Ex Parte Capt et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 19, 201713190152 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation