Ex Parte DeLuca et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 11, 2018

13458851 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/458,851 04/27/2012
63675 7590 09/13/2018
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP/IBM SVL
24 Greenway Plaza
SUITE 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77046-2472
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Lisa Seacat DeLuca
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.
SVL920090038US2 7029
EXAMINER
THATCHER,PAULA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2172
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/13/2018 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):
P AIR_eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com
PSDocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LISA SEACAT DELUCA
and STEVEN M. MILLER1
Appeal2016-006215
Application 13/458,851
Technology Center 2100
Before MICHAEL W. KIM, RAMA G. ELLURU, and LYNNE E. PETTIGREW,
Administrative Patent Judges.
PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims
1-3 and 5-21. Claim 4 has been cancelled. App. Br. 39 (Claims App'x). We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellants identify International Business Machines Corporation as the real party
in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-006215
Application 13/458,851
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' invention relates to generating a customized webpage based on
previous browsing activity of a user. Spec. ,r,r 2, 18.
Claims 1 and 21 are independent. Claim 1 is representative:
1. A computer-implemented method for generating a webpage for display, the
computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, from a user, a request to view the webpage comprising a
plurality of portlets;
identifying a time of the request;
retrieving a browsing history of the user and an interaction history of
the user with at least one of the plurality of portlets;
arranging the plurality of portlets on the webpage by operation of one
or more computer processors and based on the browsing history, the
interaction history and the identified time of the request; and
outputting the webpage for display, responsive to the request.
Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 11-20 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act.
3--4.
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5, and 9 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I02(e) as anticipated by Dewar (US 2009/0158166 Al; filed Dec. 14, 2007).
Final Act. 4--7.
The Examiner rejected claim 6 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Dewar in view of Flores (US 2005/0021765 Al; published Jan.
27, 2005). Final Act. 7-8.
2
Appeal 2016-006215
Application 13/458,851
The Examiner rejected claim 7 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Dewar in view of Sah (US 2007 /0204010 Al; published Aug.
30, 2007). Final Act. 8-9.
The Examiner rejected claim 8 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Dewar in view of Scheduler (TDobes, Scheduler, Drupal (Sept.
28, 2003, 4:45 PM), http://web.archive.org/web/20051212044002/http://drupal.org
/project/scheduler). Final Act. 9.
The Examiner rejected claims 10, 11, and 21 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Dewar in view of Chua (US 2009/0276716 Al;
published Nov. 5, 2009). Final Act. 9-13.
The Examiner rejected claims 12-14 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Dewar, Chua, and Scott (US 2007/0083827 Al; published Apr.
12, 2007). Final Act. 13-15.
The Examiner rejected claims 15-18 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Dewar, Chua, Scott, and Minnis (WO 2008/094712 A2;
published Aug. 7, 2008). Final Act. 15-18.
The Examiner rejected claim 19 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Dewar, Chua, Scott, Minnis, and Scheduler. Final Act. 18-19.
The Examiner rejected claim 20 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Dewar, Chua, Scott, Minnis, Scheduler, and Driver (Erica Driver
et al., Collaboration Trends 2006 To 2007, TRENDS, Aug. 16, 2006). Final Act.
19-20.
The Examiner provisionally rejected claims 1 and 21 on the ground of
nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting over claim 1 of copending
Application No. 11/957,103 ("the '103 application") in view of Dewar. Final Act.
21-23.
3
Appeal 2016-006215
Application 13/458,851
The Examiner provisionally rejected claims 1 and 21 on the ground of
nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting over claim 9 of copending
Application No. 12/560,736 ("the '736 application") in view of Dewar. Final Act.
21-23.
ANALYSIS
Claims 11-20 as Allegedly Lacking Written Description
The Examiner finds that claim 11 lacks written description for the limitation
"the interaction history specifies a set of instances including ... typing in a portlet
field." Final Act. 4. Appellants argue that the limitation is supported, for example,
by Figure 2, which shows online encyclopedia portlet 210 having a user input field
for entering desired search terms. Reply Br. 3--4. According to Appellants,
the online encyclopedia portlet 210 receives user input (step 710) in the
form of one or more desired search terms typed into the online
encyclopedia portlet 210, whereafter the user input, portlet, and time of
the user input is recorded in the interaction history 156 (step 720).
