13901359 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2018)

Ex Parte Kumar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 22, 2018

13901359 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/901,359 05/23/2013 20995 7590 03/26/2018 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.778A4 2319 EXAMINER EDWARDS, JASON T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2144 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/26/2018 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 HAYDEN Appeal2017-010678 Application 13/901,3 59 Technology Center 2100 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2017-010678 Application 13/901,359 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a rejection of claims 19, 21-23, 29-47. Claims 1-18, 20, and 24--28 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm-in-part. 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 11. For example, a Web page preview may include a screenshot image that requires minimal browser processing. Spec. i-f 12. Once the actual Web page is loaded, the browser updates the display by replacing the preview with the actual Web page. Spec. i-f 13. Claim 19, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 19. A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a computer-executable browser module configured to cause a user computing device to at least: receive, from an intermediary system in response to a first request for a content page, a preview version of the content page for temporary display, the preview version comprising multiple screenshots, each of a different respective portion of the content page; display the preview version of the content page on a display screen of the user computing device; receive a non-preview version of the requested content page while the preview version is displayed on the display screen; detect that the non-preview version of the content page is ready for display on the user computing device; and 2 Appeal2017-010678 Application 13/901,359 in response to detecting that the non-preview version is ready for display on the user computing device, automatically display the non-preview version of the content page on the display screen in place of the preview version of the content page; wherein the preview version is a modified version of the content page and is at least partially optimized to reduce a loading time, such that a user-perceived load time of the content page is reduced. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Sze Kujda Arastafar Jain Rossman US 2009/0089448 Al Apr. 2, 2009 US 2009/0100356 Al Apr. 16, 2009 US 2011/0197126 Al Aug. 11, 2011 US 2012/0254727 Al Oct. 4, 2012 US 2013/0080895 Al Mar. 28, 2013 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 19, 21-23, 33-35, and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jain, Kujda, and Arastafar. Claims 29, 30, 36, and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jain, Kujda, Arastafar, and Rossman. Claims 31, 32, and 41--46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jain, Kujda, Arastafar, Rossman, and Sze. Claims 37 and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jain, Kujda, Arastafar, and Sze. 3 Appeal2017-010678 Application 13/901,359 ANALYSIS Claims 19, 22, 23, 29-33, 35-42, 44, 46, and 47 Appellants contend the combination of Jain, Kujda, and Arastafar does not disclose "the preview version comprising multiple screenshots, each of a different respective portion of the content page," as recited in independent claim 19. App. Br. 7. Specifically, Appellants argue Kujda's smaller versions of Web page modules are not equivalent to the claimed "screenshots." App. Br. 7-8. Additionally, Appellants assert the Examiner "improperly construes 'screenshot' to include any reduced-display-size representation of an image, regardless of how the reduced-display-size representation is generated." Reply Br. 2. "As the term itself implies, a screenshot is captured or 'shot' from a 'screen' of image data." Id. We find Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 19. The Examiner finds Jain teaches "the preview version comprising multiple screenshots," and cites Kujda as additional evidence. See Final Act. 3. Specifically, the Examiner states "Jain teaches ... the preview version comprising multiple screenshots (displaying a preview image of the content area prior to displaying the content area [0008], further involving pre-rendering preview images representing one or more content areas, such as pre-rendering certain content [0031])." Final Act. 3. We agree with the Examiner that Jain teaches the "screenshots" feature of claim 19. Jain describes providing preview images for content, where the images are generated as follows: In an embodiment, to render an image representing the requested content area, rendering engine 150 performs rendering actions that are conventionally performed by a browser including, but not limited to, storing and sending cookies, executing scripts, 4 Appeal2017-010678 Application 13/901,359 fetching referenced resources, applying fonts, colors, backgrounds and other styles, etc. In this way, rendering engine 150 generates a preview image of a content area requested by browser 120. In an embodiment, rendering engine 150 can pre-render preview images representing one or more content areas and cache the rendered preview images prior to receiving a request for the content areas from browser 120. Jain, i-fi-129, 31. Here, we find Jain teaches rendering content in the same manner as would a browser, and storing the rendered content as an image. Even if we were to adopt Appellants' definition of "screenshot"-"captured or 'shot' from a 'screen' of image data" (Reply Br. 2}-Jain's pre-rendering a preview image of content meets this definition. That is, Appellants elaborate, by way of example, that "in the context of web pages, a screenshot of the page (or a portion of the page) can be generated by rendering the web page to generate a screen buffer of image data, and then capturing or copying all or a portion of the image represented in the screen buffer." Reply Br. 2. Jain, as quoted above, discloses a similar process to Appellants' example by describing a process that includes rendering content in the same way as a browser, and then storing the rendered content as an image. See Jain, i-fi-129, 31. Accordingly, we find Jain's preview image teaches a "screenshot" as claimed. We further find Jain's teaching that "rendering engine 150 can pre-render preview images representing one or more content areas" (Jain, i1 31) would have at least suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that Jain could provide a "preview version comprising multiple screenshots, each of a different respective portion of the content page," as recited in claim 19. 