Ex Parte Odero et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 17, 2010

09932262 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 17, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
09/932,262 08/17/2001 Christine Odero NVIDP380 3914
75359 7590 11/17/2010
ZILKA-KOTAB, PC- NVID
P.O. BOX 721120
SAN JOSE, CA 95172-1120
EXAMINER
ROSWELL, MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2173
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/17/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte CHRISTINE ODERO, UMAIR KHAN, RIZWAN TUFAIL,
SERGEY ZABELIN, CARINA J. HAN, and HAIXIAO YU
____________________

Appeal 2009-004429
Application 09/932,262
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, THU A. DANG, and STEPHEN C.
SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2009-004429
Application 09/932,262

I. STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-41 under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates to user interfaces and
more particularly to a new toolbar for adding functionality to Internet
browsers (Spec. 2, ¶ [0001]).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary and reproduced below:

1. A method for providing a multifunction toolbar for a web
browser, comprising:

displaying a toolbar over a web browser on a computer;

linking the toolbar to a portal of a user on a remote server
coupled to the computer via a network, wherein the portal is for
aggregating content selected by the user;

presenting a bucket on the toolbar;

recognizing when the user selects content on a website
displayed on the web browser and drops the content in the
bucket; and

adding the selected content to the portal.

2
Appeal 2009-004429
Application 09/932,262

C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Sheldon US 6,072,486 Jun. 06, 2000
Anuff US 2002/0029296 A1 Mar. 07, 2002
Schultz US 6,453,339 B1 Sep. 17, 2002
Ferguson US 6,769,019 B2 Jul. 27, 2004
Shafron US 2004/0165007 A1 Aug. 26, 2004
Bascom US 7,139,974 B1 Nov. 21, 2006

Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 10, 12, 14-16, 18, 19, and 39-41 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ferguson in view of
Sheldon and Anuff.
Claims 2, 11, 20, 21, 23-25, 27-29, 31-33, 35, 36, and 38 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ferguson in
view of Sheldon, Anuff, and Bascom.
Claims 4 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ferguson in view of Sheldon, Anuff and Schultz.
Claims 22 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ferguson in view of Sheldon, Anuff, Bascom and Schultz.
Claims 8 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ferguson in view of Sheldon, Anuff and Shafron.
Claims 26 and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ferguson in view of Sheldon, Anuff, Bascom, and
Shafron.
Claim 37 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ferguson in view of Sheldon, Anuff, Bascom, Shafron,
and Schultz.
3
Appeal 2009-004429
Application 09/932,262

II. ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in finding that Ferguson in view of Sheldon
and Anuff would have disclosed or suggested “linking the toolbar to a portal
of a user” (claim 1), as Appellants contend? In particular, the issue turns on
whether the combined teachings of Ferguson and Sheldon would have
disclosed or suggested linking a toolbar to a portal.

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Ferguson
1. Ferguson discloses an interface onto which a user dynamically selects
hyperlinks from a Web page displayed in the window of a browser by
“dragging-&-dropping” them with a pointing device, wherein the dragged-
&-dropped links are downloaded and stored in a cache on the user’s hard
drive as Q-links that are presented in a list in the interface. When the user is
ready to view the previously selected pages, the user can click on any of the
Q-links in the list, which displays that content directly from hard drive cache
to the browser (col. 2, l. 65 to col. 3, l. 16).
2. A Web page is displayed on the browser 62 while a minimized
graphical user interface (GUI) 245 “floats” above the window of the browser
62 (col. 5, ll. 54-57; Fig. 6), wherein the maximized GUI 251 displays a list
261 of the Q-Link and Q-Touch content to be downloaded, downloading, or
downloaded in the background (col. 6, ll. 29-31; Fig. 8).
3. Invention Interface 404 collects an array of URLs, displays the list to
the user for selection, tracks user movements for generating Q-Tracks
4
Appeal 2009-004429
Application 09/932,262

