Ex Parte Capt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2017

13190152 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 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.
13/190,152 07/25/2011 Alexandre Capt 58083-855560 (B1393) 1617
72058 7590 09/21/2017
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Adobe Systems, Inc. 58083
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309-4530
EXAMINER
NUNEZ, JORDANY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2171
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2017 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):
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
KT S Docketing2 @ kilpatrick. foundationip .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALEXANDRE CAPT and DAVID NUESCHELER
Appeal 2017-005761
Application 13/190,152
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, ERIC B. CHEN, and
JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1—20, all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
Appeal 2017-005761
Application 13/190,152
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to integrated profile simulation
techniques for dynamic content. (Abstract.)
Claims 1 and 2 are exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A system, comprising:
a client device comprising a processor and a memory having
instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the processor,
cause the client device to perform operations comprising:
receiving a request to change a currently selected profile from a
first user profile to a second user profile, wherein the request does not
include user credentials associated with the first or second user
profiles;
in response to the request, changing the currently selected user
profile to the second user profile without requiring input of user
credentials associated with the first or second user profiles;
dynamically refreshing web content based on the second user
profile;
displaying the dynamically refreshed web content and a user
profde window including an indication of the currently selected user
profile, the user profde window configured to receive inputs to edit
profile attributes of the currently selected user profile; and
in response to receiving an input in the user profile window to
edit a profile attribute for the currently selected user profile, repeating
the refreshing.
2. The system recited in claim 1, wherein the client device
executes an authoring tool configured to develop web content that
varies based on a user context.
Claims 1, 3—6, 10—13, and 15—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kashyap (U.S. 2010/0212001 Al; Aug. 19,
2010), Moores (US 2003/0149580 Al; Aug. 7, 2003), and Kahn (US
2002/0069204 Al; June 6, 2002).
2
Appeal 2017-005761
Application 13/190,152
Claims 2 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kashyap, Moores, Kahn, and Walsh (US 2004/0117460
Al; June 17,2004).
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kashyap, Moores, Kahn, and Lawrence (US 2012/0158539 Al; June 21,
2012).
Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kashyap, Moores, Kahn, Lawrence, and Kim (US
2012/0310751 Al; Dec. 6, 2012).
ANALYSIS
§103 Rejection—Kashyap, Moores, and Kahn
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 6—9; see also
Reply Br. 2—3) that the combination of Kashyap, Moores, and Kahn would
not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the
limitation “displaying the dynamically refreshed web content and a user
profile window including an indication of the currently selected user profile,
the user profile window configured to receive inputs to edit profile attributes
of the currently selected user profile.”
The Examiner finds Figure 8 of Kashyap, which illustrates a user
interface for inputting characteristics of an active user profile and the
multimedia content output, which is controlled by the characteristics of such
active user profile, collectively correspond to the limitation “displaying the
dynamically refreshed web content and a user profile window including an
indication of the currently selected user profile, the user profile window
configured to receive inputs to edit profile attributes of the currently selected
3
Appeal 2017-005761
Application 13/190,152
user profile.” (Ans. 3—\\ see also Final Act. 3 4.) We agree with the
Examiner’s findings.
Kashyap “relates to control and interaction with televisions and other
media playback devices” (12), for example, “television or other video
broadcast content, video or audio on-demand or downloaded content, or
content from the Internet or another network” (| 25). Figure 1 of Kashyap
illustrates multimedia system 100, including media access device 104 such
that “[a] second user can log into the media access device 104 while the first
user is still logged in.” (| 27.) Figure 2 of Kashyap illustrates television
104, including display 202 and audio component 208 in housing 224. (| 36.)
Figure 8 of Kashyap illustrates “a portion of a user interface that can be
displayed on a display of a television 104 and used for tailoring
characteristics of a user profile for a particular user,” including age group
field 804, supervising adult field 806, sound level field 808, and font size
field 810. (1 50.) Kashyap explains that “[t]he active user profile one or
more characteristics are used to control the multimedia content presented to
the logged in user” and “[t]he output system can be one or both of a display
202 and an audio output component 208.” (147.) Because Kashyap’s
Figure 8 illustrates a user interface for tailoring characteristics of a user
profile (1 50) and that such user profile is used to update multimedia content
(147), Kashyap teaches the claim limitation “displaying the dynamically
refreshed web content and a user profile window including an indication of
the currently selected user profile, the user profile window configured to
receive inputs to edit profile attributes of the currently selected user profile.”
Appellants argue that “the Kashyap disclosures merely teach various
characteristics of a user profile (e.g., favorite subject matter, whether certain
4
Appeal 2017-005761
Application 13/190,152
communication types are enabled, etc.) that can be tailored, but lack any
teaching that these user profile characteristics are displayed with
dynamically refreshed content in the manner recited by the claims” (App.
Br. 6—7) and “Kashyap appears to indicate that the disclosed interface for
tailoring user profiles (which the Examiner mapped to the claimed ‘user
profile window’) is not displayed with other interfaces (e.g., interfaces
characterized by the Examiner as displaying dynamically refreshed content)”
{id. at 7). However, Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate in scope
with claim 1, because the claim does not require the claimed “dynamically
refreshed web content” to be displayed concurrently with the claimed “user
profile window.”
