Ex Parte Gravity et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 30, 2019

13652674 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/652,674 10/16/2012 Theo Gravity
76133 7590 05/01/2019
MPG, LLP AND YAHOO! INC.
710 LAKEWAY DRIVE
SUITE 200
SUNNYVALE, CA 94085
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.
YAHOP166 1074
EXAMINER
KELLS, ASHER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2144
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/01/2019 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte Theo Gravity and Andres Garza
Appeal2018-006964
Application 13/652,67 4 1
Technology Center 2100
Before ST JOHN COURTENAY III, MARC S. HOFF, and ELENI
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-7, 9, 11-14, and 17-24.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants' invention provides methods and systems for layout
determination for a content feed of various content items. Spec. ,r 4. One or
more content viewer modules are selected for inclusion in the page. One or
more page layouts are determined, each defining one or more placement
1 Appellants state that the real party in interest is OATH Inc. App. Br. 1.
2 Claims 8, 10, 15, and 16 have been cancelled.
Appeal2018-006964
Application 13/652,674
slots for placement of the content viewer modules. A valid page layout is
populated by assigning the content viewer modules to placement slots and
applying the assigned content viewer modules to one or more content data
items of the content feed. Spec. ,r 5. In an embodiment, the content viewer
modules are defined separate from the page layouts and content data items,
and fitting the content viewer modules to the page layout is performed apart
from the content data items. Spec. ,r,r 48, 54.
Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
A method for determining the placement of content on a
page, compnsmg:
receiving a content feed by a generator manager, the
content feed including one or more content data items, the
content data items being received over a network from one or
more content providers;
responsive to determining that a stop condition has not
been met, selecting, by a viewer generator, one or more content
viewer modules for inclusion in the page, each content viewer
module configured to present a content data item on the page,
wherein each content viewer module includes metadata
defining one or more acceptable types of content and at least
one template defining formatting of content for rendering by the
content viewer module;
determining, by a layout generator, one or more page
layouts, each page layout defining one or more placement slots
for placement of the content viewer modules;
fitting, by a fitting module, the selected content viewer
modules to the page layouts, and identifying a valid page layout
which can simultaneously accommodate each of the content
viewer modules, wherein the content viewer modules are
defined separate from the page layouts and the content data
items, and wherein the fitting the content viewer modules to the
page layout is performed apart from the content data items, and
wherein the identifying the valid page layout is performed apart
from the content data items;
2
Appeal2018-006964
Application 13/652,674
generating a page by a rendering module, wherein
generating the page includes populating the valid page layout
by assigning the content viewer modules to the placement slots
of the valid page layout and applying the assigned content
viewer modules to one or more of the content data items of the
content feed; and
storing, by the rendering module, the page to a page
storage;
wherein the operations of selecting one or more content
viewer modules, determining one or more page layouts, fitting
the selected content viewer modules to the page layouts,
generating the page, and storing the page, are executed in order
and define a page generation process that is repeated until the
stop condition is met.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
O'Brien
Bargeron et al.,
Caro et al.,
Hosotsubo
Suito et al.,
Moore et al.,
Doll et al.,
US 2004/0194028 Al
US 2005/0055635 Al
US 2006/0174186 Al
US 2007 /0240039 A
US 2008/0209325 Al
US 2011/00723726 Al
US 2013/0024757 Al
Sept. 30, 2004
Mar. 10, 2005
Aug.3,2006
Oct. 11, 2007
Aug. 28, 2008
Mar. 24, 2011
Jan.24,2013
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Bargeron, Moore, and Caro.
Claims 4, 7, 11-13, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Bargeron, Moore, Caro, and Hosotsubo.
Claims 3,19, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Bargeron, Moore, Caro, and Ohashi.
Claims 9 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Bargeron, Moore, Caro, Hosotsubo, and Ohashi.
3
Appeal2018-006964
Application 13/652,674
Claims 20 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bargeron, Moore, Hosotsubo, and Suito.
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bargeron, Moore, Caro, and Doll.
Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bargeron, Moore, Caro, and O'Brien.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
("App. Br.," filed Jan. 19, 2018), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed June
26, 2018), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed April 26, 2018 for
their respective details.
ISSUES
Appellants' arguments present us with the following issues:
1. Does the combination of Bargeron, Moore, and Caro disclose or
suggest content viewer modules being designed and fitted to the page layout
separate or apart from the content data items?