information both for Q-Links and Q-Touch pages (col. 10, ll. 1-6; Fig. 10),
receives stimuli from the user for display of cached Q-Links in the open
instance of the browser 62, and when the user selects a link from the Q-
Links list 261 displayed in the Maximized Graphical Interface 251, the
Invention Interface 404 produces the local cache path for the specified link
by consulting the contents of the log file maintained by the Cache Manager
410 (col. 10, ll. 19-26).
4. In Drag-&-Drop operations, a current Web page is displayed on the
browser 62 and the Invention Interface 404 “floats” above the window of the
browser 62 (col. 27, ll. 17-28).
Sheldon
5. Sheldon discloses a deskbar that manages and presents sets of tool-
type user interface (UI) components for accessing data and implementing
functions associated with multiple application programs, wherein the
deskbar is designed to be highly customizable (col. 2, ll. 36-42).
6. The deskbar displays the band object on a desktop and the deskbar site
interacts with the deskbar to negotiate display screen real-estate to display
the deskbar (col. 2, ll. 48-51).
7. The deskbar contains toolbars and toolbar components from multiple
application programs, and exists in an application window, wherein the user
selects toolbar components or entire toolbars from one or more application
programs and house these toolbars or toolbar components in a single deskbar
and create new deskbars and populate them with selected toolbars and
toolbar components (col. 6, l. 62 to col. 7, l. 3).
8. The deskbar 310 includes a section 319 for containing application
icons 320 that are associated with application programs that are currently
5
Appeal 2009-004429
Application 09/932,262

open, and by clicking on the application icon 320 using the mouse 42, the
associated application program becomes active (col. 14, ll. 12-18; Figs. 4a-
4b).
9. The user customizes the deskbar 310 by adding deskbands to the
deskbar 310 (col. 14, ll. 29-30; Fig. 4a).
10. Before the application window or deskbar is closed, the deskbar site
sends a signal to the deskbar and instructs the deskbar to save its current
format to the registry, and the deskbar saves its current format to the registry
(col. 13, ll. 28-32).

IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 10, 12, 14-16, 18, 19, and 39-41
With respect to claim 1, Appellants contend that Sheldon “fails to
even suggest, let alone specifically meet appellant’s claimed ‘linking the
toolbar to a portal of a user’ (emphasis added), as claimed” (App. Br. 14-15).
In particular, Appellants contend that Sheldon only suggests “allowing a
deskbar to exist in an application window” (App. Br. 15) and that “such GUI
clearly cannot have a ‘link to the displayed portal in Ferguson’ (emphasis
added)” (id.). However, the Examiner finds that “incorporation of the
‘bucket’ of Ferguson into the customizable toolbar of Sheldon links the
toolbar to the portal, as the bucket provides a direct link to the portal” (Ans.
13).
To determine whether the combined teachings of Ferguson and
Sheldon would have disclosed or suggested linking a toolbar to a portal as
required by claim 1, we give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation.
See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Moreover, we will
6
Appeal 2009-004429
Application 09/932,262

not read limitations from the Specification into the claims. In re Van Geuns,
988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 1 does not define what “linking” or “toolbar” means, includes,
or represents but merely states that the method comprises “linking the
toolbar to a portal of a user.” In fact, claim 1 does not define what a “portal”
is except that it is “of a user.” Rather, Appellants’ Specification merely
defines “portal” as “a habitat” (Spec. 8).
Furthermore, Appellants have not pointed to any section in the
Specification disclosing that the term “linking” has a special meaning in the
art. Accordingly, we broadly but reasonably interpret “linking the toolbar to
a portal of a user” to be any connection of a toolbar to a habitat or storage
area of a user, wherein we give “toolbar” its ordinary meaning of as a row of
icons on a computer screen that activate commands or functions when
clicked.
Ferguson discloses an interface onto which a user dynamically selects
hyperlinks from a Web page displayed in the window of a browser by
“dragging-&-dropping” them, wherein the dragged-&-dropped links are
downloaded and stored in a cache on the user’s hard drive as Q-links that are
presented in a list in the interface and the user can view selected pages by
clicking on any of the Q-links in the list to display that content directly from
hard drive cache to the browser (FF 1). In particular, a Web page is
displayed on the browser while an interface “floats” above the window of
the browser and displays a list of the Q-Link content (FF 2), and when the
user selects a link from the Q-Links list displayed, a local cache path for the
specified link is produced (FF 3), wherein the user can drag and drop links
onto the interface (FF 4).
7
Appeal 2009-004429
Application 09/932,262

