CC MEDIA NETWORK LIMITED

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 5, 2021

2020001377 (P.T.A.B. May. 5, 2021)

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. 14/862,765 09/23/2015 Rick CLAY 800002.01385 2230 32294 7590 05/05/2021 SQUIRE PB (DC Office) ATTN: IP Department 2550 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 EXAMINER ALRIYASHI, ABDULKADER MOHAMED ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2447 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/05/2021 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): IP-Squire@SquirePB.com sonia.whitney@squirepb.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte RICK CLAY and BOGDAN DOBRAN ____________________ Appeal 2020-001377 Application 14/862,765 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 through 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2019). According to Appellant, CC Media Network Limited is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1–2. Appeal 2020-001377 Application 14/862,765 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a manner of extending a browser’s application program interface by launching a web-based application using a first web browser, and opening a second web browser inside the web-based application. Spec., Abstr. According to the Specification, the second web browser allows for greater access to an application programming interface beyond the limitations of the first web browser. Id. Claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. An apparatus comprising: at least one memory comprising computer program code; at least one processor; wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus at least to: launch a web-based application using a first web browser; open a second web browser from inside the web-based application; and load a webpage on the second web browser, wherein the webpage provides a link to the web-based application, and wherein the second web browser, running under a separate system application, is configured to provide an extended application programming interface at the second web browser, wherein the extended application programming interface provides access to functionality, at the apparatus, that is not provided for by the first web browser, and wherein the link provides for using a functionality of the apparatus with the web-based application loaded on the first web browser. Appeal 2020-001377 Application 14/862,765 3 EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS2 The Examiner rejects claims 1 through 4, 7, 9, 10, 12 through 15, and 17 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Kreiner (US 2007/0136417 A1, June 14, 2007). Final Act. 4–5. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 12, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Everett-Church (US 2005/0108033 A1, May 19, 2005). Final Act. 6. The Examiner rejects claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kreiner and Lin (US 2015/0296015 A1, Oct. 15, 2015). Final Act. 7. The Examiner rejects claims 8 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over by Kreiner and Zuili (US 2014/0372517 A1, Dec. 18, 2014). Final Act. 7–8. The Examiner rejects claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over by Kreiner and Levy (US 2007/0136579 A1, June 14, 2007). Final Act. 8. ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, Reply Brief, the Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments. Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s anticipation and obviousness rejections. 2 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed September 18, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief filed December 11, 2019 (“Reply Br.”); Final Office Action mailed January 10, 2019 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s Answer mailed October 11, 2019 (“Ans.”). Appeal 2020-001377 Application 14/862,765 4 Anticipation rejection based upon Kreiner Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is in error as Kreiner does not disclose the claim 1 limitation of the second web browser being configured to provide an extended application programming interface that provides access to functionality that is not provided for by the first web browser. Appeal Br. 8–10; Reply Br. 2–4. Appellant argues that Kreiner describes plug-in modules which provide support for a new file or standard but does not disclose a second browser that provides access to functionality that is not provided by the first web browser. Appeal Br. 8 (citing Kreiner ¶ 46). Further, Appellant states: Kreiner is silent as to the browser interface 532 providing any extra system access beyond what the main browser 510 can provide. Instead, paragraph [0042] of Kreiner describes that the guest browser interface 530 allows a user to go to a particular website, and does not disclose or suggest that it provides “access to functionality, at the apparatus, that is not provided for by the first web browser,” according to claim 1. That is, Kreiner’s browser is unable to create a gateway to a system functionality beyond what the browser already offers. For example, Kreiner cannot be used to offer direct access to a device on the host system unless the browser used “already” offers that access. Appeal Br. 9. Additionally in the Reply Brief, Appellant argues: Kreiner describes that the plug-ins, modules, and virus protection that the Examiner’s Answer asserted as corresponding to the claimed functionalities, are supported and can be accessed by both the guest browser 460/530 and the installed browser 420/510. This, however, is contrary to the above-referenced elements of claims 1, 12 and 17, which recite that access to functionality provided by an extended application Appeal 2020-001377 Application 14/862,765 5 of a second web browser is not provided for by the first web browser. Reply Br. 4. The Examiner provides a