Id. at 4 ( citing Fig. 7).
We have reviewed the file and agree with the Examiner that the
Specification lacks adequate support for "the interaction history specifies a set of
instances including ... typing in a portlet field." We find no corresponding
language in the Specification and, even if Figure 2 does show an input field of
portlet 210 for typing, we are unable to find clear disclosure that typing in the input
field of portlet 210, or in any portlet field, is a specified instance of the "interaction
history" as claimed.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. Claims 12-14 depend from claim 11.
4
Appeal 2016-006215
Application 13/458,851
Accordingly, we also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 12-14 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
The Examiner finds that claim 15 lacks written description for the limitation
"each tab having at least two portlets." Appellants argue that the Board decided
this issue with respect to a similar claim in the '736 application. Reply Br. 2; see
Ex parte DeLuca, Appeal 2014-001916, slip op. at 4, 6 (PTAB Feb. 2, 2016).
We have reviewed the file and determine that at least Figure 2 and
paragraphs 18 and 51 of the Specification provide sufficient written description
support for claim 15. For example, Figure 2 shows multiple tabs (Home, Games,
Finance), with the Home tab having at least two portlets 202,206,210,214,218.
Considered with paragraphs 18 and 51, which disclose that a user may interact
with a different set of portlets during different time periods, and that each tab may
correspond to a time period, we find that the Specification supports "each tab
having at least two portlets."
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. Claims 16-20 depend from claim 15 and were
rejected under the same analysis. Accordingly, we also do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 9 as Allegedly Anticipated by Dewar
Independent claim 1 recites "arranging the plurality of portlets on the
webpage ... based on the browsing history, the interaction history and the
identified time of the request." App. Br. 39 (Claims App'x). 2 The Examiner finds
that Dewar teaches arranging the portlets on the webpage based on previously
2 The Board found that Dewar anticipated a claim having a similar limitation in the
'736 application. DeLuca, Appeal 2014-001916, slip op. at 5-7.
5
Appeal 2016-006215
Application 13/458,851
monitored user interactions with the portlets during the time period of the request
to view the webpage. Final Act. 5---6 (citing Dewar ,r,r 29--30). The Examiner
explains that the portlets (referred to as "modules" in Dewar) are arranged based
on different types of user interactions with the portlets, such as clicking on
hyperlinks or hovering a mouse cursor over an item. Id. at 6 ( citing Dewar ,r,r 2 7,
31 ). The Examiner interprets the claimed "browsing history" to encompass a
record of clicking on hyperlinks. Id. at 3, 6.
Appellants argue that Dewar fails to teach interaction history as one basis,
and browsing history as a further basis, in arranging the portlets on the webpage.
App. Br. 13.
We disagree with Appellants. The Examiner at least identifies "hovering
over an item" in Dewar to be an interaction history upon which portlet arrangement
is based. Final Act. 6; see also Ans. 22-23 (Examiner additionally identifies
"typing" and other types of interaction history disclosed in Dewar ,r,r 27-28). The
Examiner further identifies "clicking on hyperlinks" in Dewar as browsing history
upon which portlet arrangement is also based. Final Act. 3, 6. We are persuaded
by the Examiner that Dewar teaches arranging the portlets based on a browsing
history of the user, i.e., clicked hyperlinks, and also based on an interaction history
of the user with at least one of the plurality of portlets, such as hovering over an
item.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that
Dewar teaches "arranging the plurality of portlets on the webpage ... based on the
browsing history, the interaction history and the identified time of the request," and
we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 9 recites "the interaction history being qualified by the time period
matching that of the request from the user." App. Br. 40 (Claims App'x). The
6
Appeal 2016-006215
Application 13/458,851
Examiner finds that Dewar teaches this limitation in that it arranges portlets based
on previously monitored portlet interactions ("usage pattern of user interactions" in
Dewar) associated with the time period of the request to view the webpage. Final
Act. 7 (citing Dewar ,r,r 29--30); see Ans. 23.