We find the “portal of a user” of claim 1 to read on Ferguson’s cache
on the user’s hard drive. That is, we find the cache for housing data to be a
“habitat” and thus a “portal,” wherein the cache, being on the user’s hard
drive, is “of a user” as required by claim 1.
Furthermore, the interface of Ferguson is displayed over a web
browser (FF 2) for aggregating links selected by the user and for recognizing
when the user selects a link on a website displayed on the web browser and
when the user drops the link in the interface (FF 3-4), wherein the selected
link is then downloaded and stored to cache (FF 1) by producing a local
cache path for the specified link (FF 3). Thus, we agree with the Examiner
and find Ferguson to disclose linking to a portal (or cache) of a user. In fact,
Appellants have not shown why such teachings of Ferguson are not
sufficient for a teaching of linking to a portal.
Moreover, Sheldon discloses a customizable deskbar containing
toolbars and toolbar components that manages and presents sets of user
interface components for accessing data and implementing functions
associated with multiple application programs (FF 5-7). In particular, the
deskbar includes a section for containing application icons that are
associated with application programs that become active by clicking on the
application icons (FF 8), and the user customizes the deskbar by adding
deskbands to the deskbar (FF 9), wherein the additions to the deskbar are
saved to a registry (FF 10). We find Sheldon to disclose a row of icons on a
computer screen at activate commands or functions when clicked, wherein
the icons are linked to a registry. Accordingly, we find Sheldon to disclose a
user interface comprising a toolbar that is linked.
8
Appeal 2009-004429
Application 09/932,262

We find no error in the Examiner’s finding that “incorporation of the
‘bucket’ of Ferguson into the customizable toolbar of Sheldon links the
toolbar to the portal, as the bucket provides a direct link to the portal” (Ans.
13). That is, the combination of one known element (Ferguson’s linking of
the user interface to a cache on the user’s hard drive) with another
(Sheldon’s toolbar on the user interface) would have yielded predictable
results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. That is,
we find that such combination is no more than a simple arrangement of old
elements, with each performing the same function it had been known to
perform, yielding no more than one would expect from such an
arrangement.” See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007).
The skilled artisan would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple
patents together like pieces of a puzzle” since the skilled artisan is “a person
of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 420-21. Appellants have
presented no evidence that replacing the user interface of Ferguson, which is
linked to a portal, with the toolbar user interface of Sheldon was “uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an
unobvious step over the prior art.” See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-
Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at
418-19).
As for claims 3 and 12, Appellants argue that “simply describing that
toolbars can be modified by adding or deleting buttons and changing button
function, as in Sheldon, fails to disclose ‘a customize button’” (App. Br. 17).
However, the Examiner finds that “Sheldon teaches a menu that allows a
user to customize features of a toolbar” (Ans. 14). We agree with the
Examiner.
9
Appeal 2009-004429
Application 09/932,262

