Ex Parte Beebe et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 4, 2016

12397319 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 4, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/397,319 0310312009
15093 7590 03/08/2016
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton/Qualcomm
Two Embarcadero Center
8th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3834
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Matthew Beebe
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.
142155 (899473) 7894
EXAMINER
PAN, PHOEBE X
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2142
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/08/2016 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):
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
qcomins t@kilpatricktownsend.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTHEW BEEBE,
JEREMY LYON,
and
MATIAS DUARTE
Appeal2014-002853 1
Application 12/397,319
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH,
and KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 9-12, and 14--19. Claims 2, 8,
and 13 have been canceled. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as The Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, L.P. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-002853
Application 12/397,319
Appellants' Invention
Appellants' invention is directed to a multifunction status indicator
(310) for showing downloading progress of a webpage to a mobile terminal
(110). Spec. i-f 5, Fig. 3A. In particular, while the webpage is being
downloaded, the status indicator (310) displays an "X" to provide the user
the option to stop or cancel the downloading. Id. i-f 32. Upon completion of
the downloading, the visual appearance of the status indicator is modified to
display a refresh icon (320), which the user can select to refresh the
webpage. Id. i-f 35, Fig. 3B.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows:
1. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium
configured to store instructions, the instructions when executed
by a processor cause the processor to execute the steps of:
downloading a web page over a network and displaying
the web page while the web page is being received;
during the downloading and displaying, displaying a
single user interface element showing progress of the
downloading and a symbol or text associated with stopping
retrieval of the downloading;
responsive to a user selection of any portion of the single
user interface element during the downloading and displaying,
canceling the downloading;
upon completion of the downloading and displaying,
modifying the single user interface element to indicate
completion of the downloading; and
responsive to a user selection of any portion of the single
user interface element after completion of the downloading and
displaying, requesting a refresh of the web page.
2
Appeal2014-002853
Application 12/397,319
Repka
Prior Art Relied Upon
Kelly et al. ("Kelly")
US 2005/0223341 Al
US 2006/0101341 Al
Oct. 6, 2005
May 11, 2006
Userstyles.org, Firefox Combine Stop/Reload Buttons, 1--4 (Apr. 29,
2006) (http://userstyles.org/styles/1 Of combine-stop-reload-buttons)
(last visited Aug. 30, 2012) (hereinafter "Firefox").
Rejections on Appeal
Appellants request review of the following Examiner's rejections:
Claims 1, 6, 7, 10-12, 15-17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Firefox and Repka.
Claims 3-5, 9, 14, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Firefox, Repka, and Kelly.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 8-12, and the Reply Brief, pages 4--5.2 We have
reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments. We
are unpersuaded by Appellants' contentions. Except as indicated otherwise,
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 8, 2013) ("App. Br."), the Reply Brief
(filed Dec. 20, 2013) ("Reply Br."), the Final Office Action (mailed Apr. 2,
2013) ("Final Act."), and the Examiner's Answer (mailed Oct. 24, 2013)
("Ans.") for their respective details. We have considered in this Decision
only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other
arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs
are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
3
Appeal2014-002853
Application 12/397,319
we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejections from
which appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer in response to
Appellants' Appeal Brief. See Ans. 2---6, Final Act. 2-13. However, we
highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as
follows.
First, Appellants argue Firefox does not teach or suggest "a single
user interface element showing progress of the downloading and a symbol or
text associated with stopping retrieval of the downloading," as recited in
claim 1. App. Br. 8-9, Reply Br. 4--5. According to Appellants, Firefox's
disclosure of combining a stop button and a reload button into a single
button does not teach or suggest a single user interface that shows
downloading progress of a webpage and a symbol or text associated with
stopping retrieval of the downloading. Id. Therefore, Appellants argue that
selecting any portion of the single button does not teach selecting any
portion of the single user interface element. Id. Further, Appellants argue
because there is no indication of when the button refreshes, when the button
stops, or modifying the button to refresh the webpage which has completed
its downloading, the disclosed single button does not teach the single
interface element. App. Br. 9.
Second, Appellants argue Repka discloses a floatable control area
including a control block for allowing a user to interrupt the loading function
at any time, and another area for indicating information on the progressing
of the loading function. App. Br. 9 (citing Repka i-fi-127-28). However,
Appellants submit because the cited areas are separate and distinct, they do
4
Appeal2014-002853
Application 12/397,319
not teach the single interface element, and thereby do not remedy the noted
deficiencies of Firefox. Id. at 9-10. These arguments are not persuasive
because they are tantamount to an individual attack against the cited
references. Ans. 3--4. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking the
references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of
references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
See also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
We agree with the Examiner that Firefox's disclosure of combining
the stop button and the reload button into a single button capable of
performing both functions teaches a single interface element that enables a
user to stop a download or to reload a downloaded webpage. Ans. 2. We
further agree with the Examiner that Repka teaches a single interface
element capable of performing both the functions of stopping a download, as
well as indicating the download progress. Id. at 2-3 (citing Repka i1i127-
28). We therefore agree with the Examiner that the combined teachings of
Firefox and Repka would predictably result in a single interface element for
canceling the downloading of a webpage, for indicating the download
progress thereof, and for reloading a downloaded page. Id. Accordingly, we
do not agree with the Appellants that the combination of Firefox and Repka
would result in two different buttons/areas, as opposed to a single interface
element. App. Br. 11. As correctly noted by the Examiner, the ordinarily
skilled artisan would readily discern from Firefox and Repka the notion of
integrating in a single button the stop/reload functions, and the
stop/download progress indicator functions. Ans. 3. Consequently, the
5
Appeal2014-002853
Application 12/397,319
ordinarily skilled artisan would readily appreciate that the proposed
combination of the cited references would have reasonably led to the single
interface element for indicating the download progress of a webpage,
stopping the webpage download, and refreshing a completely downloaded
webpage. Id. at 3-5. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the
combination of Firefox and Repka teaches or suggests the disputed
limitations. It follows Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1.
Regarding the rejection of claims 3-7, 9-12, and 14--19, because
Appellants have either not presented separate patentability arguments or
have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously
discussed for patentability of claim 1 above, claims 3-7, 9-12, and 14--19
fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
claims 1, 3-7, 9-12, and 14--19.
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 )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6