Ex Parte Badge et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 17, 2017

13734663 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 17, 2017)

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.
13/734,663 01/04/2013 Gaurav Moreshwar Badge 648.0111 5223
93379 7590 08/21/2017
Setter Rnehe T T P
EXAMINER
14694 Orchard Parkway JACOBS, LASHONDA T
Building A, Suite 200
Westminster, CO 80023 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2457
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/21/2017 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):
s arah @ setterroche. com
pair_avaya@ firsttofile.com
u spto @ setterroche .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GAURAV MORESHWAR BADGE and DEEP SUBHASH PAI
Appeal 2017-001654
Application 13/734,6631
Technology Center 2400
Before MARC S. HOFF, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Avaya Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-001654
Application 13/734,663
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention is generally directed to
“allowing multiple devices to browse the same instance of a website,” i.e., a
co-browsing session of a website by a first and second client. Spec. 12. In
a disclosed embodiment of a co-browsing session, a co-browsing server
renders a website to generate a rendered image of the website. Spec. 117.
The co-browsing server transfers a first copy of the rendered image to a first
client and transfers a second copy of the rendered image to a second client.
Spec. 118. For embodiments in which the clients allow their respective
users to interact with (e.g., click a link or enter text in a field) the displayed
website (i.e., rendered image), the client transfers the input information to
the co-browsing server, which, in turn, applies the input to the website and
updates the rendered image and transfers updated copies of the rendered
image to the clients. Spec. 120. According to the Specification, “a user is
able to view and interact with the website in the same manner as the user
would if the website were rendered on a web browser local to the user’s
device.” Spec. 121. Further, according to the Specification, the disclosed
co-browsing sessions allow multiple users—each of whom may be operating
different devices running (potentially) different operating systems or having
different rendering capabilities—to browse the same instance of a website.
Spec, 11, Abstract.
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized in italics'.
1. A method of operating a co-browsing system, comprising:
receiving an instruction in the co-browsing system to initiate a co­
browsing session for a website with a first client and a second client;
2
Appeal 2017-001654
Application 13/734,663
acquiring the website from a server that hosts the website;
rendering the website in the co-browsing system to generate a
rendered image of the website, wherein the rendered image allows for user
interaction with the website in the same manner as though the website was
rendered local to the first or second client; and
transferring a first copy of the rendered image to the first client and a
second copy of the rendered image to the second client.
The Examiner’s Rejection
Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Light (US 2008/0052377 Al; Feb. 28, 2008) and Roy et
al. (US 2014/0207872 Al; July 24, 2014 (filed Mar. 24, 2014 and claims the
benefit of Provisional Patent Application No. 61/039,370 (filed Mar. 25,
2008))) (“Roy”). Final Act. 2-7.
Issues on Appeal
1. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Light and
Roy teaches or suggests generating a rendered image of a website “wherein
the rendered image allows for user interaction with the website in the same
manner as though the website was rendered local to the first or second
client,” as recited in claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Light and
Roy teaches or suggests applying a filter to the second copy of the rendered
image “before transferring the second copy of the rendered image,” as
recited in claim 4?
3
Appeal 2017-001654
Application 13/734,663
ANALYSIS2
Claims 1—3, 5—13, and 15—20
Appellants contend Light discloses that after rendering a webpage, the
webpage is captured as an image. App. Br. 7 (citing Light 1105).
Appellants assert the image formats (e.g., JPEG, GIF, or PNG) do not allow
for user interaction of the webpage, as claimed. App. Br. 7. Additionally,
Appellants argue Roy, as relied upon by the Examiner, does not provide the
claimed user interaction to Light’s images. App. Br. 7—8; Reply Br. 2. In
particular, Appellants argue “Roy does not disclose how such interaction
would be possible using a webpage displayed in an image format disclosed
by Light.” App. Br. 8 (emphasis omitted). Appellants contend Roy does not
disclose how its web content is displayed and, therefore, Appellants
“assume[]” Roy simply renders the content locally, which allows user
interaction. App. Br. 8. Further, Appellants assert “many additional
modifications would be required to allow user interaction with a website
viewed via an image in such a format [(i.e., as disclosed by Light)].” App.
Br. 8.
As an initial matter, non-obviousness cannot be established by
attacking references individually where, as here, the ground of
unpatentability is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Rather, the test for
obviousness is whether the combination of references, taken as a whole,
2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
March 21, 2016 (“App. Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed November 8, 2016
(“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed September 8, 2016 (“Ans.”);
and the Final Office Action, mailed September 4, 2015 (“Final Act.”), from
which this Appeal is taken.
4
Appeal 2017-001654
Application 13/734,663
would have suggested the patentee’s invention to a person having ordinary
skill in the art. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986). Further, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of one
reference may be bodily incorporated into another reference. In re Bozek,
416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 57 CCPA 713, 719, 163 USPQ 545, 549-50 (1969); In
re Mapelsden, 329 F.2d321, 322, 51 CCPA 1123, 1126, 141 USPQ 30, 32
(1964). Rather, we look to see whether combined teachings render the
claimed subject matter obvious. Application of Wood, 599 F. 2d 1032, 1037
(CCPA 1979).
Here the Examiner finds Light teaches, inter alia, initiating a co­
browsing session, acquiring a website, generating a rendered image of the
website, and transferring a first copy of the rendered image to a first client
and a second copy of the rendered image to a second client. Final Act. 3
(citing Light || 91—92, 95—96, 100-102, 104—106, and 109). Light discloses
the rendered image “may be in any format compatible with the
browser/client 20 and IM client 224, including JPEG, GIF and PNG
formats.” Light 1104 (emphasis added). The Examiner also finds Roy
discloses users of a co-browsing session interacting with the website in the
same manner as though the website were rendered locally. Final Act. 3^4
(citing Roy 45 46, 49). The Examiner concludes it would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Light
to allow users of a co-browsing session to interact with the rendered image
in a timely and efficient manner. Final Act. 4.
