11559470 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2014)

Ex Parte Venkateswaran et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 29, 2014

11559470 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2014)

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. 11/559,470 11/14/2006 AYALUR S. VENKATESWARAN CS28291RL 4163 124145 7590 07/30/2014 McDermott Will & Emery LLP (GTH) The McDermott Building 500 North Capitol St., N.W. Washington, DC 20001 EXAMINER BROWN, SHEREE N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2163 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/30/2014 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 AYALUR S. VENKATESWARAN and AMIT ESWARAIAH ________________ Appeal 2012-001250 Application 11/559,470 Technology Center 2100 ________________ Before STEVEN D. A. McCARTHY, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-001250 Application 11/559,470 2 SUMMARY Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3-7 and 9-12. These claims all stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Kaasila (US 2004/0183817; published Sept. 23, 2004). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Cf. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). We reverse. STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants describe the present invention as a system and method for browsing web pages on a mobile communication device. The mobile device includes [a] processor (204) [that] is configured to determine (308) whether a display parameter associated with the received web page exceeds a display threshold value. [A] display (208) is configured to display (310) the received web page in a first navigation mode if the display parameter does not exceed the display threshold value, and display (312) the received web page in a second navigation mode if the display parameter exceeds the display threshold value. Abstract. Appeal 2012-001250 Application 11/559,470 3 Independent claim 1is illustrative of the claimed invention: 1. A method for browsing web pages on a mobile device with a display, the method comprising: receiving a web page; determining whether a quantity of web links associated with the received web page exceeds a display threshold value; selecting a first navigation mode if the quantity of web links does not exceed the display threshold value; and selecting a second navigation mode, different from the first navigation mode, if the quantity of web links exceeds the display threshold value. CONTENTIONS Appellants acknowledge that “Kaasila describes the selection of web links.” App. Br. 4. Appellants argue, though, that “Kaasila does not disclose determining a ‘quantity’ of web links associated with a web page.” Id. As such, according to Appellants, Kaasila likewise fails to disclose the selecting either of a first or second navigation mode based upon the determined quantity of web links contained in the web page. App. Br. 3. The Examiner states that Kaasila discloses determining whether a quantity of web links associated with the received web page exceeds a display threshold value in Figures 121-128 and paragraphs 73, 172, and 586- 593. Ans. 4-5. In the Response section of the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner additionally cites paragraphs 512 (Ans. 8-9) and 627 (Ans. 13). ANALYSIS The Examiner explains that the claims are being interpreted broadly (Ans. 8) and repeatedly references the undisputed legal principle that “Office Appeal 2012-001250 Application 11/559,470 4 personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure” (Ans. 9, 11, 13). However, the Examiner never explains how the cited portions of Kaasila are being interpreted to disclose “determining whether a quantity of web links associated with the received web page exceeds a display threshold value,” as required by independent method claim 1. Nor does the Examiner explain how the cited passages disclose the similar limitation of independent product claim 7, “a processor configured to determine whether a quantity of web links associated with the received web page exceeds a display threshold value.” Paragraph 73, contained within Kaasila’s Summary of the Invention section, merely states that “[t]he generation of the first and second inputs allows a user to change the display parameters of column width and relative font size as a group, without the need to separately select to changes [sic] each such display parameter separately.” Kaasila’s paragraphs 172 and 586- 593 are associated with Figures 121-128. As explained by Appellants, [these cited portions of Kaasila describe] a zoomclick mode which allows a user to view and select portions of a web page or screen with greater accuracy. The zoomclick mode allows the user to see the position of a cursor before any selection is made. The zoomclick mode also shows the screen at a larger view scale to make it easier for the user to position the cursor on a desired link or control. App. Br. 3. Furthermore, paragraph 512 of Kaasila merely discloses that a user selects web links displayed on a client. In fact, the Examiner appears to rely on paragraph 512 only for this proposition—not for further teaching the step of determining the quantity of web links contained within a page. Ans. 10- 11. The Examiner instead states that “Kaasila goes on to disclose [the Appeal 2012-001250 Application 11/559,470 5 disputed limitation, discussed supra]” in Figures 121-128 and the associated text. Ans. 11. Finally, the Examiner’s further reliance paragraph 627 (Ans. 13), which is not even directly related to Figures 121-128, fails to cure the deficiencies noted. As reproduced by the Examiner, [0627] FIG. 140 illustrate that certain aspects of present invention can be used to enable a thin client computer 200 to display digital content corresponding to the text and the images generated as screen output by one or more applications running on upon a remote computer 14000. Such applications can include Web browsers, spreadsheets, word processors, database programs, or virtually any other type of software capable of generating screen displays. Ans. 13 (emphasis added in the Examiner’s Answer). For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner has failed to establish that Kaasila discloses the disputed limitations of independent claims 1 and 7. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of those claims, or of dependent claims 3-6 or 9-12. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-7, and 9-12 is reversed. REVERSED tc