comprehensive response to Appellant’s arguments on pages 8 and 9 of the Answer. We have reviewed the Examiner’s response, the cited portions of Kreiner, and we concur with the Examiner. We add the following to further support the Examiner’s findings and conclusions. We are not persuaded of error by Appellant’s argument that Kreiner is silent about the browser providing any extra system access beyond the main browser. Appeal Br. 9. Claim 1 recites the browser providing access to functionality, not system access as argued. Kreiner states “[i]n addition, functionality offered by the guest browser interface 130 may surpass the functionality of the installed web browser application hosting the guest browser interface 130” and “[t]he end result is that a guest browser 460 can have capabilities greater than or less than the installed browser 420 it is running in.” Kreiner ¶¶ 18, 68. Further, in as much as Appellant is arguing that the guest browser and installed browser in Kreiner are the same browser and thus have the same functionality (even though one has different plugins); this is a feature which is not borne out in claim 1. Nonetheless, Kreiner also describes this feature in that Kreiner teaches that the guest browser can emulate other browsers with different capabilities. See Kreiner ¶¶ 57–59. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1 over Kreiner. With respect to independent claims 12 and 17, Appellant identifies that the claims recite limitations similar to those discussed with respect to Appeal 2020-001377 Application 14/862,765 6 claim 1 and asserts that for the reasons presented with respect to claim 1, the rejection of claims 12 and 17 is in error. Appeal Br. 13, 15. As we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, we similarly find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12 and 17. With respect to dependent claims 2 through 4, 7, 9, 10, 13 through 15, and 18 through 20, Appellant restates the limitations of the claims and argues that the rejection is in error for the same reasons as claim 1. Appeal Br. 10–16. These conclusory arguments that the additional claims are patent eligible are considered to be nothing more than a general allegation of patentability and are not considered separate patentability arguments. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”). As such, Appellant’s arguments directed to the rejection of these claims are not persuasive of error and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2 through 4, 7, 9, 10, 13 through 15, and 18 through 20 for the same reasons discussed above with respect to independent claims 1, 12, and 17. Anticipation rejection based upon Everett-Church Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is in error as Everett-Church does not disclose the claim 1 limitation of the second web browser being configured to provide an extended application programming interface that provides access to functionality that is not provided for by the first web browser. Appeal Br. 17–19; Reply Br. 4–6. Appellant argues that the instant message (IM) window 216, which the Office equates to the first Appeal 2020-001377 Application 14/862,765 7 browser, and the browser 204, which the Office equates to the second browser, have the same functionality as they both have the “share photo” functionality. Appeal Br. 18 (citing Everett-Church ¶¶ 23, 24); Reply Br. 5 (citing Everett-Church ¶ 24). The Examiner responds to Appellant’s arguments on pages 9 and 10 of the Answer identifying that the “sharing selected photos” button in browser 204 (Fig. 2A) and the “share” button in browser 216 have different functionalities. Answer 9–10 (citing Everett-Church Fig. 2A and ¶ 24). We concur with the Examiner, claim 1 recites that second browser provides access to functionality that is not provided for in the first browser. As identified by the Examiner, even though both browser windows have buttons which have the word “share” they perform different functions, e.g., activation of button 236 causes browser window 204 to open. Additionally, the claim does not preclude the browsers from performing some of the same functions, only that the second has access to functionality not in the other. As such, even if we were to consider having buttons with the word “share” to be the same functionality, the two browsers have different functionalities; the browser 216 performs functions not provided for in browser 204 notably, the instant message feature and sharing of photos with other computers and, browser 204 performs functions not provided for in browser 216 such displaying and allowing the selection individual photos. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1 over Everett-Church. With respect to independent claims 12 and 17, Appellant identifies that the claims recite limitations similar to those discussed with respect to claim 1 and asserts that for the reasons presented with respect to claim 1, the Appeal 2020-001377 Application 14/862,765 8 rejection of claims 12 and 17 is in error. Appeal Br. 19–20. As we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, we similarly find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12 and 17. Obviousness Rejections Appellant does not present arguments with respect to the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of dependent claims 5, 6, 8, 11, and 16. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of these claims for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claims 1 and 12 from which they depend. CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–4, 7, 9, 10 12–15, 17–20 102 Kreiner 1–4, 7, 9, 10 12–15, 17–20 1, 12, 17 102 Everett-Church 1, 12, 17 5, 6 103 Kreiner, Lin 5, 6 8, 16 103 Kreiner, Zuili 8, 16 11 103 Kreiner, Levy 11 Overall Outcome 1–20 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). Appeal 2020-001377 Application 14/862,765 9 AFFIRMED