Ex Parte Cantrell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 26, 2017

13756228 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 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.
13/756,228 01/31/2013 Christian T. Cantrell 2633US01 8016
108982 7590
Wolfe-SBMC
116 W. Pacific Avenue
Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201
EXAMINER
LEE, SOOKIL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2144
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/30/2017 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):
docket@sbmc-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTIAN T. CANTRELL and VINCENT JULIEN HARDY
Appeal 2017-005590
Application 13/756,2281
Technology Center 2100
Before TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1—20. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Adobe Systems
Incorporated (App. Br. 3).
Appeal 2017-005590
Application 13/756,228
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
The present invention generally relates to displaying Web page
content for viewing, and more particularly to reflowing Web page text to
provide the optimal experience for reading the text in the Web page. Spec.
1—3. Independent claim 1 is directed to a computing device; independent
claim 9 is directed to a method; and independent claim 17 is directed to
computer-readable storage media. App. Br. 26, 29, 31.
Claim 1 recites
1. A computing device, comprising:
a display device configured to display a Web page in a browser
application interface, the Web page including displayable text;
a processing system to implement a text reflow browser extension that
is configured to:
determine a size of a viewable area in which the Web page is
displayable in the browser application interface;
determine a resolution of the display device;
determine a column display layout based at least in part on the
determined resolution, the column display layout effective to organize
the displayable text of the Web page for optimal readability at the
determined resolution in the viewable area of the browser application
interface;
determine a number of columns of the column display layout
based on a user input that indicates the displayable text is to be
redistributed across multiple columned pages if the displayable text
spans more than a single columned page of the column display layout;
create the column display layout with the determined number of
columns; and
redistribute the displayable text into the columns of the column
display layout for display in the browser application interface.
2
Appeal 2017-005590
Application 13/756,228
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1—3, 5, 9-11, 13, 17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jackson et al. (US 2013/0305144 Al,
published Nov. 14, 2013) (“Jackson”) and Suzanne et al. (“The straight and
narrow: using columns,” Most Valuable Professional Microsoft (2008))
(“Suzanne”). Final Act. 2.
Claims 4, 7, 8, 12, 15, 16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jackson, Suzanne, and Petrov Nickolov
et al. (US 2007/0204220 Al, published Aug. 30, 2007) (“Petrov Nickolov”).
Final Act. 8.
Claims 6 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Jackson, Suzanne, and Mogilevsky et al. (US 5,588,099,
published Dec. 24, 1996) (“Mogilevsky”). Final Act. 12.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1—16
Claim 1 recites “determine a resolution of the display device” and
“determine a column display layout based at least in part on the determined
resolution, the column display layout effective to organize the displayable
text of the Web page for optimal readability at the determined resolution in
the viewable area of the browser application interface.”
Appellants argue Jackson’s text size “is not the same as text
organization,” and that Jackson’s preservation of “the equivalence of the
reading experience between different OS and tablet devices” does not
correspond to organizing text for optimal readability as required by claim 1.
App. Br. 14 (citing Jackson 149); see also Reply Br. 6.
3
Appeal 2017-005590
Application 13/756,228
Appellants’ contention that Jackson’s focus on preserving the
equivalence of the reading experience does not teach or suggest providing
optimal readability is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1.
Appellants have not provided an explicit definition of “organize the
displayable text of the Web page for optimal readability” as recited in claim
1. When read in light of Appellants’ Specification, the “optimal readability”
of claim 1 encompasses providing an “optimal experience for reading text,”
which can include allowing people to “read more efficiently when text is
arranged in narrow columns” as an example. Spec. 12.
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that claim 1 “only require[s] to
‘organize the displayable text of the Web page for optimal readability’ and
that property can be achieved in different ways,” including Jackson’s
determining the number of columns depending on the pixel density “so that
the quality of the original layout (optimal readability) would be consistently
maintained.” Ans. 5 (citing Jackson 17).
For example, as cited by the Examiner (Final Act. 3), Jackson
discloses:
Once the optimal layout values have been determined for
the device, the content can be rendered into the template . . .
depending on the screen size and pixel density of the device, the
layout will be altered to be equivalent on each device 121, 122
and 123. The look and feel of the layout remains the same but
substantially the same reading experience is provided. As
shown, the page layout 120 is altered depending on the target
device. The number of columns and size of those columns is
different for each device, with each device displaying text of the
same size irrespective of the pixel density.
Jackson 170 (emphasis added). In other words, Jackson teaches
determining optimal layout values, and altering the layout based on the
4
Appeal 2017-005590
Application 13/756,228
target device pixel density, to provide substantially the same reading
experience and alter the number of columns and size of those columns for
the device.
Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence that determining a
column display layout based on the determined device resolution that is
“effective to organize the displayable text of the Web page for optimal
readability,” as required by claim 1 and which encompasses determining a
column display layout for optimal experience for reading text including
organizing text in narrow columns for efficient reading, is not taught or
otherwise suggested by Jackson’s determining optimal layout values based
on the target device’s pixel density that alters the number of columns and
size of the columns for optimal layout.
Appellants further contend the Examiner “has failed to provide
‘articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning’ to support the
conclusion of obviousness”, because the Examiner’s proffered motivation
(see Final Act. 6 (“for the purpose of formatting multi-column setup”)) is
“so sweepingly broad it could be used to cover almost any alteration of
Jackson.” App. Br. 15—17. Appellants argue the Examiner must be cautious
of hindsight bias and ex post reasoning. App. Br. 15—16.
However, in response, the Examiner finds Jackson teaches changing
font size in response to user input and subsequently recalculating the column
widths and content item placement and size. Ans. 6 (citing Jackson Fig. 13,
1116). The Examiner further finds it would be obvious to “modify the
teachings of Jackson with the teachings of Suzanne for the purpose of
utilizing a user input to organize text with use of multiple columns.” Ans. 6.
Appellants have not provided any rebuttal, and thereby have not provided
5
Appeal 2017-005590
Application 13/756,228
persuasive argument against the Examiner’s finding that the combination of
Jackson and Suzanne would be obvious “for the purpose of utilizing a user
input to organize text with use of multiple columns.” As such, we are not
persuaded of Examiner error.
Furthermore, we find Appellants’ allegation of impermissible
hindsight is unsupported in the record. Appellants provide no evidence that
combining the teachings of Jackson and Suzanne, as proffered by the
Examiner (Final Act. 2—6; Ans. 2—6), would have been “uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” (.Leapfrog Enters.
Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007)), nor have
Appellants provided any objective evidence of secondary considerations,
which our reviewing court guides “operates as a beneficial check on
hindsight.” Cheese Systems, Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese and Powder Systems,
Inc., 725 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Accordingly, we sustain the § 103 rejection of claim 1, as well as the
rejections of claims 2—16, not separately argued. See App. Br. 17—21.
Claims 17—20
Claim 17 recites “determine a display orientation of the viewable area
in the browser application interface” and “determine a column display layout
based at least in part on the size and the display orientation of the viewable
area in the browser application interface, and in part on the determined
resolution.”
Appellants additionally contend, with regard to claim 17, that
Jackson’s layouts do not teach a “column display layout based at least in
part on the size and the display orientation of the viewable area” (emphasis
6
Appeal 2017-005590
Application 13/756,228
added). App. Br. 22—23. However, in response, the Examiner finds Jackson
teaches determining the orientation when the pixel density is determined
because, as an example, “1024 x 768 px would be landscape since the width
is greater than the height.” Ans. 7 (citing Jackson | 53). We agree with the
Examiner’s findings that Jackson teaches running processes “for both
portrait and landscape layouts such that if the reader switches orientation,
the layout is responsive.” Ans. 7 (citing Jackson 1123). Appellants have
not rebutted the Examiner’s findings, and thereby have not provided
persuasive argument that the claimed “determine a display orientation” and
“determine a column display layout based at least in part on the . . . display
orientation” is not taught or otherwise suggested by Jackson’s determination
of the orientation and the layout being responsive to the reader switching
orientation.
Accordingly, we sustain the § 103 rejection of claim 17, as well as the
rejections of claims 18—20, not separately argued. See App. Br. 24.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1—20 are 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7