Ex Parte Redpath

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2013

10654214 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/654,214 09/03/2003 Richard Redpath RSW920030154US1 (284) 4642
46320 7590 09/03/2013
CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''''KEEFE, LLP
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, FL 33434
EXAMINER
SWEARINGEN, JEFFREY R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2445
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/03/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte RICHARD REDPATH
____________________

Appeal 2011-001260
Application 10/654,214
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and JEFFREY S. SMITH,
Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-001260
Application 10/654,214

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a second rejection of
claims 1-4, 6, 8-10, and 24 (App. Br. 2). Claims 5, 7, 13, 15, 18, and 21
have been cancelled and claims 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, and 23 have
been withdrawn (id.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to a system and method for
displaying web content on a mobile device independent of whether or not
the mobile device is connected to a network; wherein, the mobile device can
request updates to compressed files from a web server and decompress these
files (Abstract).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A mobile device for displaying information
comprising page elements defining web site content stored on a
server in a network, the mobile device comprising:
a memory containing:
a web browser for displaying a web site;
a software component for receiving a compressed file
containing compressed page elements, for decompressing the
compressed file into page elements, and storing the page
elements to the memory, the software component reading the
stored page elements and serving the page elements to the web
browser; and
a processor for running the web browser and the software
component, wherein
Appeal 2011-001260
Application 10/654,214

3
the software component operates to cause a request for an
update to the compressed file, and
the request to update the compressed file contains a
listing of stored page element names and their associated last
modified date locally stored.

C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Van Huben US 6,327,594 B1 Dec. 4, 2001
Kloba US 6,341,316 B1 Jan. 22, 2002
Gouge US 6,931,429 B2 Aug. 16, 2005
Kouznetsov US 7,096,501 B2 Aug. 22, 2006
Bishop US 7,222,101 B2 May 22, 2007

Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kloba in view of Bishop.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kloba in view of Bishop and Kouznetsov.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kloba in view of Bishop and Van Huben.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kloba in view of Bishop and Gouge.

II. ISSUES
The dispositive issues before us are whether the Examiner has erred in
determining that the combination of Kloba and Bishop teaches or would
have suggested a “software component [that] operates to cause a request for
Appeal 2011-001260
Application 10/654,214

4
an update to the compressed file” and that “the request to update the
compressed file contains a listing of stored page element names and their
associated last modified date locally stored” (claim 1, emphasis added).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
The Invention
1. According to Appellant, page element includes computer files
containing text, graphic, video, audio data or any combination thereof (Spec.
10:5-6).
Kloba
2. Kloba discloses a client-server system that enables the user to
view Internet content off-line using cached Web pages on the client device;
wherein, when the user selects a page to view on the client 108, the page is
obtained either from the cache of the client 108 or from the server 104
(when the page is not in the cache) during on-line mode or a sync process
when not on-line (col. 17, ll. 49-52).
3. Synchronization of data from the server to the client occurs
periodically which includes is a specific process of copying, adding,
filtering, removing, updating and merging the information between a client
and a server (col. 5, ll. 35-62).
4. A user is enabled to create a bookmark by clicking on an
automatic channel link wherein a script in the automatic channel Web page
queries the browser the URL for of the previous Web site and automatically
populates an automatic channel form for the Web site to be added to the
Appeal 2011-001260
Application 10/654,214

5
user’s list of channels (col. 26, ll. 57-61). A user may edit channel
parameter settings including the channel name, root URL (col. 30, ll. 18-21).
Bishop
5. Bishop discloses a personal digital assistant (PDA) portal which
facilitates securing content which is collected, assembled, and delivered to
the PDA device from a server (col. 1, ll. 20-24). When the PDA user wants
to view the secure information, the user enters the pass-phrase, which will be
used to decrypt the secure information (col. 24, ll.1-4).
6. After a pre-set amount of time, the information is deleted from
the PDA and the user may enter the pass-phrase again for the updated file
(col. 24, ll. 5-10).
7. System includes any of various suitable security features, such
as firewalls, access codes, encryption, de-encryption, compression,
decompression, and/or the like (col. 7, ll. 27-35).
8. In addition, a PDA portal includes a method for collecting
specific information of interest to a particular user and making it available
for use on their device, where data is updated when the device is connected
to a network and ‘synchronized’ (col. 4, ll. 3-9).

IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 24
Appellant contends that “Kloba does not teach a request for an update
to a compressed file” since client and server “knows what data is … ‘on the
client’” (App. Br. 10-11). Appellant contends further that the Bishop’s
disclosure of “[t]he fact that a compressed data is decompressed in order to
display information is not relevant to whether Kloba teaches a request for an
Appeal 2011-001260
Application 10/654,214

6
update to a compressed file” (App. Br. 13). Appellant finally argues that the
Examiner’s finding is silent about “the request to update the compressed file
contains a listing of stored page element names and their associated last
modified date locally stored” (App. Br. 14).
However, the Examiner finds that “Kloba does request an update to a
file” which “occurs during the synchronization step of Kloba” and “Kloba
did disclose the transmission of compressed data to the mobile device” (Ans.
7). The Examiner finds further that “Bishop augments the teachings of
Kloba by disclosing how a file could be updated during synchronization”
including “the use of compression” (Ans. 7). The Examiner notes that
“[c]laim 1 does not refer to a ‘last modified date of the web page,’” rather, it
“refers to a listing of stored page element names and their associated last
modified date locally stored” which may be interpreted to be “the last time
the file was downloaded to the local mobile device and NOT the last time
the file was modified on the server” (Ans. 8). The Examiner finds finally
that the disclosure in Kloba to “custom channels to identify Web pages using
URLs, which are addresses” represents “‘a listing of stored page element
names’” (id.).
We give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997). We note that claim 1 merely requires that the software component
“operates to” perform a request for an update to the compressed file, wherein
such “operates to” language merely represents a statement of intended use of
the software component. An intended use will not limit the scope of the
claim because it merely defines a context in which the invention operates.
Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d
Appeal 2011-001260
Application 10/654,214

7
1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Thus, we conclude that claim 1 merely
requires a software that is capable of requesting an update to a compressed
file.
We note further that claim1 does not define “page element” other than
“the request” contains a listing of stored names and associated last modified
date thereof. The Specification discloses that a page element refers to a
computer file of text, graphics, video or audio data (FF 1). Thus, we give
“page element” its broadest reasonable interpretation as any file wherein
data associated therewith is contained in the request.
Kloba discloses a client-server system that enables the user to view
Internet content off-line using cached Web pages on the client device;
wherein, when the user selects a page to view, the page is obtained either
from the cache of the client or from the server (when the page is not in the
cache) during on-line mode or a sync process when not on-line (FF 2).
Synchronization of data from the server to the client occurs periodically
which includes is a specific process of updating information between a client
and a server (FF 3). When a user creates a bookmark, a script from an
automatic channel link, queries the browser for the URL of the previous
Web site and automatically populates user’s list of channels, including
channel parameters, such as channel name and root URL (FF 4).
We find that the client device that retrieves a Web page from the
cache or from the server comprises software that is capable of requesting an
update to a file. In particular, we find that Kloba’s updating of the list of
channels comprises a request to update a file which contains a listing of
stored page element (file) names with respect to their associated last
modified date locally stored.
Appeal 2011-001260
Application 10/654,214

8
In addition, Bishop discloses a PDA device that enables a user to
request secure information (compressed files) from a server (FF 5 and 7).
After a pre-set amount of time, the information is deleted from the PDA and
the user may enter the pass-phrase again for an updated file (FF 6). Specific
information of interest for a particular user is updated when the device is
connected to a network and ‘synchronized’ (FF 8). We find that the update
information of interest comprises a request to update a compressed file.
In view of our claim construction above, we find that the combination
of Kloba and Bishop at least suggests all the features of claim 1.
Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kloba in view of Bishop. Further,
independent claim 24 having similar claim language and claims 4, 6, 8, and
9 (depending from claim 1) which have not been argued separately, fall with
claim 1.
Claims 2, 3, and 10
Appellant argues that claim 2, 3, and 10 are patentable over the cited
prior art for the same reasons asserted with respect to claim 1 and that the
secondary references do not cure “the argued deficiencies of Kloba and
Bishop” (App. Br. 16-17).
As noted supra, however, we find that the combined teachings of
Kloba and Bishop at least suggest all the features of claim 1. We therefore
affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kloba
in view of Bishop and Kouznetsov, of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Kloba in view of Bishop and Van Huben, and of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 over Kloba in view of Bishop and Gouge.

Appeal 2011-001260
Application 10/654,214

9
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 8-10, and 24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED
llw