2. Does the combination of Bargeron, Moore, and Caro disclose or
suggest the identification of valid page layouts apart from the content data
items?
ANALYSIS
CLAIMS 1, 2, 5, AND 6
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred because Bargeron does not
disclose content viewer modules being designed and fitted to the page layout
separate or apart from the content data items, and does not disclose valid
page layouts being identified apart from the content data items. App. Br. 11.
4
Appeal2018-006964
Application 13/652,674
Appellants contend that Caro merely discloses computer-based
authoring tools for a user to publish a document, rather than a series of
operations initiated responsive to determining that a stop condition has not
been met. App. Br. 12. Appellants admit that Bargeron does disclose an
iterative loop directed to applying templates to document content. Id.
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive because Appellants' attack
on the references individually cannot show error in a rejection based upon a
combination of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981 ). The Examiner relied on Caro, rather than Bargeron, for disclosure of
content viewer modules designed and fitted to the page layout separate or
apart from content data items. Final Act. 9; Caro ,r,r 33, 45, 46. The
Examiner relied on Bargeron, rather than Caro, for disclosure of the claimed
series of operations responsive to determination that a stop condition has not
been met. Final Act. 3; Bargeron ,r 91.
Appellants further suggest that the Office has not articulated a reason
to combine the references that is supported by a rational underpinning. App.
Br. 13. Appellants argue that the Examiner engaged in circular reasoning. Id.
We do not agree with Appellants' argument. Rather, we agree with
the Examiner that "[t]he motivation is proper because the 103 combination
of Caro is to show that a person in (sic, of) ordinary skill in the art [ would
have found it obvious] to have the knowledge of recent software products
using files with a sharper separation between content and layout features,
binding operations that can be either layout [centric] or content [centric]."
Ans. 5.; see Caro ,r,r 9, 12, 45.
5
Appeal2018-006964
Application 13/652,674
We conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 5,
and 6 over the combination of Bargeron, Moore, and Caro. We sustain the
Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection.
CLAIMS 4, 7, 11-13, 17, AND 18
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting these claims
because Hosotsubo fails to disclose defining the identification of an invalid
page layout apart from the content data items. App. Br. 14.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument because Appellants
argue against Hosotsubo individually, and do not argue why the Examiner
erred in rejecting the claims over the combination of Bargeron, Moore, Caro,
and Hosotsubo. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. As discussed with respect to claim 1, Caro, rather
than Hosotsubo, is the reference relied upon for its disclosure that template
data can be associated with the layout without the content data. Ans. 6.
Hosotsubo is relied upon only for its disclosure that layout error can be
determined. Id.
We conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 4, 7,
11-13, 17, and 18 over Bargeron, Moore, Caro, and Hosotsubo. We sustain
the§ 103(a) rejection.
CLAIMS 3 AND 19-24
Appellants do not argue these claims separately and assert only that
the claims are allowable for the reason that they depend respectively from
independent claim 1. App. Br. 15-16. As we conclude that the Examiner did
not err in rejecting claim 1, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in
rejecting claims 3 and 19-24 as well. We sustain the§ 103(a) rejection of
6
Appeal2018-006964
Application 13/652,674
claims 3, 19, and 22, over Bargeron, Moore, Caro and Ohashi. We sustain
the § 103 (a) rejection of claims 20 and 21 over Bargeron, Moore, Caro,
Hosotsubo, and Suito. We sustain the§ 103(a) rejection of claim 23 over
Bargeron, Moore, Caro, and Doll. We sustain the§ 103(a) rejection of claim
24 over Bargeron, Moore, Caro, and O'Brien.
CLAIMS 9 AND 14
Appellants do not argue these claims separately and assert only that
the claims are allowable for the reason that they depend respectively from
independent claims 7 and 13. App. Br. 15. As we conclude that the
Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 7 and 13, we conclude that the
Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 9 and 14 as well. We sustain the
§ 103(a) rejection over Bargeron, Moore, Caro, Hosotsubo, and Ohashi.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The combination of Bargeron, Moore, and Caro teaches or suggests
content viewer modules being designed and fitted to the page layout separate
or apart from the content data items.
2. The combination of Bargeron, Moore, and Caro teaches or suggests
the identification of valid page layouts apart from the content data items.
ORDER
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-7, 9, 11-14, and 17-24 is
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).
AFFIRMED
7