D2L Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 4, 2021

2019006698 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 4, 2021)

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.
14/049,801 10/09/2013 Brian CEPURAN K8001234US 4233
34236 7590 03/04/2021
GOWLING WLG (CANADA) LLP
50 QUEEN STREET NORTH, STE. 1020
P.O. BOX 2248
KITCHENER, ONTARIO N2H6M2
CANADA
EXAMINER
TSENG, LEON Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2441
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/04/2021 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):
JEFF.WONG@GOWLINGWLG.COM
VAL.COTTRILL@GOWLINGWLG.COM
Waterloo.IP@gowlingwlg.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRIAN CEPURAN
Appeal 2019-006698
Application 14/049,801
Technology Center 2400

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–18, 21, and 22, which are all of the
pending claims. See Non-Final Act. 1; Brief 2. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as D2L Corporation.
Brief 2.
Appeal 2019-006698
Application 14/049,801

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s Specification describes a “method and system for using
various loading techniques to load components of a webpage.” Spec. ¶ 2.
By way of background, Appellant’s Specification describes use of “a
browser software application on a computer to locate, retrieve, load, render
and display webpage.” Id. ¶ 3. According to Appellant’s Specification,
“[o]ne of the key factors in a user’s webpage viewing experience is the load
time for a webpage. The faster the load time, the better the user experience.”
Id. ¶ 5.
Purportedly to improve the user experience in loading webpages,
Appellant’s Specification describes a system for dynamically loading a
webpage utilizing both an in-line strategy, in which components are loaded
in a specified order (such as from top to bottom), as well as an adaptive
strategy, in which components are loaded in an order based on properties of
the device on which the page is to be displayed. Id. ¶ 27.
Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system for dynamically loading a webpage comprising:
one or more processors configured to:
receive a user requested webpage from a host
server and further configured to identify a plurality of
components of the webpage;
determine a loading method for each component
based at least in part on one or more loading factors associated
with the corresponding component, wherein the loading method
may be either in-line loading or adaptive loading, wherein the
one or more loading factors comprises a current load of a server
associated with the webpage;
Appeal 2019-006698
Application 14/049,801

3
load components determined to be in-line
components; and
determine a loading hierarchy for adaptive loading
components and load components based at least in part on the
loading hierarchy, wherein the loading hierarchy is determined
at least in part on historical viewing information associated with
a user;
one or more memories coupled to the one or more
processors and configured to provide the one or more
processors with instructions.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Wen2 US 2005/0138140 A1 June 23, 2005
D’Angelo US 2011/0302485 A1 Dec. 8, 2011
Riviello US 2014/0280472 A1 Sept. 18, 2014
REJECTION3
Claims 1–18, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)4 as
obvious over the combination of Wen, D’Angelo, and Riviello. Non-Final
Act. 5–12.

2 All references are cited using the first-named inventor.
3 The Non-Final Action also includes a rejection of all pending claims under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Non-Final
Act. 5. The Examiner has withdrawn that rejection. Ans. 3.
4 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) included revisions to
35 U.S.C. § 103 that became effective on March 16, 2013. Because the
present application claims the benefit of priority of a provisional application
filed before March 16, 2013 (Spec. ¶ 1), the Examiner applies the pre-AIA
version of the statutory basis for unpatentability. Non-Final Act. 3.
Appeal 2019-006698
Application 14/049,801

4
OPINION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments the Examiner has erred. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072,
1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). We concur with Appellant’s contention
the Examiner erred in finding Wen teaches or suggests the step,
determine a loading method for each component based at
least in part on one or more loading factors associated with the
corresponding component, wherein the loading method may be
either in-line loading or adaptive loading, wherein the one or
more loading factors comprises a current load of a server
associated with the webpage[,]
as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in
independent claim 11.5 Brief 20, 22 (Claims App.); see id. at 10–11.
The Examiner finds Wen teaches or suggests the “determine a loading
method” limitation by disclosing whether to download a network resource,
wherein “the network resource is downloaded only when the content-length
of the network resource is smaller than the threshold [using the content-
length threshold as a factor to determine whether or not to automatically
download or not].” Non-Final Act. 6–7 (citing Wen ¶ 15).
Appellant argues this finding is in error because “Paragraph [0015] of
Wen merely discloses whether to download a resource. . . . Determining
whether to download a resource is different from the presently recited
‘determining a loading method.’” Brief 10 (emphases added; original
emphasis omitted).

5 Appellant’s contentions present additional issues. Because the identified
issue is dispositive of Appellant’s arguments on appeal, we do not reach the
additional issues.
Appeal 2019-006698
Application 14/049,801

5
The Examiner responds by stating that the rejection relies on both
paragraphs 15 and 16 of Wen. Ans. 4. The Examiner finds paragraph 15 of
Wen teaches a network resource is not downloaded until the system has
enough memory, whereas paragraph 16
then teaches the alternate case, where the network resource
management loading module 12 will first select a network
server 13 having a relatively high number of network resources
to be downloaded, and further first selects a network resource
having a relatively fast decoding speed for transferring network
resource, and the network resource having relatively small
content-length is downloaded first.
Ans. 5 (emphasis added; original emphasis omitted).
The Examiner then states that, together, paragraphs 15 and 16 of Wen
show “determine a loading method” by “either choosing to have a user
decide if he or she wants to download the network resource if the content-
length of the required resource is not recognized, or by automatically using
the network resource management loading module 12 download the network
resource having relatively small content-length first.” Id. In other words,
the Examiner finds Wen discloses alternate cases for downloading a network
resource, and it is on that basis the Examiner finds Wen teaches “determine
a loading method.” See id.
The Examiner’s finding that Wen discloses “alternate” cases for
determining a loading method is not supported by the record. In
paragraph 15, Wen discloses determining whether to download a network
resource at all, the determination based on whether the user’s system has
enough memory or whether the download time is under a predetermined
threshold. Wen ¶ 15. Wen further discloses that, if the download condition
is not satisfied, the resource will not be downloaded; instead, “a small icon is
Appeal 2019-006698
Application 14/049,801

6
displayed on a position of the browser screen,” and the user can then decide
whether to download the resource. Id.
Thus, the determination disclosed in Wen is whether to automatically
download or stop trying. This is also illustrated in the flow chart of Wen’s
Figure 2, block S205, which asks “whether to download[] the network
resource.” Id. at Fig. 2. If the decision is “no,” then the next step is “cutting
off from the network server”; if the decision is “yes,” then the system
“request[s] . . . transmission of the network resource” in block S206. Id.
Paragraph 16 of Wen then discloses the manner of downloading the
resource that occurs in block S206 of Figure 2 once the system has decided
that downloading will occur. In particular, Wen discloses the network
management loading module selects a network server “having a relatively
high number of network resources to be downloaded,” and also selects “a
network resource having a relatively fast decoding speed for transferring
network resource[s].” Id. ¶ 16.
In short, because the Examiner’s findings regarding the “determine a
download method” limitation are premised on a reading of the cited art
(Wen) that is not supported by the record, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
finding that the prior art of record teaches or suggests
determine a loading method for each component based at
least in part on one or more loading factors associated with the
corresponding component, wherein the loading method may be
either in-line loading or adaptive loading, wherein the one or
more loading factors comprises a current load of a server
associated with the webpage[,]
as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in
independent claim 11. Accordingly, on this record, we do not sustain the
Appeal 2019-006698
Application 14/049,801

7
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1 and 11 or of their
respective dependent claims.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1–18, 21, and 22 is
not sustained.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–18, 21, 22 103(a) Wen, D’Angelo,
Riviello
1–18, 21, 22
REVERSED