Ex Parte Gerges et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 9, 2015

12261610 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/261,610 10/30/2008
37945 7590 12/11/2015
DUKEW, YEE
YEE AND AS SOCIA TES, P.C.
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS, TX 75380
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Amir F. Gerges
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.
END920080343US 1 4712
EXAMINER
PULLIAM, CHRISTY ANN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2164
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/11/2015 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):
ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com
mgamez@yeeiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AMIR F. GERGES, ALFRED E. MAJKO,
and JUAN E. OJEDA
Appeal2013-006373
Application 12/261,6101
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, KEVIN C. TROCK,
and KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-21, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants indicate the real party in interest is International Business
Machines Corporation. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2013-006373
Application 12/261,610
Invention
The claimed invention relates generally to an improved data
processing system and, more specifically, to a method and apparatus for
processing data. Spec. i-f 1.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 is reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized:
1. A method for selecting a web page for display by a web
browser upon opening of the web browser by a user, the
method comprising the steps of:
a computer receiving a current request from the user to
open the web browser, and in response, the computer selecting
a Uniform Resource Locator ("URL") for the web page to be
displayed upon the opening of the web browser, the computer
selecting the URL based on a historical number of times the
user has selected the URL during an interval encompassing a
time of day at which the user made the current request to open
the web browser; and
the computer displaying the selected web page upon
opening of the web browser.
Applied Prior Art
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
WYNN
SHARPE
FORST ALL
US 6,667,751 Bl
US 7, 007,237 Bl
US 2006/0206454 Al
Dec. 23, 2003
Feb.28,2006
Sept. 14, 2006
Anderson, Web Montage: A Dynamic Personalized Start Page, Association
for Computing Machinery publication number 1-58113-449 (May 2, 2005).
("Anderson").
2
Appeal2013-006373
Application 12/261,610
Claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Anderson.
Claims 3, 7, 8, 9, 12, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Anderson and Wynn.
Claims 4, 5, 13, 14, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Anderson and Sharpe.
Claims 6, 15, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Anderson and Forstall.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and the evidence of
record in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellants' arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our
own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action
from which this appeal is taken; and (2) the findings and reasons set forth in
the Examiner's Answer. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner and further highlight specific findings and argument for emphasis
as follows.
Section 102: Claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 18, and 19
Appellants contend the Examiner erred rejecting claim 1, arguing
Anderson fails to disclose the recited selecting and display steps.3 App.
2 The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph (Final Act. 3), has been withdrawn. Ans. 4.
3 Appellants only provide arguments for claim 1, stating state claim 1 is
representative of claims 2, 10, 11, 18, and 19. App. Br. 9.
3
Appeal2013-006373
Application 12/261,610
Br. 9. Specifically, Appellants argue creating a "montage of portions of web
pages and displaying the newly created montage in the new web page, as
disclosed by Anderson, is not the same as identifying a universal resource
locator for a web page based on a number of times the user has selected the
universal resource locator and then displaying the selected web page." App.
Br. 1 O; Reply Br. 3, 4. Appellants argue, "creating and displaying a
montage combining various portions of different web pages page visited
most often by a user is not the same as displaying a web page located at a
universal resource locator that the user previously visited most often .... "
App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 4. Appellants also argue, "the additional steps for
displaying a montage of links and then receiving a manual user select of a
link from the montage of links is not required or shown in selecting and
displaying steps in claim 1 .... " App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 7.
The Examiner finds, however, and we agree, Anderson discloses
creating a web montage of content fused into a single view which can be
presented to the user whenever they open a browser. Ans. 5 (citing
Anderson, Figs 1-3; Abstract). The Examiner finds, and we agree,
Anderson discloses web users tend to revisit sites and pages in a regular,
predictable manner. For example, Anderson states, "if a user reviews a
stock portfolio at around 1: 15 P.M. every day, then viewing the stock
portfolio is a routine behavior--it happens at about the same time each day ..
. . " Ans. 6 (citing Anderson, Section 2). The Examiner also finds, and we
agree, Anderson discloses, "the Montage system collects and mines web
access logs of each user," and uses the logs to "build[s] a model of the user's
navigation patterns and browsing interests." Ans. 6 (citing Anderson,
Section 3). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Anderson discloses
4
Appeal2013-006373
Application 12/261,610
the current user's request is being analyzed according to the user's browsing
history preferences and the web browser home page is being displayed
automatically by the computer selecting URL's at the same time of the day.
