Ex Parte Alkov et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2016

13089812 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/089,812 04/19/2011 Christopher S. Alkov
70303 7590 05/02/2016
IBM RALEIGH IPLAW (DL)
C/O DELIZIO LAW, PLLC
15201 MASON ROAD
SUITE 1000-312
CYPRESS, TX 77433
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.
RSW920100174US1 1181
EXAMINER
THERIAULT, STEVENB
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2179
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2016 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):
USPTO@DELIZIOLA W.COM
USPT02@DELIZIOLA W.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER ALKOV, DENISE BELL,
BRIAN FARRELL, TRAVIS M. GRIGSBY, and JANA JENKINS
Appeal2014--006712 1
Application 13/089,812
Technology Center 2100
Before MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 1,
2, 4--9, 11-15, and 17-23, which constitute all claims pending in the application.2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as International Business Machines
Corporation. App. Br. 1
2 Claims 3, 10, and 16 are canceled. App. Br. 21, 23-24 (Claims App'x).
Appeal2014-006712
Application 13/089,812
STATEivIENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1, reproduced below with a key disputed limitation emphasized, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
receiving a destination Internet address for a destination web
page into a graphical web browser that is displaying a current web page
having a current Internet address on a display;
determining a relationship between the destination Internet
address and the current Internet address, wherein determining a
relationship comprises determining differences between the current
Internet address and the destination Internet address;
determining a spatially-oriented traversal animation based, at
least in part, on the relationship between the destination Internet address
and the current Internet address;
animating bringing the destination web page onto the display
using the spatially-oriented traversal animation; and
displaying the destination web page after the spatially-oriented
traversal animation.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, and 21-23 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lyness (US 2003/0080990 Al; May 1,
2003) and Czerwinski (US 6,188,405 Bl; Feb. 13, 2001).
Claims 6, 7, 13, 14, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lyness, Czerwinski, and Blash (US 2010/0167256 Al;
July 1, 2010).
2
Appeal2014-006712
Application 13/089,812
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Lyness teaches each of the limitations of
independent claims 1, 8, and 15, except for "determining a relationship comprises
determining differences between the current Internet address and the destination
Internet address." Final Act. 3--4; see also Ans. 10-11. The Examiner cites
Czerwinski at columns 6, 9, 11, and 13-18 as teaching this limitation. Final Act.
4--5; see also Ans. 14--19. Czerwinski describes a graphical user interface (GUI) in
which object thumbnails that represent web pages are clustered based on
proximity. See Czerwinski, Abstract, col. 4, 11. 4--6. The Examiner finds
[t]he determined difference between the pages is made by the user in
selection and the relationships between the match relevance to the
proximate objects because Czerwinski expressly teaches using object
identifiers or URL or Internet addresses to track objects. Clearly,
different object identifiers allow for each of the pages to be monitored
and the differences are determined to allow not only the clustering
mechanism to change based on determined differences in pages related
to one another but also for the previous page to be deselected, returned
to a location and the new page to be brought to the preferred location.
Without the determined difference in URL and location then the system
would not know one page from the next or where to place the objects in
the workspace.
Ans. 18 (emphasis added); see also id. at 15-17.
With regard to the disputed limitation, Appellants argue Czerwinski fails to
teach or suggest determining differences between Internet addresses of the web
pages. See App. Br. 13-14. Appellants contend Czerwinski teaches, at most, that
each web page has an identifier, e.g., a Uniform Resource Locator (URL), but fails
to teach or suggest determining differences between URLs. Reply Br. 7-8.
Appellants further contend that, when a user clicks on the URL associated with a
selected web page, Czerwinski' s browser navigates to the selected web page, but
3
Appeal2014-006712
Application 13/089,812
does not compare the current Internet address to the destination Internet address.
App. Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 7. Appellants further argue the disputed limitation
is not taught or suggested by Czerwinski' s teaching of comparing the content of
web pages to determine how closely the web pages match. App. Br. 14; see also
Ans. 16-17.
We concur with Appellants. The Examiner's finding that Czerwinski
teaches the disputed limitation is not supported by sufficient evidence of record.
We agree that the cited portions of Czerwinski would not have suggested, to the
ordinarily skilled artisan, that selecting and deselecting pages and objects in a
workspace would have involved determining the differences between Internet
addresses among different objects.
For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
the combination of Lyness and Czerwinski teaches or suggests the limitations as
recited in claims 1, 8, and 15, and claims 2, 4--7, 9, 11-14, and 17-23.3 Therefore,
we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--9, 11-15, and 17-23 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4--9, 11-15, and 17-23 is
reversed.
REVERSED
3 Claims 6, 7, 13, 14, 19, and 20 are rejected over the combination of Lyness,
Czerwinski, and Blash. As the Examiner did not find the additional references
teach or suggest the disputed limitation, we reach the same decision with respect to
these claims as with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15, from which they depend, for
substantially similar reasons.
4