Ex Parte Kumar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 23, 2018

13841148 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/841,148 03/15/2013
20995 7590 03/27/2018
KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP
2040 MAIN STREET
FOURTEENTH FLOOR
IRVINE, CA 92614
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Rohit Krishna Kumar
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.
SPARC.778Al 2141
EXAMINER
CHU, JENQ-KANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2018 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):
j ayna.cartee@knobbe.com
efiling@knobbe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROHIT KRISHNA KUMAR, SCOTT ZACHARY
BRESSLER, IV AN KING YU SHAM, IAN WILLIAM
STEW ART, BRETT RICHARD TAYLOR, PETER FRANK
HILL, AAKARSH NAIR, STEVEN MICHAEL REDDIE,
PATRICK JOSEPH ARMSTRONG, SAMUEL JOHN
YOUNG, AMEET NIRMAL V ASWAN!, and ANDREW
LYNCHHAYDEN 1
Appeal2018-000614
Application 13/841, 148
Technology Center 2100
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Amazon Technologies, Inc.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-000614
Application 13/841, 148
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-20 and 30-39. Claims 21-29 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellants' application relates to providing a user with page previews
during page loading events to reduce the delay experienced by the user.
Spec. i-f 8. For example, a Web page preview may include a screenshot
image that requires minimal browser processing. Spec. i-f 9. Once the actual
Web page is loaded, the browser updates the display by replacing the
preview with the actual Web page. Spec. i-f 10. Claim 1, reproduced below,
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer system that acts as an intermediary between
user devices and content sites, the computer system comprising
one or more server computing devices, wherein individual server
computing devices of the one or more server computing devices
comprise a processor and a memory storing computer-executable
instructions, and wherein the computer system is programmed to
at least:
retrieve a content page from a content site;
generate a preview version of the content page
compnsmg:
a screenshot of at least a portion of the content page;
and
markup code compnsmg a first instruction to
transmit a request for the screenshot and a second
instruction that causes a follow-up type request for the
2
Appeal2018-000614
Application 13/841, 148
content page to be transmitted regardless of whether a user
interacts with the preview version; and
in response to a request, received from a user device
separate from the one or more server computing devices, for the
content page:
determine whether the request 1s a follow-up
request;
if the request is not a follow-up request, transmit the
markup code to the user device, wherein the markup code
instructs the user device to ( 1) retrieve from the computer
system, and display, the screenshot, and (2) transmit to the
computer system the follow-up request for the content
page regardless of whether user interaction with the
preview version occurs on the user device, whereby the
markup code causes the user device to temporarily display
the screenshot while loading a non-preview version of the
content page; and
if the request is a follow-up request, transmit the
non-preview version of the content page to the user device.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Bhumkar
Jain
US 2008/0235594 Al Sept. 25, 2008
US 2012/0254727 Al Oct. 4, 2012
REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claims 1-20 and 30-39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Bhumkar and Jain.
3
Appeal2018-000614
Application 13/841, 148
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds the combination of Bhumkar and Jain discloses
all the limitations of independent claim 1, including that Jain teaches
determine whether the request is a follow-up request;
if the request is not a follow-up request, transmit the
markup code to the user device, wherein the markup code
instructs the user device to ( 1) retrieve from the computer
system, and display, the screenshot, and (2) transmit to the
computer system the follow-up request for the content page
regardless of whether user interaction with the preview version
occurs on the user device, whereby the markup code causes the
user device to temporarily display the screenshot while loading
a non-preview version of the content page.
Final Act. 4--9. Appellants contend Jain does not teach transmitting markup
code instructing a user to transmit a follow-up request. See App. Br. 7-8;
Reply Br. 4--5. We find Appellants' argument persuasive of error in the
Examiner's rejection.
Jain describes "generating and displaying a preview image of a
content area" by "rendering an image representing the content area requested
by a browser, providing the rendered image to the browser for display, and
enabling the browser to display the requested content area in place of the
rendered image when the content area is received by the browser." Jain, i-f 7.
Specifically, Jain describes constructing mark-up language in the form of
HTML in response to receiving a request from a browser for a content area.
Jain, i-f 33. However, rather that serve the constructed HTML directly to the
browser, a server renders a preview image and a code re-writer rewrites the
constructed HTML to include a reference to the preview image, such as a
uniform resource locator (URL). Id. Further, Jain describes
4
Appeal2018-000614
Application 13/841, 148
Id.
the re-written HTML includes code that enables browser 120 to
download the requested content area in the background, while
browser 120 is displaying a rendered preview image, and to
switch (or transition) from the displayed preview image to the
requested content area, seamlessly, when the requested content
area has been fully retrieved by browser 120.
We agree with Appellants (see App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 4) that Jain does
not teach "transmit the markup code to the user device, wherein the markup
code instructs the user device to ... (2) transmit to the computer system the
follow-up request for the content page," as recited in claim 1. Although Jain
describes the re-written HTML can include a URL for the browser to request
the preview image (Jain, i-f 33), there is no similar description indicating the
HTML provides an instruction for the browser to make a follow-up request
for the originally requested content area. The Examiner cites Jain's
description that the re-written HTML includes code that enables the browser
"to switch (or transition) from the displayed preview image to the requested
content." Ans. 5; Jain, i-f 33. However, this description only begs the
question of how Jain's browser accomplishes the described transition.
Absent further reasoning explaining why Jain suggests or necessarily
requires a follow-up request from the browser, we decline to engage in
speculation. "A rejection ... must rest on a factual basis .... " In re
Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). "The Patent Office has the
initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not ...
resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to
supply deficiencies in its factual basis." Id.
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 1, independent claims 7 and 30 which
5
Appeal2018-000614
Application 13/841, 148
recite commensurate limitations, and dependent claims 2---6, 8-20, and 31-
39 for the same reasons.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-20 and 30-39 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20 and 30-39.
REVERSED
6