Appellants further argue that the “proposed rejections appear to rely
on impermissible hindsight” because “[t]he rationale presented by the
Examiner fails to explain why one having the cited disclosures would be
motivated to combine the disclosures into an invention displaying
dynamically refreshed web content with a user profile window configured to
receive inputs to edit profile attributes, as required by the independent
claims” and “the only evidence of record that teaches or suggests these
features is the Appellant’s specification and the claims.'’'’ (App. Br. 9.)
However, as discussed previously, the limitation “displaying the
dynamically refreshed web content and a user profile window” is broad
enough to encompass Figure 8 of Kashyap, which illustrates a user interface
for tailoring characteristics of a user profile (1 50), such that the user profile
is used to update multimedia content (| 47). Accordingly, the rejection of
claim 1 is based on Kashyap, rather than impermissible hindsight based on
Appellants’ Specification.
5
Appeal 2017-005761
Application 13/190,152
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Kashyap,
Moores, and Kahn renders obvious independent claim 1, which includes the
limitation “displaying the dynamically refreshed web content and a user
profile window including an indication of the currently selected user profile,
the user profile window configured to receive inputs to edit profile attributes
of the currently selected user profile.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 3—6, 10-13, and 15—18 depend from
independent claim 1. Appellants have not presented any additional
substantive arguments with respect to these dependent claims. Therefore,
we sustain the rejection of claims 3—6, 10-13, and 15—18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1.
Independent claims 19 and 20 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 1. Appellants have not
presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 19 and 20 for the same reasons
discussed with respect to claim 1.
§103 Rejection—Kashyap, Moores, Kahn, and Walsh
We are further unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 10—
11; see also Reply Br. 3) that the combination of Kashyap, Moores, Kahn,
and Walsh would not have rendered obvious dependent claim 2, which
includes the limitation “wherein the client device executes an authoring tool
configured to develop web content that varies based on a user context.”
The Examiner finds the simulator of Walsh, which is configured to
appear as multiple, separate users from different user environments,
6
Appeal 2017-005761
Application 13/190,152
corresponds to the limitation “wherein the client device executes an
authoring tool configured to develop web content that varies based on a user
context.” (Ans. 9-10; see also Final Act. 9-10.) We agree with the
Examiner’s findings.
Walsh relates to “simulation of Internet traffic” (| 2), such that
“[djevelopers of Internet technologies [can] test products prior to release”
(1 6). Walsh explains that “[t]he simulator 101 may be configured to
simulate a user (e.g. User A) logged in to a particular desktop environment”
and “may also simulate at the same time a different user (e.g., User B) in a
different user environment.” (| 38.) For example, Walsh explains that “one
user environment may be a Windows XP based environment, while another
environment may be a Linux based environment.” (Id.) Because Walsh
explains simulator 101 provides a different simulation for User A (e.g.,
Windows XP) than User B (e.g., Linux), Walsh teaches the limitation
“wherein the client device executes an authoring tool configured to develop
web content that varies based on a user context.”
Appellants argue that “Walsh appears to teach that the disclosed
simulator is used to develop web content with similar intended functionality
for multiple user requests initiated from separate user environments,” and
accordingly, “directly contrary to the limitations of claims 2 and 14, which
respectively recite an authoring tool configured to develop web content that
varies, and simulating a web page that dynamically varies based on user
profile simulation using an authoring tool.” (App. Br. 11; see also Reply
Br. 3 4.) However, as discussed previously, the limitation “wherein the
client device executes an authoring tool configured to develop web content
that varies based on a user context” is broad enough to encompass the
7
Appeal 2017-005761
Application 13/190,152
simulator of Walsh, which provides a different simulation for User A (e.g.,
Windows XP) and User B (e.g., Linux).
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Kashyap,
Moores, Kahn, and Walsh would have rendered obvious dependent claim 2,
which includes the limitation “wherein the client device executes an
authoring tool configured to develop web content that varies based on a user
context.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 2 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Dependent claim 14 recites limitations similar to those discussed with
respect to claim 2. Appellants have not presented any additional substantive
arguments with respect to this claim. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of
claim 14 for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 2.
§103 Rejection—Kashyap, Moores, Kahn, and Lawrence
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claim 7 separately (App. Br. 11), the arguments presented do not point out
with particularity or explain why the limitations of this dependent claim are
separately patentable. Instead, Appellants argue that “Lawrence . . . [is] not
cited as curing (and do not cure) the deficiency of Kashyap, Moores, and
Kahn with respect to claims 1,19, and 20” and “[t]hus, the combination of
Kashyap, Moores, Kahn, and Lawrence does not teach or suggest all
elements of claim 7.” (Id.) We are not persuaded by these arguments for the
reasons discussed with respect to claim 1, from which claim 7 depends.
8
Appeal 2017-005761
Application 13/190,152
§103 Rejection—Kashyap, Moores, Kahn, Walsh, and Kim
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claims 8 and 9 separately (App. Br. 11), the arguments presented do not
point out with particularity or explain why the limitations of these dependent
claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants argue that “Kim [is]
not cited as curing (and do not cure) the deficiency of Kashyap, Moores, and
Kahn with respect to claims 1,19, and 20” and “[n]or does the combination
of Kashyap, Moores, Kahn, and Kim teach or suggest all elements of claims
8 and 9.” (Id.) We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons
discussed with respect to claim 1, from which claims 8 and 9 depend.
Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9