Appellants argue:
[E]ven assuming that the usage patterns in Dewar correspond to the
recited interaction history, Dewar is still silent on any arrangement of
portlets being generated based on the interaction history of the user with
portlets in a webpage, where the interaction history is qualified by a
time period matching that of a request from a user.
App. Br. 14 ( emphasis in original).
We agree with the Examiner that Dewar discloses that the interaction history
is qualified by a time period matching that of a request from the user. Dewar
discloses that "[t]he term 'usage pattern' refers to a time or seasonal pattern to
which certain modules are accessed by a user." Dewar ,r 29. Figures 2A and 2B of
Dewar depict different portlet arrangements on a webpage for different time
periods within a day (e.g., morning and evening), based on usage patterns of the
corresponding time period. Id. ,r,r 29, 30. We understand this disclosure to mean
that when the user requests to view or access a webpage, the arrangement of
portlets appearing on the webpage is based on usage patterns (interaction history)
corresponding to the time period in which the user makes the request.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that
Dewar teaches "the interaction history being qualified by the time period matching
that of the request from the user," and we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 9.
Claims 2, 3, and 5 depend from claim 1. Appellants do not argue these
dependent claims separately. See App. Br. 13. Accordingly, we sustain the
7
Appeal 2016-006215
Application 13/458,851
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 5, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Dewar.
Claims 6-8 as Allegedly Obvious
Claims 6-8 depend from claim 1. Appellants argue that the additional
references applied (Flores, Sah, and Scheduler) do not remedy the alleged
deficiencies of Dewar. App. Br. 14--15. As we find no deficiencies in the
Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 as anticipated by Dewar for the
reasons discussed above, we likewise sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 6
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dewar in view of Flores, claim 7
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dewar in view of Sah, and claim 8
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dewar in view of Scheduler.
Claims 10, 11, and 21 as Allegedly Obvious
Over Dewar in view of Chua
Claim 10 recites:
whereby generation of the arrangement of the portlets in the webpage
is further based on the browsing history of the user, wherein the
browsing history of the user is different from the interaction history of
the user . . . the browsing history specifying one or more websites
visited the by the user independent of any interaction between the user
and the portlets ....
App. Br. 40 (Claims App'x). 3 The Examiner finds that Dewar teaches these
limitations except for "the browsing history specifying one or more websites
visited the [sic] by the user independent of any interaction between the user and the
3 The Board found that a claim having a similar limitation in the '736 application
was unpatentable over Dewar in view of Chua. DeLuca, Appeal 2014-001916, slip
op. at 5-8.
8
Appeal 2016-006215
Application 13/458,851
portlets." Final Act. 10 ( citing Dewar ,r,r 27, 31 ). The Examiner finds that Chua
teaches generating the arrangement of portlets based on the browsing history
specifying one or more websites visited by the user independent of any interaction
between the user and portlets. Final Act. 10 (citing Chua ,r,r 7, 15, 32); Ans. 26-27
(citing Chua ,r,r 7, 15, 27, 28, 32).
Appellants argue that Dewar in view of Chua fails to teach any browsing
history as a further basis, apart from the interaction history, in rearranging the
portlets, where the browsing history specifies one or more websites visited by the
user independent of any interaction between the user and the portlets. App. Br. 20.
As discussed above with respect to claim 1, we are persuaded by the
Examiner that Dewar discloses arranging the portlets based on a browsing history
of the user, i.e., clicked hyperlinks, and based on an interaction history of the user
with at least one of the plurality of portlets, such as hovering over an item. See
Final Act. 3, 6 (citing ,r,r 27, 31); Ans. 22-23 (citing Dewar ,r,r 27-28). We are
further persuaded by the Examiner that Chua accounts for "the browsing history
specifying one or more websites visited [] by the user independent of any
interaction between the user and the portlets." Specifically, we are persuaded by
the Examiner that Chua's disclosure of a "click-stream analysis, taking into
account the browser history of a specific user," refers to browser history of the
user's path from website to website, as opposed to browsing through portlet
interactions. Ans. 25-26; see Chua ,r 32.
