Ex Parte Morford

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 27, 2014

10994681 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte TIMOTHY B. MORFORD ____________ Appeal 2011-013608 Application 10/994,681 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, GAY ANN SPAHN, and MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judges. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-013608 Application 10/994,681 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 18, 21, 22, 26, 29, 30, and 35-371 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Dutta (US 7,000,189 B2, Feb. 14, 2006). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 18, 26, and 35 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 18 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal, and is reformatted and reproduced below. 18. A communication system, comprising: a first server configured to: receive a request from a client, the request indicating a URL of a web page hosted on a second server; utilize the URL to generate the web page; utilize the web page to generate an audio version of the web page; and send the web page and the audio version of the web page to the client terminal. OPINION The Examiner finds Dutta discloses all of the limitations of claim 18, specifically that the “first server is configured to . . . send the web page and the audio version of the web page to the client terminal.” Ans. 5 (citing col. 1, l. 47 – col. 2, l. 13) and Br., Clms. App’x. The Appellant contends that the Examiner’s finding is incorrect because Dutta does not disclose a server 1 The Examiner rejoined and rejected claim 37. Ans. 5, 6, and 9. Appeal 2011-013608 Application 10/994,681 3 that converts the web page to an audio version and then sends the audio version of the web page back to the client. See Br. 12-14. The Appellant’s contention is persuasive. Dutta discloses at column 2, lines 6-8 that its client application may be “a talking browser suitable for presenting web content in an audio format.” Notably, Dutta describes what a talking browser is configured to receive and generate at column 4, lines 43-51, with italics added: A talking browser is configured to receive standard web-based information such as HTML formatted content from a server such as web server 104 and is further configured to generate audibly detectable output based on the received information. Thus, a talking browser is designed to generate an audio version of a standard web page to enable visually impaired users to interact with the Internet and other suitable networks. In other words, Dutta does not disclose that a server sends an audio version of the web page to a talking browser or that a talking browser receives an audio version of the web page. In response, the Examiner explains that “web server 104 is configured to generate web content dynamically based in part on the type of browser originating the request (see col. 6, lines 1 - 16).” Ans. 8 (emphasis omitted). However, this does not explain how Dutta discloses a server that is configured to send an audio version of the web page to the client terminal as required by claim 18. Put simply, a server may generate web content, but the talking browser receives the web content and generates the audio version of the content. Thus, the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18, and its dependent claims, is not sustained. Appeal 2011-013608 Application 10/994,681 4 Similar to claim 18, claim 26 recites “the first server generating an audio version of the web page and sending the web page and the audio version of the web page to the client terminal” and claim 35 recites “generating an audio file that is an audio version of the web page in response to receiving the request; and transmitting the audio file from the server to the client terminal.” Br., Clms. App’x. The Examiner rejects claims 26 and 35 for substantially the same reasons as claim 18. Ans. 6. As such, for reasons similar to those provided above, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 26 and 35, and their dependent claims, is not sustained. See also Br. 16-17 and 18- 19. DECISION We REVERSE the rejection of claims 18, 21, 22, 26, 29, 30, and 35- 37. REVERSED Klh