Id.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments the
Examiner erred in finding Anderson discloses, "selecting the URL based on
a historical number of times the user has selected the URL during an
interval encompassing a time of day at which the user made the current
request to open the web browser; and ... displaying the selected web page
upon opening of the web browser," within the meaning of claim 1, and
therefore we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 2,
10, 11, 18, and 19, which were not separately argued.
Section 103: Claims 3, 7, 8, 9, 12, 16, and 17
Appellants contend the Examiner erred combining the Anderson and
Wynn references, arguing the Examiner has only provided statements that
are at best conclusory or recite some desired goal. App. Br. 14. These
conclusions and desired goals, Appellants argue, have not been supported
with any explicit analysis or articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinnings to support the Examiner's assertion of obviousness. Id.
Appellants make this argument generally with respect to the claims in this
set, but do not argue the particular limitations of any one of the claims. See
App. Br. 13-15; Reply Br. 10-12. We disagree with Appellants.
For example, with respect to claim 3, which depends from claim 2, the
Examiner finds, and we agree, Wynn teaches, "wherein the selected web
page comprises a tag cloud and further comprising: the computer updating
the tag cloud using the historical information collected from the prior web
5
Appeal2013-006373
Application 12/261,610
page access by the user." Final Act. 8. The Examiner cites to the discussion
of tag clouds in the Specification (i-f 60) and then explains that Wynn
teaches, "[t]he user then enters some keywords into a form provided by the
search engine" (Wynn, col. 4, 11. 11-34) and "executes the page rendering
function (1309). This causes the otherwise normal history log to be updated
to include additional parameters with each record" (Wynn, col. 10, 11. 30-
32). Final Act. 8 and 9. Thus, the Examiner finds, the keywords are being
updated and the historical information has been efficiently used by the
terms. Id.
The Examiner then concludes it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, "to incorporate the
Linear web browser history viewer of Wynn into [Anderson] because the
computer updating the tag cloud using the historical information collected
from the prior web page access by the user would provide, ' [a ]nother entry
for this visit to the results page is made by the web browser software in the
history log.'" Final Act. 9 (quoting Wynn, col. 4, 11. 46-48).
Accordingly, we find the Examiner has provided sufficient articulated
reasoning with rational underpinnings to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness with respect to these claims, and therefore we sustain the
rejection of claims 3, 7, 8, 9, 12, 16, and 17.
Section 103: Claims 4, 5, 13, 14, and 21
Appellants contend the Examiner erred rejecting claims 4 and 13,
arguing Sharpe's disclosure of a browser on a computer retrieving a web
page from a remote computer and selecting a URL from a list provided by
the browser is not the same as, "determining the historical number of times
the user has selected the URL during the interval encompassing the time of
6
Appeal2013-006373
Application 12/261,610
day at which the user made the current request to open the web browser
from historical information collected from prior web page access by the
user, wherein the computer receives at least a portion of the historical
information from a remote location, in the manner recited by the overall
combination of claim 2 and claim 4." App. Br. 17. Appellants also argue,
"the references (presumably Anderson and Sharpe) do not teach or suggest
receiving, from a remote computer, historical information collected from
prior web page access by the user, in the manner recited by the overall
combination of claim 2 and claim 4." App. Br. 18.
Appellants' arguments concerning claim 4 are not commensurate with
the scope of the Examiner's rejection. The Examiner finds that Sharpe
teaches the additional elements recited in claim 4, namely, "the computer
implemented method of claim 2 further comprising: the computer receiving
at least a portion of the historical information from a remote location."
Final Act. 11 (citing Sharpe, col. 4, 11. 49-67; emphasis added). 4 Here
Sharpe explains,
To facilitate the Internet communications, the computer 102
runs a browser module (hereinafter browser) as part of the
operating system on the computer 102 for retrieving or
browsing web pages 108, or other electronic documents from
the remote server computer 104. The browser on the computer
102 retrieves an electronic document 108 from a web site, i.e.,
the web server 104 on the Internet 106, and displays the
document on the computer screen or output device 110 (FIG.