Appellants further argue that the Examiner has provided insufficient
rationale for the proposed combination of Dewar and Chua. App. Br. 20. We
agree with the Examiner's findings and conclusion that one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to combine Dewar and
9
Appeal 2016-006215
Application 13/458,851
Chua because they are from the same field of endeavor and the combination would
have yielded predictable results. See Final Act. 10-11; Ans. 26-27.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that
Dewar in view of Chua teaches the limitations of claim 10.
Claim 11 recites "wherein the browsing history specifies a set of visited
webpages aside from the webpage." App. Br. 40 (Claims App'x). The Examiner
finds that Dewar's disclosure of browsing history ("monitored user interactions
include clicking a hyperlink") (Final Act. 11 (citing Dewar ,r 27)), combined with
Chua's disclosure of browser history independent of portlet interactions, discussed
above with respect to claim 10 (Ans. 27; see also Ans. 25-26), accounts for this
limitation.
Appellants argue that Dewar is "silent on any browsing history that specifies
a set of visited webpages aside from the webpage" and that "Chua does not cure
these deficiencies of Dewar." App. Br. 21 (emphases in original).
We are persuaded by the Examiner that Dewar in view of Chua teaches that
the browsing history specifies a set of visited webpages aside from the webpage.
As discussed above with respect to claim 10, Chua's disclosure of a "click-stream
analysis, taking into account the browser history of a specific user" refers to
browser history of the user's path from website to website, independent of user
interactions with the portlet. Ans. 25-26; see Chua ,r 32. We find that browsing
history retrieved via a "click-stream analysis" as disclosed by Chua specifies a set
of webpages visited by the user, other than the webpage. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that Dewar in view of Chua teaches
the limitations of claim 11.
Independent claim 21 recites "generating a set of portlet metrics based on
the interaction history and the browsing history, the set of portlet metrics
10
Appeal 2016-006215
Application 13/458,851
including, for each of the plurality of portlets, a portlet interaction frequency with
the respective portlet and a website access frequency associated with the respective
portlet." App. Br. 43 (Claims App'x). The Examiner finds that Dewar teaches
"the use of counts and frequencies of user interactions including the following of
hyperlinks" and assigning rank values to the portlets based on usage counts or
frequencies. Ans. 24 ( citing Dewar ,r,r 30-31 ); see also Final Act. 12-13 ( citing
Dewar ,r,r 28-30). As discussed above with respect to claim 1, the Examiner
interprets the claimed "browsing history" to encompass a record of clicking on
hyperlinks. Final Act. 3, 6.
Appellants argue that Dewar is "silent on any portlet metrics that include a
portlet interaction frequency with the respective portlet and a website access
frequency associated with the respective portlet" and that "Chua does not cure
these deficiencies of Dewar." App. Br. 17.
We disagree. Dewar discloses tracking the "frequency (i.e. usage count) ...
of one or more user interactions associated with a module(s) [i.e., portlets]"
(Dewar ,r 31 ), where "[ u ]sage count refers to the number of times one or more user
interactions is/are associated with a particular module" (Dewar ,r 28). Dewar
further discloses that user interactions may include, among others, "clicking on a
hyperlink" to access a website associated with the respective module or portlet.
Dewar ,r 2 7. We are persuaded by the Examiner that Dewar discloses portlet
metrics including a portlet interaction frequency with the respective portlet (i.e.,
usage count of various types of user interactions associated with a module or
portlet, as listed in Dewar ,r 27) and a website access frequency associated with the
respective portlet (i.e., usage count of clicking on a hyperlink to access a website
associated with the respective module or portlet ). We are additionally persuaded
by the Examiner that it would have been obvious to generate metrics to arrange the
11
Appeal 2016-006215
Application 13/458,851
display of portlets based not just on the browsing history that may also be
interaction history with the portlets as taught by Dewar, but also based on an
independent browsing history as taught by Chua. Final Act. 12-13. Accordingly,
we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that Dewar in view of
Chua teaches the limitations of claim 21.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 10,
11, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dewar in view of Chua.