Sheldon discloses customizing the deskbar by selecting the “toolbar”
icon (FF 9). Contrary to Appellants’ argument, we find Sheldon would have
suggested a “customize button” as required in claim 3.
As for claim 39, Appellants argue that “interface 246 [of Ferguson] is
clearly not a button” and thus, “neither Sheldon nor Ferguson, as relied on
by the Examiner, meet appellant’s claimed ‘bucket [that] includes a button
on the toolbar’ (emphasis added)” (App. Br. 18). However, Ferguson
discloses that a user may select a link on the list on the interface by clicking
on the link (FF 1). We find Ferguson’s interface to include buttons. In
Ferguson, the links are dragged and dropped into the interface including the
buttons (FF 4). Thus, we find Ferguson to at the least suggest a bucket that
includes a button.
As to claim 41, though Appellants argue that Anuff “does not disclose
a remote server” (App. Br. 18), the Examiner finds that “the Anuff reference
indeed teaches a remote server, as can be seen in the client/server
architecture of Fig. 3” (Ans. 15). We agree with the Examiner.
Though Appellants also argue that Anuff does not disclose that
“adding the selected content to the portal includes storing the content on the
remote server” (App. Br. 18-19), Appellants appear to be arguing that Anuff
alone does not teach the claimed invention. However, nonobviousness
cannot be shown by attacking the references individually. See In re Merck &
Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claims 1, 3, 12, 39 and 41, and
claims 5-7, 9, 10, 14-16, 18, 19, and 40 falling with claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ferguson in view of Sheldon and Anuff.

10
Appeal 2009-004429
Application 09/932,262

Claims 2, 11, 20, 21, 23-25, 27-29, 31-33, 35, 36, and 38
With respect to claim 20, Appellants merely repeat that Sheldon “only
suggests allowing a deskbar to exist in an application window which does
[not] meet appellant’s claimed ‘linking the toolbar to a portal of a user’”
(App. Br. 20). However, as discussed above regarding claim 1, we do not
find any deficiencies with respect to the combination of Ferguson and
Sheldon for this teaching.
As to claims 2 and 11, Appellants argue that “Bascom only discloses
connecting a client tool to a server, and not a ‘toolbar [that] links to the
portal upon the user signing in’ (emphasis added)” (App. Br. 22). However,
Appellants appear to be arguing that Bascom alone does not teach the
claimed invention wherein the Examiner has rejected claims 2 and 11 over
the combined teachings of Ferguson, Sheldon, Anuff and Bascom.
With respect to claim 38, Appellants merely repeat that Sheldon “fails
to specifically teach ‘linking the toolbar to a portal of a user’” (App. Br. 23).
As discussed above, we do not find any deficiencies with respect to the
combination of Ferguson and Sheldon for this teaching.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claims 2, 11, 20, and 38, and
claims 21, 23-25, 27-29, 31-33, 35, and 36 falling with claim 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ferguson in view of Sheldon,
Anuff and Bascom.
Claims 4, 8, 13, 17, 22, 26, 30 and 34
Appellants do not provide arguments for claims 4, 8, 13 and 17
separate from those of claim 1, and do not provide argument for claims 22,
26, 30 and 34 from those of claim 20. Accordingly, we also affirm 1) the
rejection of claims 4 and 13 over Ferguson in view of Sheldon, Anuff and
11
Appeal 2009-004429
Application 09/932,262

Schultz; 2) the rejection of claims 22 and 30 over Ferguson in view of
Sheldon, Anuff, Bascom and Schultz; 3) the rejection of claims 8 and 17
over Ferguson in view of Sheldon, Anuff and Shafron; and 4) the rejection
of claims 26 and 34 over Ferguson in view of Sheldon, Anuff, Bascom, and
Shafron under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claim 37
With respect to claim 37, Appellants merely repeat that Sheldon “only
suggests allowing a deskbar to exist in an application window which does
[not] meet appellant’s claimed ‘linking the toolbar to a portal of a user’”
(App. Br. 28). However, as discussed above regarding claim 1, we do not
find any deficiencies with respect to the combination of Ferguson and
Sheldon for this teaching.
Accordingly, we also affirm the rejection of claim 37 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ferguson in view of Sheldon, Anuff,
Bascom, Shafron and Schultz.

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-41 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

12
Appeal 2009-004429
Application 09/932,262

peb

ZILKA-KOTAB, PC- NVID
P.O. BOX 721120
SAN JOSE, CA 95172-1120

13