5 Appeal2017-010678 Application 13/901,359 In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the Examiner's citation to Kujda is merely cumulative to the Examiner's reliance on Jain's teachings with respect to the "screenshots" feature of claim 19. Appellants have not presented specific arguments explaining why the Examiner's reliance on Jain (see Final Act. 3) is in error. Rather, Appellants' arguments focus solely on Kujda. App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 1-3. Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 19, and dependent claims 22, 23, and 29-32 not specifically argued separately. Although Appellants separately argue independent claims 33 and 40 (App. Br. 11-13, 14--16), the arguments presented are similar to those discussed above regarding claim 19. Thus, we also sustain the rejections of claims 33 and 40, and dependent claims 35-39 and 41, 42, 44, 46, and 47 not specifically argued separately, for the same reasons as claim 19. Claims 21, 34, and 43 The Examiner finds Kujda teaches the claim 21 feature "wherein the preview version of the content page additionally includes an image map specifying a location, within a first screenshot of the multiple screenshots, of a user-selectable link imaged within the first screenshot." Final Act. 5---6. Appellants contend Kujda does not teach the claimed "image map." App. Br. 10. We agree with Appellants. Kujda describes presenting a preview of a Web page, where the preview is a smaller version of the page designed to fit within one screen, such that the preview contains a smaller version of each module of the page. Kujda, i-fi-f 14, 18. Kujda further describes the following: 6 Appeal2017-010678 Application 13/901,359 [W]hen a user's mouse cursor is hovering over a small representation of a module, e.g., the small representation 301, a text box 330 may be displayed at one side of the small representation . . . . If the user confirms his/her interests in this module by continuing to have his/her mouse cursor hover over, or clicking on the small representation 301, the module ... may be loaded and displayed on the screen, earlier than other modules. Kujda, i-f 21. Here, we find Kujda teaches using an image of a module as a user-selectable command interface. However, Kujda does not teach the small representation 301 of a module is "an image map specifying a location ... of a user-selectable link," as recited in claim 21. Rather, Kujda uses the entire representation 301 as the user-selectable portion, not a location within the representation specified by an image map. See Kujda, i-fi-120-21. We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 21, and claims 34 and 43 which recite commensurate limitations. Claim 45 In the Final Rejection, the Examiner finds Rossman teaches the claim 45 feature "wherein generating the initial version comprises generating a first screenshot of an upper portion of the content page that is visible prior to page scrolling, and a second screenshot of a portion of the content page falling below the upper portion .... " Final Act. 23. In the Answer, the Examiner additionally cites Kujda as teaching the above-quoted feature of claim 45. Ans. 31. Appellants contend both Rossman and Kujda fail to teach generating first and second screenshots representing, respectively, an upper portion of a content page visible prior to page scrolling and a portion 7 Appeal2017-010678 Application 13/901,359 of the content page falling below the upper portion. App. Br. 18; Reply Br. 7. We agree with Appellants. Rossman describes previewing a video file by being presented with a representative view of the entire video. Rossman, i-f 9. The Examiner has not specifically explained how Rossman's representative view of a video relates to generating first and second screenshots of a content page. See Final Act. 23. Accordingly, we find Rossman does not teach the disputed limitations of claim 45. Kujda, as discussed above regarding claim 21, presents a preview of a Web page by displaying smaller versions of each module of the page on one screen. Kujda, i-f 14. We agree with Appellants that Kujda's modules are not "screenshots" as the term is used in the claims. Reply Br. 7. As Appellants assert with respect to claim 19, "a screenshot is captured or 'shot' from a 'screen' of image data." Reply Br. 2. Kujda describes displaying small representations of Web page modules that are smaller versions of the visual representations of Web page modules. Kujda, i-f 18. However, the Examiner has not shown that Kujda's displaying of small representations of the Web page modules involves using "screenshots" of the modules, as opposed to, for example, simply using different sizing parameters for rendering the modules when the Web page is presented. Accordingly, the Examiner has not shown Kujda teaches the disputed limitations of claim 45. Moreover, although we find Jain teaches using "screenshots" in a preview version of a content page (see discussion of claim 19, supra), the Examiner has not explained how and why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Kujda with Jain to meet the disputed claim 45 limitations. See Final Act. 23; Ans. 30-31. 8 Appeal2017-010678 Application 13/901,359 We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 45. CONCLUSIONS The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 21, 34, 43, and 45, but did not err in rejecting claims 19, 22, 23, 29-33, 35- 42, 44, 46, and 47 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision with respect to the rejection of claims 21, 34, 43, and 45, and affirm the Examiner's decision with respect to the rejection of claims 19, 22, 23, 29-33, 35-42, 44, 46, and47. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(Â±). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 9