1 ).
Sharpe col. 4, 11. 49---67.
4 The Examiner finds Anderson discloses all the elements of claim 2,
findings which were not separately argued by Appellants (Final Act. 6-7;
see App. Br. 8-13). The Examiner concedes, however, that Anderson does
not teach the additional elements recited in claim 4. Final Act. 11.
7
Appeal2013-006373
Application 12/261,610
Appellants provide no explanation of how this section of Sharpe fails
to teach or suggest, "the computer receiving at least a portion of the
historical information from a remote location," as recited by claim 4. See
App. Br. 15-18. Rather, Appellants argue that it fails to do so, "in the
manner recited by the overall combination of claim 2 and claim 4." App. Br.
17 (emphasis added). Sharpe, by itself however, was not cited by the
Examiner for the "overall combination of claim 2 and claim 4." Appellants'
arguments, therefore, are not persuasive of Examiner error. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 4, as well as claim 13, which was
not separately argued.
Appellants advance a similar argument with respect to claims 5, 14,
and 21. For claim 5, the Examiner finds Sharpe (col. 7.1. 57-col. 8, 1. 27;
col. 8, 11. 44--59) teaches the method of claim 2 further comprising, "the
computer sending at least a portion of the historical information to a remote
computer for use in selecting a web page for another browser activated on
the remote computer." Final Act. 11. Appellants concede this portion of
Sharpe teaches a web browser creating and using lists of recently browsed
web pages, but argue these portions of Sharpe do not teach or suggest such
use, "in the manner recited by the overall combination of claim 2 and claim
5. App. Br. 19and 20 (emphasis added).
For claim 21, the Examiner finds the same section of Sharpe (col. 7. 1.
57 -col. 8, 1. 27; col. 8, 11. 44--59) teaches or suggests the method of claim 2,
"wherein the computer selecting step is performed by a proxy server
computer and the historical information collected from the prior web page
access by the user is historical information collected from prior web page
access by the user through the proxy server computer." Final Act. 12.
8
Appeal2013-006373
Application 12/261,610
Appellants concede this portion of Sharpe teaches a web browser creating
and using lists of recently browsed web pages, but argue these portions of
Sharpe do not teach or suggest such use, "in the manner recited by the
overall combination of claim 2 and claim 21. App. Br. 21 and 22 (emphasis
added).
Appellants' arguments with respect to claims 5, 14, and 21 are not
commensurate with the scope of the Examiner's rejection and therefore, are
not persuasive of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 5 and 21, as well as claim 14, which was not separately
argued.
Section 103: Claims 6, 15, and 30
Appellants contend the Examiner erred rejecting claims 6, 15, and 30,
making arguments similar to those presented with respect to claims 3, 7, 8,
9, 12, 16, and 17, discussed above, namely the Examiner has only provided
statements that are at best conclusory or recite some desired goal. App. Br.
23 and 24. With respect to claim 6, the Examiner finds, and we agree,
Forstall teaches or suggests the method of claim [2] further comprising, "the
computer submitting a number of queries to a number of search engines
using the historical information." Final Act. 13 (citing Forstall, i-fi-150, 57,
60, and 66). 5 These paragraphs of Forstall describe, among other things,
search engines for searching data resources other than documents accessible
on the Internet.
The Examiner concludes, and we agree, that, "[i]t would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
5 Appellants state claim 6 is representative of the claims in this group and
only make arguments with respect to claim 6. App. Br. 22 and 23.
9
Appeal2013-006373
Application 12/261,610
incorporate the Immediate search feedback of F orstall into [Anderson]
because submitting a number of queries to a number of search engines using
the historical information would provide search feedback is immediately
presented to the user." Final Act. 14 (citing Forstall, i-f 44).
For reasons similar to those discussed above, we find the Examiner
has provided sufficient articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness with respect to claims 6, 15, and
20, and therefore sustain the rejection of these claims.
CONCLUSION
We conclude the Examiner did not err in finding the cited prior art
discloses, teaches, or suggests the claim limitations discussed above. We,
therefore, sustain the rejection of claims 1-21.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-21.
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
kme
10