Claims 12-14 as Allegedly Obvious
Over Dewar, Chua, and Scott
Claim 12 recites "wherein the user specifies a desired time duration into
which the interaction history and the browsing history are divided, to form a
plurality of distinct time periods to be matched with the time period of the request
from the user" and "generating a respective set of metrics for each distinct time
period, based on respective portions of the interaction history and of the browsing
history, that match the respective time period." App. Br. 41 (Claims App'x). The
Examiner finds that Dewar in view of Chua teaches these limitations, with the
exception of the desired time duration being user-specified. Final Act. 13 ( citing
Dewar ,r,r 29-30); Ans. 28. The Examiner further finds that Scott teaches user-
defined time durations that, along with rankings and activity logs, affect how icons
are arranged on a user interface, and that it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art to add Scott's feature of user-defined time durations to the
time durations in Dewar in view of Chua. Id. at 13-14 (citing Scott ,r,r 23, 65---66);
Ans. 28-29 (citing Scott ,r,r 23, 65-66).
Appellants argue:
Scott is silent on any user specifying a desired time duration into which
the interaction history and browsing history are divided, to form distinct
12
Appeal 2016-006215
Application 13/458,851
time periods to be matched with the time period of the request-let
alone any metrics being generated for each distinct time period based
on portions of the interaction history and of the browsing history
matching the respective period.
App. Br. 24 (emphases in original). Appellants further argue, without elaborating,
that Dewar and Chua do not cure the alleged deficiencies of Scott. Id.
Based on the claim limitations emphasized by Appellants in their argument,
Appellants appear to argue that Scott does not teach claim limitations for which the
Examiner relied upon Dewar in view of Chua. Similar to claim 9 discussed above,
we are persuaded by the Examiner that Dewar teaches dividing the interaction
history and browsing history into time periods to be matched with the time period
of the request. See Dewar ,r,r 29, 30. Similar to claim 21 discussed above, we are
further persuaded by the Examiner that Dewar's disclosure of tracking frequency
or usage count of user interactions with portlets, combined with Chua's disclosure
of browser history, accounts for the claimed "metrics." Appellants have not
demonstrated that the Examiner erred in finding that the combined teachings of
Dewar, Chua, and Scott teach the limitations of claim 12. Thus, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 12.
Claim 14 recites:
wherein the set of metrics for at least a first time period of the plurality
of distinct time periods includes a composite access frequency that is a
sum of an access frequency of a portlet of the plurality of portlets and
an access frequency of a website associated with the portlet, wherein
the arrangement of the portlets in the webpage is generated based
further on an indication from the user, the indication specifying to
prioritize placement of a first portlet of the plurality of portlets.
App. Br. 41 (Claims App'x).
Appellants argue that Dewar is silent on these claim limitations, particularly
"composite access frequency that is a sum of an access frequency of a portlet of the
13
Appeal 2016-006215
Application 13/458,851
plurality of portlets and an access frequency of a website associated with the
portlet" and "based further on an indication from the user, the indication specifying
to prioritize placement of a first portlet." App. Br. 25-26. Appellants argue
further that Chua and Scott do not cure the alleged deficiencies of Dewar. Id.
The Examiner finds that Dewar teaches portlet rank values based on
frequency of accessing the portlets, that Chua teaches monitoring access frequency
of websites associated with portlets, and that the combination results in a "final
ranking value based on all these access records." Ans. 29 ( citing Dewar ,r,r 29, 31;
Chua ,r,r 7, 15, 32). We are persuaded by the Examiner that the rank values based
on the combined access frequencies taught by Dewar and Chua are a "composite
access frequency that is a sum of an access frequency of a portlet of the plurality of
portlets and an access frequency of a website associated with the portlet."
Appellants have not explained how the rank values based on the combined access
frequencies of Dewar and Chua fail to account for the "composite access
frequency" limitation. The Examiner further finds that Dewar discloses that the
arrangement of portlets also may be based on "manual manipulation by the user"
or "user-selected preferences," and that Scott teaches that the user may assign
certain icons to appear first, thus accounting for "based further on an indication
from the user, the indication specifying to prioritize placement of a first portlet."
