060963-5519-US 1685
EXAMINER
BYCER, ERIC J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2173
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/23/2016 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):
padocketingdepartment@morganlewis.com
vskliba@morganlewis.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JIAN LI and ADAM R. de BOOR
Appeal2015-006359
Application 13/194,824
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN A. EV ANS, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-22, which constitute all claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The claimed invention relates to "drag and drop downloading of
content" referenced by displayed elements in a web page. Abstract. Claims
1 Appellants identify Google Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 4.
Appeal2015-006359
Application 13/194,824
1, 13, and 18 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and
the subject matter of the appeal, and reads as follows (disputed limitations in
italics):
1. A method comprising:
at a computer system having one or more processors and
memory storing one or more programs executed by the one or
more processors:
rendering a web page using a browser application;
wherein the web page includes a displayed web
page element referencing content stored at a host external to the
computer system; and
wherein rendering the web page includes modifying
the displayed web page element to add one or more distinct
download attributes to the displayed element;
displaying a browser application user interface, including
the rendered web page; and
responding to a drag and drop of the displayed web page
element to a displayed drop location corresponding to a target
application at the computer system and distinct from the browser
application by:
executing content downloading instructions of the
browser application so as to download the referenced content
from the host to the target application in accordance with the
download attributes.
App. Br. 28 (Claims App.).
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-9 and 11-22 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gangadharan (US 2003/0132967 Al;
pub. July 17, 2003) and Sharp, "Native Drag and Drop," July 9, 2009
http://html5doctor.com/native-drag-and-drop/ (retrieved Oct. 2, 2013). Final
Act. 4--19.
2
Appeal2015-006359
Application 13/194,824
Claim 10 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gangadharan, Sharp, and Song et al. (US 2010/0175011
Al; pub. July 8, 2010) ("Song"). Final Act. 17-19.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellants could
have made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). On this record, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in
the rejections from which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer,
and highlight the following for emphasis.
Claims 1-9 and 11-22
Appellants argue all claims other than claim 10 as a group, and choose
claim 1 as representative of the group. App. Br. 12; see 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(iv). Appellants contend the Examiner erred in multiple respects
in rejecting claim 1. We address each argument in tum.
Appellants first argue the Examiner erred in finding the prior art
teaches "executing content downloading instructions of the browser
application so as to download the referenced content from the host to the
target application in accordance with the download attributes." App. Br. 13-
17; Reply Br. 5-8. Specifically, Appellants contend Sharp "does not discuss
'executing content downloading instructions,"' and Gangadharan does not
teach executing such instructions "in accordance with the download
attributes." App. Br. 13. This argument is unpersuasive, because the
Examiner relies on the combination of references as teaching the disputed
3
Appeal2015-006359
Application 13/194,824
limitation. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Namely, the
Examiner finds Gangadharan teaches executing content downloading
instructions, Ans. 24; Final Act. 6-7 (citing Gangadharan i-fi-129, 46, 52, Fig.
2,), while Sharp teaches downloading "in accordance with download
attributes." Ans. 24; Final Act. 7 (citing Sharp 1--4). Appellants'
highlighting of the alleged deficiencies of Sharp and Gangadharan
individually, therefore, does not demonstrate error. See In re Keller, 642
F.2d at 426 ("one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where ... the rejections are based on combinations of
references").
Appellants next argue the Examiner erred in finding Sharp teaches
"download attributes" (which appears in the "rendering the web page"
limitation, as well as the "executing content" limitation discussed above).
App. Br. 15. Appellants assert the "Examiner is conflating 'drag and drop'
attributes as discussed in Sharp with [Appellants'] claimed 'download
attributes."' Id. We disagree.
As the Examiner finds, Sharp teaches adding "event listeners" to
elements to allow for drag and drop, using "setData()" to describe the
element being dragged, and using "dataTransfer()" to control the transfer of
the data defined by setData(). Ans. 25; Final Act. 7 (citing Sharp 1--4).
Sharp further teaches using the "native drag and drop" aspects built into the
HTML 5.0 specification, in order to attach download attributes to a
displayed element, allowing it to be dragged and dropped both within a web
page and from a web page to a non-browser target. Ans. 25; see also Final
Act. 6-7 (citing Gangadharan i129). Although the "drag and drop" elements
taught in the prior art are not labeled "download attributes," obviousness,
4
Appeal2015-006359
Application 13/194,824
like anticipation, is not "an ipsissimis verbis test." Cf In re Bond, 910 F.2d
831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citations omitted). We, like the Examiner, find
one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the teaching of "drag and
drop" (at least in some embodiments in the prior art) to include
downloading. Ans. 25 (citing "event" listeners and "drag and drop"
elements).
Appellants also argue the Examiner erred because, according to
Appellants, Gangadharan is not operable and therefore "provides no relevant
teachings as to how a drag and drop action is to cause files to be transferred
from a website or web server to a web enabled device." App. Br. 22. The
Examiner responds that downloading of files from a web site as referenced
in Gangadharan was "well established in the art at the time of
Gangadharan's invention," and that in any event, Gangadharan teaches the
algorithm "describing the process for file transfer using drag and drop
operations." Ans. 29 (citing Gangadharan i-f 29, Fig. 2).
The prior art cited in the Examiner's obviousness rejection, including
Gangadharan, is entitled to a presumption of operability. See In re Sasse,
629 F.2d 675, 681(CCPA1980); see also, M.P.E.P. § 2121, Prior Art;
General Level of Operability Required to Make a Prima Facie Case, Ninth
Ed. (November 2015). Appellants bear the burden of rebutting this
presumption, by a preponderance of evidence. Id. On the record before us,
Appellants have not done so. Rather, Appellants' support for their
inoperability argument consists wholly of attorney argument regarding
quoted passages in Gangadharan. App. Br. 22-23. Attorney arguments and
conclusory statements are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler,
116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d
5
Appeal2015-006359
Application 13/194,824
699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Appellants direct us to no other evidence, such as
declarations, data, or other factual evidence. See In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303,
315 (CCPA 1979). Accordingly, we find Appellants have not met their
burden on the issue of operability, and we find no error.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not demonstrated the
Examiner erred in rejecting the claims, and we sustain the rejection of
independent claims 1-9 and 11-22 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gangadharan and Sharp.
Claim 10
Appellants argue claim 10 separately, asserting the Examiner erred in
finding the prior art teaches "in accordance with a determination that the
second displayed web page element does not have download attributes,
copying the second displayed web page element to the target application
without copying the respective content referenced by the second web page
element." App. Br. 23-27 (emphasis added); Reply Br. 14--17. The
Examiner finds this limitation taught in Song. Ans. 30-33; Final Act. 20-
21. We are not persuaded the Examiner erred.
As the Examiner finds, Song teaches a Document Object Model
(DOM) node inspected to determine whether there is external content
associated with the node (such as a larger image (external content)
associated with a thumbnail (node)). Ans. 32 (citing Song i-fi-163---66). Song
further teaches various alternative embodiments in which, based on the
aforementioned inspection, the content of the DOM node is either
transferred alone or with its associated external content. Id. 33.
Accordingly, in the Song embodiment teaching content of the DOM node
6
Appeal2015-006359
Application 13/194,824
transferred alone, the "web page element" (DOM node) is copied "without
copying the respective content referenced by" the web page element, as
recited in claim 10. Ans. 32.
We, therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 10 under pre-AIA 3 5
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gangadharan, Sharp, and Song.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-22.
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
7