Ex Parte Fabbri

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2016

12124908 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/124,908 05/21/2008
72058 7590 06/29/2016
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Adobe Systems, Inc. 58083
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309-4530
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jason Fabbri
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.
58083/354902 (B723) 3536
EXAMINER
BLACKWELL, JAMES H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2177
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2016 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@kilpatrickstockton.com
j lhice@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JASON FABBRI
Appeal2014-006776
Application 12/124,908
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, KAMRAN JIVANI, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-19 and 21-28. 2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Adobe Systems
Incorporated (App. Br. 1 ).
2 Claim 20 has been canceled.
Appeal2014-006776
Application 12/124,908
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's invention relates to "systems and methods for creating
web pages based on user modification of rich internet application content"
(Spec. i-f 4). Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving, by a process executed by a processor in
communication with a computer- readable medium, an
indication of a modification of dynamic content in a rich
internet application (RIA), the RIA associated with a wrapper
web page, the wrapper web page comprising a first subset of the
dynamic content in a text format;
in response to receiving the indication, determining, by
the process, whether the dynamic content has been or should be
modified;
in response to determining the dynamic content should be
modified, modifying, by the process, the dynamic content based
at least in part on the indication;
determining, by the process, a second subset of the
dynamic content to be included in a wrapper web page, the
subset including modified dynamic content;
modifying, by the process, the wrapper web page to
include the second subset of the dynamic content.
The Examiner's Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 1-7 and 10-28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Olston (US 2008/0104502 Al; May 1, 2008)
and Burson (US 2009/0063421 Al; Mar. 5, 2009) (see Final Act. 4--14).
The Examiner further added Steams (G. Steams, SWFObject:
JavaScript Flash Player detection and embed script, archived 04/18/2007,
deconcept blog, downloaded from
2
Appeal2014-006776
Application 12/124,908
http://web.archive.org/web/20070418063748/http://blog.deconcept.com/swf
object/, 10 pages total) to reject claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (see
Final Act. 15-16).
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on Olston for disclosing all
the recited method steps except for characterizing the type or nature of the
content of the Web page as Rich Internet Application (RIA), for which the
Examiner relies on Burson (Final Act. 4--5). The Examiner further finds that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
teachings of Olston with Burson in order to benefit from using "a web page
(wrapper) containing an RIA and an indexable/searchable form of the RIA
content" (Final Act. 5---6).
Appellant contends the proposed combination is improper because,
rather than teaching "determining ... a second subset of the dynamic
content to be included in a wrapper web page, the subset including modified
dynamic content" and "modifying ... the wrapper web page to include the
second subset of the dynamic content," Olston relates to "a system for
'adaptively refreshing a web page'" (App. Br. 9 (citing Olston Abstract)).
Appellant points to the disclosure of Olston in paragraph 8 and further
contends "'refreshing' a web page, even a web page that has been changed
by its author, does not disclose either of the two disputed functions quoted
above (id.). Lastly, Appellant argues "the Olston device only downloads a
new file (i.e. reloads the web page); it does not modify anything" (App. Br.
10).
3
Appeal2014-006776
Application 12/124,908
The Examiner responds that Olston discloses measuring the extent of
divergence between a current version and a previous version of a web page
and refreshes the web page when the divergence meets or exceeds a given
threshold (Ans. 4). The Examiner explains Olston was relied on as teaching
a mechanism for detecting changes to the companion content of Burson
when the content is expected to change, whereas the combination of the
references "provides a change detection and update triggering mechanism
applicable to the claimed wrapper web page (companion content including
data feed) with associated RIA" (Ans. 6).
We agree with the Examiner's findings and the stated rationale for
combining the references. The Examiner properly states that the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the claimed RIA encompasses "a typical web
page having content and rendered (executed) by a playback routine (a web
browser)" (see Ans. 4). Contrary to Appellant's argument that Olston does
not modify the web page (Reply Br. 2), Olston modifies the dynamic content
by refreshing and obtaining the next version based on the divergence
measurement (see Olston i-fi-f 11-13).
As discussed herein, Appellant's arguments have not persuaded us
that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Olston with Burson
teaches or suggests the disputed claim limitations. Therefore, we sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claim 1 and claims 2-28, which are not
argued separately over the combination of Olston with Burson or further in
view of Steams (see App. Br. 11 ).
4
Appeal2014-006776
Application 12/124,908
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-28.
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
5