Ex Parte Punaganti et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 6, 2014

11241884 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 6, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MURALI PUNAGANTI, SAMEH GALAL, and CHAND MALU ____________ Appeal 2012-003542 Application 11/241,884 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, STEPHEN C. SIU, and DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-16, and 18-23. Claims 6, 12, and 17 were canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention enables browsing received information feeds and accessing associated data on mobile devices with limited display areas. See generally Spec. 1; Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method comprising: -constructing a list view comprising a plurality of identifiers each representing an item of content of a subscribed information feed comprising content that is for receipt by a terminal device via a communication network, Appeal 2012-003542 Application 11/241,884 2 wherein said plurality of identifiers are configured for visualization on a display of the terminal device; - determining a first control input defining a selection of an identifier of said plurality of identifiers in the list view; -constructing, by a processor, an abstract view comprising a description of said item of said content represented by said selected identifier in response to said first control input, wherein said description of said item of said content comprises at least a title of said item, and said abstract view is configured for visualization on the display of the terminal device; -determining a second control input defining a selection of the abstract view; and -performing an action in response to the second control input to access the item of said content relating to the abstract view in greater detail than presented in the abstract view. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-11, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Vayssiere (US 2006/0155698 A1; July 13, 2006) and Wang (US 7,310,633 B1; Dec. 18, 2007). Ans. 5-23.1 The Examiner rejected claims 2, 8, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Vayssiere, Wang, and Demartines (US 2003/0038788 A1; Feb. 27, 2003). Ans. 23-26. 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed September 20, 2011 (“App. Br.”); (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed October 18, 2011 (“Ans.”); and (3) the Reply Brief filed December 16, 2011 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2012-003542 Application 11/241,884 3 The Examiner rejected claims 20 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Vayssiere, Wang, Mitchelmore (US 2002/0090934 A1; July 11, 2002), and Hartman (US 5,960,411; Sept. 28, 1999). Ans. 26-31. THE REJECTION OVER VAYSSIERE AND WANG The Examiner finds that Vayssiere constructs a “list view” in Figure 4 comprising plural identifiers, namely the names of the listed feeds, where each identifier is said to represent an item of content of a subscribed information feed. Ans. 5-7, 32-34, 36-37. Vayssiere is also said to determine a first control input defining an identifier selection. Id. Although the Examiner acknowledges that Vayssiere does not (1) construct an abstract view, (2) determine a second control input defining that view’s selection, and (3) perform an action responsive to that input to access the related item, the Examiner cites Wang as teaching these features in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Ans. 8-10, 35-36. Appellants argue that Vayssiere not only fails to construct a list view comprising items of content of a single subscribed information feed, but also does not determine a first control input defining a selection of an identifier from the plural identifiers as claimed. App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 3-6. The Examiner’s reliance on Wang is also said to be flawed, for Appellants contend that Wang’s summaries (that the Examiner equates to an abstract view) are not constructed responsive to the recited first control input, nor does this “abstract view” contain a title-based item description as claimed. App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 7-9. Appeal 2012-003542 Application 11/241,884 4 ISSUE Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding that Vayssiere and Wang collectively would have taught or suggested (1) constructing a list view comprising plural identifiers each representing an item of content of a subscribed information feed; (2) determining a first control input defining a selection of an identifier of the plural identifiers; and (3) constructing an abstract view comprising a description of the item represented by the selected identifier responsive to the first control input, where the description comprises at least the item’s title? ANALYSIS We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. As noted above, the Examiner maps the recited “list view” to Vayssiere’s Figure 4 whose feed names are said to constitute “identifiers” representing an item of content of a subscribed information feed. Ans. 6, 32, 36. Vayssiere’s Figure 4 shows a conceptual view of a web page 410 to set various preferences, including feed name and associated URL. Vayssiere ¶ 36. These feed-name identifiers are listed in a respective row underneath the “Feed Name” field, and each represent at least one item of content of their respective information feeds, namely the content linked via a feed’s associated URL. See id. ¶ 37 (noting that the URL in Figure 4 (1) identifies the web site that the user wishes to receive alerts of changes from, and (2) is associated with the feed name of the same row); see also id. ¶ 2 (noting that an RSS feed is an XML document associated with a URL and contains, among other things, a list of items, each of which includes a (1) title, (2) web link to an associated document, and (3) description of recent document changes). The RSS feed Appeal 2012-003542 Application 11/241,884 5 of Vayssiere’s Figure 1, for example, has three such items and associated titles, links, and descriptions identified by their respective tags. Based on this functionality, we also see no error in the Examiner’s position to the extent that Vayssiere at least suggests determining a first control input defining an identifier selection, namely the control input associated with a particular feed’s URL hyperlink. Determining this particular link effectively defines a selection of the associated identifier of that particular feed. Accord Vayssiere ¶ 31 (noting that a user can select from a list of feeds and, upon such selection, display a list of the most recent and unread items); Ans. 7-8 (quoting this passage). Appellants’ contention that Vayssiere’s feed selection does not teach or suggest the recited first control input determination (App. Br. 8) is unavailing and not commensurate with the scope of the claim that does not preclude Vayssiere’s above-noted functionality. Nor do we find error in the Examiner’s reliance on Wang at least to the extent that constructing an abstract view comprising a title-based item description would have been an obvious enhancement to Vayssiere. As Wang indicates, search engines provide document or website summaries or “snippets” responsive to queries. Wang, col. 1, ll. 30-35. The user then browses the summaries and selects an associated link that best matches their search criteria to view the entire document or navigate to the desired web page. Id., col. 1, ll. 35-38. These summaries, therefore, reasonably suggest an abstract view that describes the associated content, for they summarize and describe the underlying content. Even assuming, without deciding, that Wang’s summaries lack titles as Appellants seem to suggest (see App. Br. 10), including a title in these summaries would have nevertheless been an Appeal 2012-003542 Application 11/241,884 6 obvious variation, particularly in light of Vayssiere’s including titles in connection with respective content items as shown in Figure 1. Appellants’ contention that Wang’s summaries are not constructed responsive to a control input, let alone the recited first control input (App. Br. 10), is unavailing. Wang’s summaries are not only constructed responsive to a user’s query (which at least suggests a control input), but when considered in light of Vayssiere’s hyperlink-based control input noted above, providing an abstract view of the content items responsive to such an input in lieu of more detailed content would have been at least an obvious variation. Accord Ans. 36 (noting that the cited references collectively teach the list view (Vayssiere) and abstract view (Wang)). Although Appellants argue the individual shortcomings of the cited references, such individual attacks do not show nonobviousness where, as here, the rejection is based on the references’ collective teachings. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In short, enhancing Vayssiere by providing an abstract view such as that in Wang as the Examiner proposes predictably uses prior art elements according to their established functions—an obvious improvement. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting representative claim 1, and claims 2-5, 7-11, 13-16, and 18-23 not argued separately with particularity. THE REMAINING OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 2, 8, 15, 20, and 21. Ans. 23-31. Despite nominally arguing these claims separately, Appellants reiterate similar arguments made in connection with Appeal 2012-003542 Application 11/241,884 7 claim 1 that we find unpersuasive for the reasons previously discussed. See App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 10. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-16, and 18- 23 under § 103. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-16, and 18-23 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED rwk