Roy discloses a co-browsing session wherein each of the client
computer systems comprise a peer proxy server. Roy 44, see also Roy,
Fig. 1. Roy further teaches the peer proxy server may access online content
5
Appeal 2017-001654
Application 13/734,663
and generate modified online content for access (i.e., simultaneous display)
by the client devices. Roy Tflf 44-45. Roy also teaches users interacting with
the modified online content (e.g., activate links, enter information into fields,
play content, etc.) via the peer proxy server. Roy 45 46 (“enabling the
modified coding of modified online content 125 to direct browser events
(e.g., generated by web browser 132) to primary peer proxy server 124 for
carrying out co-browsing operations in a way that is transparent to or
undetected by web server 110”). Additionally, Light teaches the use of
annotations on the rendered image to interact with the webpage. Light ||
104, 109—110. Contrary to Appellants’ assertions, Light does not restrict the
rendered image to only JPEG, GIF or PNG formats, but rather allows any
format compatible with the client. Light 1104.
Paragraph 20 from Appellants’ Specification describes an example of
user interaction with the rendered image.
These interactions may include clicking on links, entering
information into text boxes, scrolling around the displayed web
page, or any other way that a user may interact with a website.
Upon receiving the user input, the client transfers the input
information to co-browsing server 103. Co-browsing server 103
applies the input to the website, updates the rendered website
image in accordance with the user input, and transfers copies of
the updated rendered website image to clients 101 and 102. For
example, if the user scrolls to a different area of the web page,
then the rendered image will be updated to display the new area
of the web page. Fikewise, if the user inputs text, the text will
be displayed in an updated image.
Spec. 120. Thus, similar to providing user input to a rendered image and
processing the input at a co-browsing server, which then generates an
updated rendered image, Fight teaches users annotating a rendered image
and Roy teaches updating modified content via a peer proxy server (i.e., co-
6
Appeal 2017-001654
Application 13/734,663
browsing server) in response to user input (i.e., interaction). Accordingly,
we agree with the Examiner that the combined teachings of Light and Roy
would have taught or suggested, inter alia, “the rendered image allows for
user interaction with the website in the same manner as though the website
was rendered local to the . . . client.”
Additionally, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ assertion that “many
additional modifications” would be necessary to modify the co-browsing
system of Light with the user interaction described by Roy. See App. Br. 8.
It is well settled that mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements,
which are unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to little probative
value. In re Geisler, 116 L.3d 1465, 1470 (Led. Cir. 1997); see also In re
Pearson, 494 L.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (attorney argument is not
evidence).
Lor the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1. Additionally, for similar reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claims 11 and 20, which recite similar limitations
and were not argued separately. App. Br. 8. Further, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 5—10, 12, 13, and 15—19, which depend
therefrom and were not argued separately.
Claims 4 and 14
Claim 4 recites “before transferring the second copy of the rendered
image, applying a filter to the second copy of the rendered image.”
Appellants concede Light discloses users can annotate over a website image.
App. Br. 8 (citing Light || 95—96, 104—106, 109—113). Appellants argue,
7
Appeal 2017-001654
Application 13/734,663
however, even if the annotations were considered a filter, the annotations
would necessarily be made after transferring the image—not before the
transfer—because “there would be no image at the client over which the user
could annotate.” App. Br. 8. Appellants also assert Roy fails to teach the
disputed limitation. App. Br. 9.
In response, the Examiner finds, and explains, Light and Roy
collectively would have taught or reasonably suggested applying a filter to
the second copy of the rendered image before transferring the second copy.
Ans. 5. In particular, the Examiner finds Light discloses restrictions being
placed on a user’s ability during a co-browsing session. Ans. 5 (citing Light
1100). Additionally, the Examiner finds Roy discloses the use of access
restrictions, “which may include limiting a second user’s ability to edit a
form or field, [or] providing read only access.” Ans. 5 (citing Roy 1 50).
The Examiner finds the combined teachings of Light and Roy, therefore,
teach the limitation of claim 4. Ans. 5.
In reply, Appellants acknowledge Roy teaches the use of access
restrictions, but challenge the Examiner’s finding that the access restrictions
are implemented by applying a filter to a rendered image of a website.
Reply Br. 3.
In describing the access restrictions, Roy explains “a user may limit
the ability for other users to see or otherwise access certain types of
information (e.g., social security numbers, credit card numbers, other
confidential or secure information, etc.).” Roy 1 50. Roy further discloses
such information may be hidden or otherwise inaccessible to a user. Roy
151. Thus, in order to hide or obscure certain information (e.g., social
security numbers), the modified content image (i.e., rendered image) must
8
Appeal 2017-001654
Application 13/734,663
be further modified (i.e., filtered) prior to being transferred to the user.
Roy’s teaching is similar to the filtering disclosed in Appellants’
Specification. Cf. Spec. 134 (“The filters may include identifying and
obscuring information on a rendered image copy or otherwise modifying the
rendered image copy. The filters may filter the rendered image copies based
on the client to which a particular image copy is being sent. For example, a
filter may obscure private customer information in a rendered image copy
destined for client 302 operated by an agent while not obscuring the private
customer information to client 301 operated by a customer.”).
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Light and Roy would have taught or suggested applying a filter to the second
copy of the rendered image before transferring the second copy of the
rendered image, as recited in claim 4. See Ans. 5.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4. For
similar reasons, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 14, which
recites a similar limitation and was not argued separately.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
9