Ex Parte Kahari et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 9, 2014

11017492 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MARKUS KAHARI, ANTTI SORVARI, and
HANNU TOIVONEN
____________________

Appeal 2012-0033531
Application 11/017,4922
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and
NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.

MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–15, and 17–27. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 Our decision references Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Br.,” filed July 1,
2011) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed September 30, 2011).
2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Nokia Corporation. Br. 1.
Appeal 2012-003353
Application 11/017,492

2
CLAIMED INVENTION

Appellants’ claimed invention “relates to browsing web pages on a
wireless terminal and more particularly to loading at least one data element
from a web page to the wireless terminal” (Spec. ¶ 1).
Claim 1, reproduced below with added bracketed notations, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method comprising:
[(a)] detecting an appropriate data transmission
connection to be established in a first wireless terminal,
[(b)] determining a loading value of a web page as a
function of the number of web page openings,
[(c)] establishing a connection through said data
transmission connection to said web page if the loading value is
at least equal to a threshold, and
[(d)] loading at least one data element from said web
page into a memory of the terminal.

REJECTION

Claims 1, 2, 4–15, and 17–27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hansmann (US 2002/0143896 A1, pub. Oct. 3, 2002),
Swahn (US 2004/0049541 A1, pub. Mar. 11, 2004), and Teeple
(US 6,785,707 B2, iss. Aug. 31, 2004).

ANALYSIS

Appellants argue independent claims 1, 15, and 27 as a group, and do
not separately argue the patentability of any of dependent claims 2, 4–14,
and 17–26 (Br. 5). We select claim 1 as representative of the group of
independent claims. Independent claims 15 and 27, and dependent
Appeal 2012-003353
Application 11/017,492

3
claims 2, 4–14, and 17–26, stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
Appellants first argue that the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) should be reversed because the Examiner “ignores” the recitation,
“as a function of the number of web page openings,” in limitation (d),
i.e., “loading at least one data element from said web page into a memory of
the terminal,” as recited in claim 1 (Br. 6–7). Appellants’ argument is not
persuasive.
The Examiner expressly finds that “Swahn teaches [in paragraph 57] a
loading value of a web page” that “depend[s] on the number of pages
displayed at a given time,” i.e., the number of web page openings (Ans. 5).
The Examiner also concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellants’ invention to combine
Hansmann with the webpage loading of Swahn “to provide determining a
loading value of a web page as a function of the number of web page
openings” (id.). Far from ignoring “the second part of the claim recitation”
(Br. 6), the Examiner fully considers and addresses limitation (d) of claim 1
in its entirety.
We also are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner
erred in interpreting the term “web page openings” to refer to the number of
web pages displayed at a given time, as disclosed in Swahn (Br. 7).
Appellants maintain that the Examiner’s interpretation is inconsistent with
paragraph 7 of the Specification, which “lacks any disclosure or suggestion
that a loading value relates to a ‘number of [web] pages displayed at a given
time’” (id.). Yet the term “web page openings” is not explicitly defined in
paragraph 7 of the Specification. Nor, for that matter, does paragraph 7
Appeal 2012-003353
Application 11/017,492

4
provide any description of “web page openings.” Instead, the paragraph
merely states that “[i]n accordance with an embodiment of the invention, a
loading value describing the loading probability of the web page is
determined . . . as a function of the number of web page openings, the time
or times of web page openings” (Spec. ¶ 7).
There is a heavy presumption that claim terms take on their “plain,
ordinary, and accustomed meaning to one of ordinary skill in the relevant
art.” See Prima Tek II, L.L.C. v. Polypap, S.A.R.L., 318 F.3d 1143, 1148
(Fed. Cir. 2003). Appellants may overcome that presumption by acting as
their own lexicographer so as to assign a special definition to each claim
term. But such a definition must be “clearly set forth” and “explicit.” Id.
Appellants argue here that the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim
language is not supported by the Specification. But Appellants offer no
alternative interpretation. Nor do Appellants identify any clear and explicit
definition in the Specification for “web page openings” or otherwise present
any evidence or reasoning to show that the Examiner’s interpretation is
unreasonable and/or unsupported.
Swahn discloses an enhanced web browser designed to display
multiple active webpages simultaneously (Swahn ¶ 53), and describes a
mechanism for preloading pages to allow a near instantaneous webpage
review experience (id. at ¶ 39). Swahn describes “displaying the next
webpage or next set of webpages depending on the number of webpages
being displayed at a given time” (id. at ¶ 57). Swahn, thus, discloses that the
“loading value” of a particular webpage, i.e., the probability that this
webpage will be displayed, depends on, i.e., is a function of, the number of
Appeal 2012-003353
Application 11/017,492

5
webpages already being displayed, i.e., the number of web page openings, as
recited in limitation (d) of claim 1.
Finally, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection is based on impermissible hindsight
(Br. 8). The Examiner relies on the Abstract of Swahn as motivation for
combining Hansmann with the webpage loading of Swahn “in order to
provide a web browser to display multiple webpages simultaneously and to
allow changing the number of webpages displayed (see abstract of Swahn).”
Ans. 5–6. The Examiner, thus, relies on the respective disclosures of the
applied references, not on Appellants’ disclosure.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 2, 4–15, and 17–27, which fall with claim 1.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–15, and 17–27 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Klh