Ex Parte Narasimhan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 30, 2018

13721900 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 131721,900 12/20/2012 Mukund Narasimhan 91230 7590 04/03/2018 Baker Botts L.L.P./Facebook Inc. 2001 ROSS A VENUE SUITE 700 Dallas, TX 75201 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. 079894.1560 1313 EXAMINER GIDADO, OLUW ATOSIN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2445 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/03/2018 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): ptomaill@bakerbotts.com ptomail2@bakerbotts.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED ST ATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MUKUND NARASIMHAN, YINGYI LIANG, XIAOLIANG WEI, IT AP AI, BO HUAI VICTOR LOH, SARA MOTIEE, and HAO MIN YU Appeal 2017-003151 1 Application 13/721,9002 Technology Center 2400 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges. PENICK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's fmal rejection of claims 1-19, which constitute all of the pending claims in the present application. (Appeal Br. 3.) We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 3 5 U.S. C. Â§ 6(b )( 1 ). We REVERSE. 1 Our Decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief(" Appeal Br.," filed May 11, 2016) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Dec. 9, 2016), and the Examiner's Answer ("Answer," mailed Nov. 3, 2016), and Final Office Action ("Final Action," mailed Feb. 1, 2016). 2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Facebook, Inc. (Appeal Br. 3.) Appeal 2017-003151 Application 13/721,900 Invention Appellants' invention relates to responding to a request from a mobile-client system on a user's device for a web page. Spec. if 4. "[D ]ifferences between mobile devices make webpages meant to be displayed on one type of mobile device difficult or impossible to view on another mobile device." Id. if 22. One source of information for providing a customized web page is to examine an HTTP request's http-header, to extract information such as a user-agent string, and to use a database such as a Wireless Universal Resource File (WURFL) to determine whether the extracted user-agent string is associated with a specific device. Id. if 23. This http-header information and additional information about the user, such as social-networking information related to the user, is used to determine attributes of the mobile-client system, and to customize the formatting of the web page based on the determined attributes of the mobile-client system. Id. iii! 24, 26-30, and 34, Fig. 3, Abstract. Illustrative Claim Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative: 1. A method comprising, by a computing device: receiving a request for a webpage of an online social network from a mobile-client system of a frrst user of the online social network, the request comprising an http-header generated by a web browser of the mobile-client system, wherein the http- header comprises one or more http-header fields; accessing, from a system of the online social network, a frrst information for customizing the format of webpages for display on the mobile-client system, the frrst information comprising one or more user-profile fields associated with a user profile of the frrst user on the online social network; determining one or more attributes of the mobile-client system based on the http-header generated by the web browser of 2 Appeal 2017-003151 Application 13/721,900 the mobile-client system and the first information accessed from the system of the online social network by comparing the one or more http-header fl elds and the one or more user-pro fl le fields with a database of the online social network listing attributes of a plurality of types of mo bi le-client systems; and sending the webpage to the mobile-client system in response to the request, the formatting of the webpage being customized for display based on the determined attributes of the mobile-client system. Examiner's Rejections & References (1) Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 13, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103( a) as unpatentable over Kendall (US 2010/0257023 Al; pub. Oct. 7, 2010), Narin (US 2006/0031417 Al; pub. Feb. 9, 2006), Reynar(US 2013/0104026 Al; pub. Apr. 25, 2013), Panidepu (US 2012/0254402 Al; pub. Oct. 4, 2012), and Weller (US 2013/0239180 Al; pub. Sept. 12, 2013). (Final Action 3-7.) (2) Claims 3, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kendall, Narin, Reynar, Panidepu, Weller, and Britt (US 8,135,609B2; iss. Mar. 13, 2012). (Final Action 7-8.) (3) Claim 5 is rejectedunder35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a)as unpatentable over Kendall, N arin, Reynar, P anidepu, Weller, Britt, and Cavagnari (US 2009/0019367 Al; pub. Jan. 15, 2009). (Final Action 8.) (4) Claims 9and10 arerejectedunder35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a)as unpatentable over Kendall, Narin, Reynar, Panidepu, Weller, and Griffin (US 2014/0074893 Al; pub. Mar. 13, 2014). (Final Action 8-9.) (5) Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kendall, Narin, Reynar, Panidepu, Weller, Griffm, and Friedholm (US 2014/0095362 Al; pub. Apr. 3, 2014). (Final Action 9-10.) 