Ex Parte Kim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2016

12413919 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/413,919 0313012009
95866 7590 11/02/2016
Fleit Gibbons Gutman Bongini & Bianco P,L,
551 NW 77th street
Suite 111
Boca Raton, FL 33487
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sang-Heun Kim
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.
34630-US-PAT 1040
EXAMINER
TRAN,QUOCA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2177
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2016 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):
ptoboca@fggbb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SANG-HEUN KIM, YOOJIN, HONG,
CHARLES LAURENCE STINSON
Appeal2016-000989
Application 12/413,919
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, THU A. DANG, and
TERRENCE McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-30 and 36. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
Appeal2016-000989
Application 12/413,919
A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention "relates generally to
communication technologies and more particularly to a system, device and
method for providing context sensitive content on a computing device"
(Spec. ii 2).
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
1. An electronic device comprising:
storage configured to maintain a primary web-browser
application and a secondary web-browser application;
at least one processor connected to said storage and
configured to execute said primary web-browser application;
an interface connected to said processor, said processor
configured to receive a web-page stored at a web-server via said
interface, said web-page including context sensitive content
related to a plurality of context sensitive items on said web-page,
said context sensitive content being able to change without
further input from the web-server;
a display connected to said processor; said processor
further configured to render said web-page on said display;
an input device connected to said processor, said processor
configured to receive focus on one of said plurality of context
sensitive items via said input device placing a pointer over the
one context sensitive item; and
said processor further configured to respond to receiving
the focus by rendering the context sensitive content related to
said one of the plurality of context sensitive items on said display
via the secondary web-browser application.
C. REJECTION
Claims 1-30 and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the teachings of Lowet (US 2010/0306642 Al; pub. Dec.
2, 2010) and Hayko (US 2002/0095522 Al; pub. Jul. 18, 2002).
2
Appeal2016-000989
Application 12/413,919
IL ISSUES
The principal issues before us are whether the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination of Lowet and Hayko teaches or would have
suggested "an input device" configured to "receive focus on one of said
plurality of context sensitive items via said input device placing a pointer
over the one context sensitive item," and "at least one processor" configured
to "respond to receiving the focus by rendering the context sensitive
content" via a "secondary web-browser application" (claim 1 ).
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Lowet
1. Lowet discloses Web application script which includes updating the
content of an electronic document in a first Web browser in dependence of
the update message or the user input event, and updating, in a second
browser, the content of the electronic document in the second Web browser
in dependence of the update message (Abst.).
2. A script is executed after a new page has been loaded, being triggered
by the load event, and all default user actions are prevented when the page is
loaded and allowed when the load event had occurred, wherein the actions
include focus and the like. (i-f 77).
IV. ANALYSIS
Appellants contend, in Lo wet, "focus" in one of "interactions that are
'prevented' and then only allowed again after the load event has occurred"
(App. Br. 11 ). Thus, "Lowet teaches the opposite" of the claimed invention,
because "instead of responding to focus by rendering content via a
3
Appeal2016-000989
Application 12/413,919
secondary web browser," Lowet "teaches forestalling any reaction to focus
(and other such user actions) until after the load event" (id.). Although
Appellants do not contest that "Hayko discloses the rendering of context
sensitive content related to a context sensitive item via a secondary web-
browser application," Appellants contend "the person of ordinary skill in the
art "would be loath to combine that teaching with Lowet' s alleged detection
of focus because Lowet teaches forestalling any reaction to focus" (App. Br.
12).
We have considered all of Appellants' arguments and evidence
presented. However, we disagree with Appellants' contentions regarding the
Examiner's rejections of the claims. Instead, we agree with the Examiner's
findings, and are unpersuaded of error with the Examiner's conclusion that
the claims would have been obvious over the combined teachings.
As an initial matter of claim construction, we give the claim its
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In
re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). However, "limitations are
not to be read into the claims from the specification." In re Van Geuns, 988
F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citations omitted).
Although Appellants contend that "instead of responding to focus by
rendering content via a secondary web browser," Lowet "teaches forestalling
any reaction to focus (and other such user actions) until after the load event"
(App. Br. 11 ), we note claim 1 does not preclude rendering content "after the
load event." That is, claim 1 does not require immediate rendering of the
content. Instead, as Appellants point out, claim 1 merely requires
responding to focus by "rendering the context sensitive content" via a
4
Appeal2016-000989
Application 12/413,919
"secondary web-browser application," which does not preclude rendering
the content after being forestalled.
We agree with the Examiner's finding that Lowet discloses updating
the content of the electronic document in a second Web browser in
dependence of a user input (Ans. 21-22; FF 1 ). In particular, as the
Examiner points out, as described in Appellants' Specification, "[t]he
receiving focus may comprise placing a pointer over one of said plurality of
context sensitive items using said input device" (Ans. 22, citing Spec. 4,
para. 29). Thus, we find no error with the Examiner's reliance on Lowet for
disclosing and suggesting "an input device" configured to "receive focus on
one of said plurality of context sensitive items via said input device placing a
pointer over the one context sensitive item" as recited in claim 1. In fact,
Appellants do not contest the Examiner's finding that Lowet discloses and
suggests a "detection of focus" (App. Br. 13).
We also find no error with the Examiner's reliance on Lowet for
disclosing rendering content "in a second browser" (FF 1 ), which is also
uncontested by Appellants. Further, in Lowet, a script is executed as
triggered by the load event, wherein user actions such as "focus" are
prevented when the page is loaded and allowed when the load event had
occurred (FF 2). That is, Lowet discloses and suggests rendering the
context sensitive content in response to receipt of the focus after the load
event has occurred (id.). Even Appellants concede Lowet does provide a
"reaction to focus (and other such user actions)," although such reaction is
rendered "after the load event" (App. Br. 11 ).
Further, Appellants also do not contest the Examiner's reliance on
Hayko for disclosing "the rendering of context sensitive content related to a
5
Appeal2016-000989
Application 12/413,919
context sensitive item via a secondary web-browser application" (App. Br.
13). Accordingly, we find no error with the Examiner's finding that the
combination of Lowet and Hayko teaches or at least suggests the contested
claim limitations. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986). In particular, we agree with the Examiner's finding that the
combination discloses and suggests "at least one processor" configured to
"respond to receiving the focus by rendering the context sensitive content"
via a "secondary web-browser application" (claim 1 ).
Although Appellants contend "the person of ordinary skill in the art
would be loath to combine [rendering of context sensitive content] with
Lowet' s alleged detection of focus" because "Lowet teaches forestalling of
any reaction to focus" (App. Br. 13), we note that Appellants do not contest
that there is a reaction to focus, although such reaction is forestalled (id.).
As discussed above, although we agree with Appellants that Lowet teaches
forestalling of a reaction to focus, Lowet teaches providing a reaction to
focus after the forestalling (FF 2).
On this record, we are unconvinced of Examiner error in the rejection
of independent claim 1, and independent claims 16 and 3 6 not separately
argued and falling therewith (App. Br. 9). Appellants do not provide
substantive arguments for dependent claims 2-15, and 17-30, depending
respectively from claims 1 and 16. Accordingly, we also affirm the rejection
of these claims over Lowet and Hayko.
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-30 and 36 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
6
Appeal2016-000989
Application 12/413,919
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
7