Id. at 29-30 (citing Dewar ,r 26; Scott ,r,r 65, 68). We agree with the Examiner that
Dewar and Scott both teach portlet or icon arrangement "based further on an
indication from the user, the indication specifying to prioritize placement of a first
portlet." Appellants have not demonstrated that the Examiner erred in finding that
the combined teachings of Dewar, Chua, and Scott teach the limitations of
claim 14. Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 14.
14
Appeal 2016-006215
Application 13/458,851
Claim 13 depends from claim 12. Appellants do not argue claim 13
separately. See App. Br. 22-26. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claims 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dewar in view of
Chua and Scott.
Claims 15-18 as Allegedly Obvious
Over Dewar, Chua, Scott, and Minnis
Claim 15 recites "arranging the plurality of portlets into a plurality of tabs,
based on the interaction history and the browsing history, each tab having at least
two portlets, wherein each tab of portlets is associated with a respective, distinct
time period of the plurality of time periods." App. Br. 41 (Claims App'x). The
Examiner finds that Dewar, Chua, and Scott do not teach arranging portlets into a
plurality of tabs, and relies upon Minnis for teaching tabs. Final Act. 15-16 ( citing
Minnis ,r,r 108-110, 140-141); Ans. 30-31 (citing Minnis Figs. Dl 1, D18, ,r 132).
Appellants argue that Minnis is silent on portlets being arranged into a
plurality of tabs based on interaction history and browsing history, and tabs being
associated with a respective time period. App. Br. 28. We agree with Appellants.
Although Minnis does relate to dynamically reconfiguring web pages based on
user behaviors and website navigation (Minnis, Abstr. ), the portions of Minnis
cited by the Examiner at most disclose altering and arranging content on web pages
based on user behavior and that tabs are a format in which content may appear.
For example, paragraphs 108-109 of Minnis disclose that content may be
emphasized or de-emphasized via font size and that offers such as banner ads and
pop-ups may be personalized, and paragraphs 110, 132, and 140-141 indicate that
certain content, such as product reviews, may appear in a separate tab. Minnis
,r,r 108-110, 132, 140-141. Even if the Examiner is correct that "[i]n light of Chua
and Dewar" the content arranged into multiple tabs would include portlets
15
Appeal 2016-006215
Application 13/458,851
(Ans. 31 ), the cited portions of Minnis do not disclose time periods corresponding
to the tabs, that is, "tabs being associated with a respective, distinct time period."
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dewar in view of Chua, Scott, and
Minnis.
Claims 16-18 depend from claim 15. For at least the reasons discussed with
respect to claim 15, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 16-18
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dewar in view of Chua, Scott, and
Minnis.
Claims 19 and 20 as Allegedly Obvious
Claims 19 and 20 depend from claim 18, which depends indirectly from
claim 15. For at least the reasons discussed with respect to claim 15, we do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Dewar in view of Chua, Scott, Minnis, and Scheduler, or
claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dewar in view of Chua,
Scott, Minnis, Scheduler, and Driver.
Provisional Double-Patenting Rejections of Claims 1 and 21
Appellants do not present arguments against the provisional rejection of
claims 1 and 21 on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting
over claim 1 of the copending '103 application in view of Dewar (see Final Act.
21-23 ). Claim 1 of the cop ending '103 application has since been cancelled.
Appellants also do not present arguments against the provisional rejection of
claims 1 and 21 on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting
over claim 9 of the copending '736 application in view of Dewar (see Final Act.
16
Appeal 2016-006215
Application 13/458,851
21-23). Claim 9 of the copending '736 application has since been amended.
Accordingly, we do not reach these provisional rejections, in order to allow the
Examiner to reconsider the rejections in light of the amended claims of the
'103 application and the '736 application. SeeExparteJerg, 2012 WL 1375142,
at *3 (BPAI Apr. 13, 2012) (informative) ("Panels have the flexibility to reach or
not reach provisional obviousness-type double-patenting rejections." (citing
Ex parte Moncla, 95 USPQ2d 1884 (BPAI 2010) (precedential))).
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph is reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 5, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is
affirmed.
The Examiner's rejections of claims 6-8, 10, 11-14, and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) are affirmed.
The Examiner's rejections of claims 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are
reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a)( 1 )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
17