Ex Parte Eves et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 24, 2016

11917158 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111917,158 12/11/2007 David A. Eves
24737 7590 03/28/2016
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
P.O. BOX 3001
BRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY 10510
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.
2005P00875WOUS 3041
EXAMINER
DYER, ANDREW R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2016 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):
debbie.henn@philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
u-NITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID A. EVES and RICHARD S. COLE
Appeal2014-004902
Application 11/917, 15 8
Technology Center 2100
Before LARRY J. HUME, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 18, 20-22, 24, 25, and 27-31, which are
all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Koninklijke Philips N.V. (App.
Br. 2.)
Appeal2014-004902
Application 11/917, 15 8
Claimed Subject Matter
The invention generally relates to rendering electronic documents.
(See Abstract.) Claim 18, reproduced below, is illustrative:
18. A method for processing an electronic document including
content and directions for rendering the content, the method
comprising acts of:
receiving the electronic document by a rendering device
from a source of the electronic document for rendering by the
rendering device, wherein the source includes a network
comprising a server and wherein the rendering device comprises
an end-user terminal connected to the network;
determining a renderable portion of the electronic
document renderable by the rendering device based on
capabilities of the rendering device;
rendering by the rendering device the renderable portion
of the electronic document in accordance with the directions and
the capabilities of the rendering device;
detecting an unrenderable portion of the electronic
document that is unrendered by the rendering device;
generating by the rendering device a feedback document
comprising the renderable portion of the electronic document
which has been rendered by the rendering act on the rendering
device; and
providing the feedback document to the source of the
electronic document,
wherein the rendering act includes selecting elements from
the electronic document according to a dynamic variable.
Rejection
Claims 18, 20-22, 24, 25, and 27-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Lynx Users Guide v2.8.5 (Lynx.isc.org
2
Appeal2014-004902
Application 11/917, 15 8
December 9, 2004) ("Lynx") and Tuli (US 2004/0139208 Al, published
July 15, 2004). (Final Act. 3-9.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments the Examiner erred (App. Br. 10-19; Reply Br. 2-5). We are not
persuaded by Appellants' arguments. We adopt as our own the findings and
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and set forth in the Answer (see Ans. 10-20). We highlight and
address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows.
Claims 18, 20-22, 24, 25, 27, and 28
Appellants argue the cited portion of Lynx "is completely silent about
detecting anything, let alone 'detecting an unrenderable portion of the
electronic document that is unrendered by the rendering device,' as recited
in independent claim 18." (App. Br. 11.) We are not persuaded.
Lynx teaches: "As a text browser, Lynx does not display images as
such -- you need to define a viewer in lynx. cf g: see there -- , but users can
choose a number of ways of showing their presence." (Lynx 19.) The
Examiner finds although Lynx does not render images in an HTML
document, it processes the images in one of three ways according to user-set
options (i.e., make links for all images, make pseudo-ALTs for inlines,
verbose images). (Ans. 11; Lynx 19.) We agree with the Examiner that
Lynx's ability to identify images but not render them teaches detecting an
unrenderable portion of the document. Appellants contend not rendering
images does not mean that images are detected (Reply Br. 2), and that Lynx
3
Appeal2014-004902
Application 11/917, 15 8
"simply ignores the images" (Reply Br. 3). We are not persuaded by
Appellants' argument because the Examiner finds Lynx does more than
simply not render images - it processes them to display links, which is an
indication the images have been detected by the browser.
Appellants also argue Tuli does not teach "generating by the
rendering device a feedback document comprising the renderable portion of
the electronic document," as recited in claim 18. (App. Br. 13.) Tuli relates
to methods for reducing the amount of data sent from a server to a Personal
Digital Assistant (PDA) for loading back pages, or previously viewed web
pages. (Tuli Abstract.) According to Appellants, Tuli does not teach the
PDA renders the image because Tuli teaches "the web page is fully rendered
at the browser first, then a single frozen image frame or snapshot is taken
whereby no pixels change in this frame, which is then sent to the PDA in
blocks of data" (Tuli i-f 76). (App. Br. 13.) The Examiner finds, and we
agree, that in order for the document to be displayed by the PDA, it must be
rendered by it also. (Ans. 11-12.) Appellants do not persuasively rebut this
finding by the Examiner. (See, e.g., Reply Br. 3 (restating arguments from
the Appeal Brief).) We are, therefore, unpersuaded of error in the rejection
on this basis.
Appellants further contend even if the snapshot is rendered at the
PDA in Tuli, there is no indication that the rendered web pages have
renderable and unrenderable portions, and thus there is no disclosure or
suggestion of determining any renderable and unrenderable portions of the
web page. (App. Br. 13.) The Examiner, however, does not rely on Tuli for
detecting an unrenderable portion, and, as discussed supra, Lynx teaches
detecting an unrenderable portion.