3 Appeal 2017-003151 Application 13/721,900 (6) Claim 14 is rejectedunder35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a)as unpatentable over Kendall, Narin, Reynar, Panidepu, Weller, andGabrick (US 200210161802 Al; pub. Oct. 31, 2002). (Final Action 10-11.) (7) Claim 19 is rejectedunder35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a)as unpatentable over Kendall, Narin, Reynar, Panidepu, Weller, andLee (US 2010/0114527 Al; pub. May6, 2010). (Final Action 6-7;Answer4.) ANALYSIS "determining one or more attributes of the mobile-client system . .. by comparing the one or more http-header fields and the one or more user-pro fl le fl elds with a database of the online social network listing attributes of a plurality of types of mo bi le-client systems" (claim 1) In claim 1, a comparison is made in order to determine "one or more attributes of [a] mobile-client system." The comparison uses "one or more http-header fields" from the http-header of a request received from a mobile client system of a frrst user in the frrst, "receiving" step of claim 1. The comparison also uses "frrst information comprising one or more user-profile fields associated with a user profile of the frrst user on the online social network" which is accessed from a system of an online social network in the second, "accessing" step of claim 1. The recited comparison compares the http-header field( s) and the user-profile field( s) "with a database of the online social network listing attributes of a plurality of types of mobile-client systems" to determine "one or more attributes of the mobile-client system"; based on these attributes, the formatting of the webpage sent in response to the request is customized. The Examiner rejects claim 1 over the combination of Kendall, Narin, Reynar, Panidepu, and Weller. Final Action 3-5. The Examiner fmds that the recited comparison is taught by Panidepu's explanation of the 4 Appeal 2017-003151 Application 13/721,900 comparison of HTTP header information (user agent field strings) with entries in an online database ("Wireless Universal Resource File" (WURFL) in Panidepu) to determine what type of mobile client system may be associated with the HTTP header information. Final Action 4 (citing Panidepu iii! 4--7); Answer 6. Appellants argue that the Examiner erred because "P anidepu merely discloses comparing a characteristic of the client device to one or more mobile device detection strings, but is silent regarding user-profile fields." Appeal Br. 8-9. (Emphasis omitted). Appellants note that "[t]he claim clearly recites that two types of fields are being compared" with the database. Reply Br. 4. Panidepu discusses the use of user-agent fields in the HTTP header, and the comparison of these with typical user agent strings for various devices stored in a WURFL database. Panidepu iii! 4, 7. Thus, in Panidepu, a comparison is made of information from http-header fields with information in a database. However, the claimed comparison the Examiner determines is taught or suggested by P anidepu is claim 1 's "comparing the one or more http-header fields and the one or more user-pro fl le fl elds with a database of the online social network listing attributes of a plurality of types of mobile-client systems." (Emphasis added.) The Examiner determines, regarding the user-profile field(s) that "[t]he list of user agent strings in Panidepu is mapped to the limitation one or more user profile fields." Answer 6. But as the Examiner notes, these user agent fields are "found in the HTTP header fields." Id. The Examiner has used these fields to show that P anidepu teaches or suggests the comparison of "one or more http- header fields" with the database. Final Action 4; Answer 6. The claim limitation, however, requires both header fields and user-profile fields be 5 Appeal 2017-003151 Application 13/721,900 used in a comparison, whereas Panidepu only describes one type of data (user-agent header in the HTTP request) being used in a database comparison. The Examiner does not explain sufficiently how Panidepu, in combination with the other art cited, teaches or suggests the two types of information being used in the recited comparison with the claimed database. We agree with Appellants that Panidepu does not teach or suggest this claim limitation. Appellants raise additional arguments. Because the identified issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional arguments. We are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as obvious in view of Kendall, Narin, Reynar, Panidepu, and Weller, and in the rejection of independent claims 15 and 16, and dependent claims 2, 7, 8, 13, 17, and 18, argued on the same basis. Appeal Br. 6. With respect to the obviousness rejections of claims 3---6, 9-12, 14, and 19, the art of record is not relied upon for teachings or suggestions relating to the deficiency in the rejections of claims 1, 15, and 16. Thus, we do not sustain the obviousness rejections these claims, argued by the Appellants on the same basis. Id. at 12-15. DECISION We reverse the rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 13, and 15-19 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kendall, Narin, Reynar, Panidepu, and Weller. We reverse the rejection of claims 3, 4, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kendall, Narin, Reynar, Panidepu, Weller, and Britt. 6 Appeal 2017-003151 Application 13/721,900 We reverse the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kendall, Narin, Reynar, Panidepu, Weller, Britt, and Cavagnari. We reverse the rejection of claims 9 and 10 under35U.S.C.Â§103(a) as unpatentable over Kendall, Narin, Reynar, Panidepu, Weller, and Griffm. We reverse the rejection of claims 11and12 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kendall, Narin, Reynar, Panidepu, Weller, Griffm, and Friedholm. We reverse the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kendall, Narin, Reynar, Panidepu, Weller, and Gabrick. We reverse the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kendall, Narin, Reynar, Panidepu, Weller, and Lee. REVERSED 7