4
Appeal2014-004902
Application 11/917, 15 8
Appellants contend Tuli also does not teach providing the feedback
document to the source of the electronic document, as recited in claim 18,
because the server-rendered image is sent to the PDA, but the PDA is not the
source of the image. (App. Br. 13.) The Examiner finds Tuli teaches the
server "takes a copy of the back page image 90 stored in the PD A's cache
memory" (Tuli i-f 78), and that the purpose of this exchange is to allow the
server to know ifthe PDA has the most recent copy of the web page.
(Ans. 13.) Appellants respond that "the Tuli PDA does not send or provide
the back page image 90 or snapshot back to the Tuli server 71 unless the
Tuli server asks for it," and "[t]hus, the snapshot received by the PDA from
the Tuli server 71 does not have any unrenderable portion, and there is no
detection of any unrenderable portion performed by the Tuli PDA." (Reply
Br. 3.) The language of claim 18 does not preclude the rendering device
from providing the feedback document at the request of the server.
Moreover, as discussed supra, we agree with the Examiner that Lynx
teaches teaching detection of unrenderable portions of a document. Thus,
Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us that the combined teachings of
Tuli and Lynx do not teach ''providing the feedback document to the source
of the electronic document," as recited in claim 18.
Appellants contend in the Reply Brief that claim 18 requires only a
portion of the received document be sent back to the server as a feedback
document, and assert Tuli does not meet the limitation because the same
snapshot that is sent from Tuli's server is later taken back by the Tuli server.
(Reply Br. 4.) As an initial matter, claim 18 states the feedback document
"compris[ es] the renderable portion of the electronic document," which does
not preclude other portions of the document also being included. In
5
Appeal2014-004902
Application 11/917, 15 8
addition, the document displayed by the PDA in Tuli comprises the
renderable portion of that document. The Examiner relies on the combined
teachings of the references, in particular the concept of providing feedback
by showing what is displayed at the end-user terminal, as taught in Tuli,
combined with Lynx's teaching of detecting unrenderable portions of the
document. Appellants' arguments regarding each reference individually do
not persuade us of error in the rejection.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claim 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lynx and Tuli. For the same
reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 20-22, 24, 25, 27, and 28, which
are not argued separately.
Claims 29--31
Claim 29 depends from claim 18 and recites:
wherein the server is not fully aware of capabilities of the
rendering device comprising the end-user terminal, and wherein
the rendering device comprising the end-user terminal includes
at least one of a personal computer, a digital television, a display
device, a fan, a heater, and a control device configured to render
information in the received electronic document to provide
ambient environment at a location of the control device.
Appellants argue the Tuli server has knowledge about the PDA or
rendering device because "the server actually instructs the PDA on which
back page 94 to go to as it knows exactly where each back page is stored on
the PDA's memory banks and also how much data was downloaded for each
web page image." (App. Br. 17 (quoting Tuli i-f 77 (Appellants' emphasis)).)
Appellants also point out neither Lynx nor Tuli are concerned about any
ambient environment at a control device. (Id.)
6
Appeal2014-004902
Application 11/917, 15 8
Although Appellants have shown the server has some awareness of
the PDA in Tuli, specifically where the snapshot is stored in PDA memory
and how much data was downloaded, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 19)
there is no indication the server is "fully aware" of capabilities of the
rendering device. The Examiner notes the term "fully aware" is not
mentioned or defined in the Specification, and interprets the phrase broadly
to mean that the server must know every capability of the rendering device.
(Id.) We find the Examiner's interpretation to be broad but reasonable, and
we note Appellants have not cited to a definition of "fully aware" in the
Specification that would preclude the Examiner's broader reading. 2
Appellants also do not point to teachings in the Specification that are
inconsistent with the Examiner's interpretation.
We find Tuli's teaching of two specific items the server is "aware" of
relative to the PDA suggests there are other items and capabilities of which
the server is not "fully aware." In addition, we agree with the Examiner that
claim 29 requires the rendering device comprises "at least one of' the listed
devices, and Appellants specifically challenge only the claimed control
device.
2 Any special meaning assigned to a term "must be sufficiently clear in the
specification that any departure from common usage would be so understood
by a person of experience in the field of the invention." Multiform
Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see
also Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381
(Fed. Cir. 2008) ("A patentee may act as its own lexicographer and assign to
a term a unique definition that is different from its ordinary and customary
meaning; however, a patentee must clearly express that intent in the written
description.").
7
Appeal2014-004902
Application 11/917, 15 8
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection of claim
29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and we sustain the rejection, as well as the
rejection of claims 30 and 31 grouped with claim 29 (see App. Br. 17).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 18, 20-22, 24, 25,
and 27-31.
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
8