Ex Parte Redpath

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 30, 2013

10654214 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 10/654,214 09/03/2003 Richard Redpath RSW920030154US1 (284) 4642 46320 7590 09/03/2013 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG 7900 Glades Road SUITE 520 BOCA RATON, FL 33434 EXAMINER SWEARINGEN, JEFFREY R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2445 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/03/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte RICHARD REDPATH ____________________ Appeal 2011-001260 Application 10/654,214 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and JEFFREY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges. DANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-001260 Application 10/654,214 2 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a second rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 8-10, and 24 (App. Br. 2). Claims 5, 7, 13, 15, 18, and 21 have been cancelled and claims 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, and 23 have been withdrawn (id.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. A. INVENTION Appellant’s invention is directed to a system and method for displaying web content on a mobile device independent of whether or not the mobile device is connected to a network; wherein, the mobile device can request updates to compressed files from a web server and decompress these files (Abstract). B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A mobile device for displaying information comprising page elements defining web site content stored on a server in a network, the mobile device comprising: a memory containing: a web browser for displaying a web site; a software component for receiving a compressed file containing compressed page elements, for decompressing the compressed file into page elements, and storing the page elements to the memory, the software component reading the stored page elements and serving the page elements to the web browser; and a processor for running the web browser and the software component, wherein Appeal 2011-001260 Application 10/654,214 3 the software component operates to cause a request for an update to the compressed file, and the request to update the compressed file contains a listing of stored page element names and their associated last modified date locally stored. C. REJECTIONS The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Van Huben US 6,327,594 B1 Dec. 4, 2001 Kloba US 6,341,316 B1 Jan. 22, 2002 Gouge US 6,931,429 B2 Aug. 16, 2005 Kouznetsov US 7,096,501 B2 Aug. 22, 2006 Bishop US 7,222,101 B2 May 22, 2007 Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kloba in view of Bishop. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kloba in view of Bishop and Kouznetsov. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kloba in view of Bishop and Van Huben. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kloba in view of Bishop and Gouge. II. ISSUES The dispositive issues before us are whether the Examiner has erred in determining that the combination of Kloba and Bishop teaches or would have suggested a “software component [that] operates to cause a request for Appeal 2011-001260 Application 10/654,214 4 an update to the compressed file” and that “the request to update the compressed file contains a listing of stored page element names and their associated last modified date locally stored” (claim 1, emphasis added). III. FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. The Invention 1. According to Appellant, page element includes computer files containing text, graphic, video, audio data or any combination thereof (Spec. 10:5-6). Kloba 2. Kloba discloses a client-server system that enables the user to view Internet content off-line using cached Web pages on the client device; wherein, when the user selects a page to view on the client 108, the page is obtained either from the cache of the client 108 or from the server 104 (when the page is not in the cache) during on-line mode or a sync process when not on-line (col. 17, ll. 49-52). 3. Synchronization of data from the server to the client occurs periodically which includes is a specific process of copying, adding, filtering, removing, updating and merging the information between a client and a server (col. 5, ll. 35-62). 4. A user is enabled to create a bookmark by clicking on an automatic channel link wherein a script in the automatic channel Web page queries the browser the URL for of the previous Web site and automatically populates an automatic channel form for the Web site to be added to the Appeal 2011-001260 Application 10/654,214 5 user’s list of channels (col. 26, ll. 57-61). A user may edit channel parameter settings including the channel name, root URL (col. 30, ll. 18-21). Bishop 5. Bishop discloses a personal digital assistant (PDA) portal which facilitates securing content which is collected, assembled, and delivered to the PDA device from a server (col. 1, ll. 20-24). When the PDA user wants to view the secure information, the user enters the pass-phrase, which will be used to decrypt the secure information (col. 24, ll.1-4). 6. After a pre-set amount of time, the information is deleted from the PDA and the user may enter the pass-phrase again for the updated file (col. 24, ll. 5-10). 7. System includes any of various suitable security features, such as firewalls, access codes, encryption, de-encryption, compression, decompression, and/or the like (col. 7, ll. 27-35). 8. In addition, a PDA portal includes a method for collecting specific information of interest to a particular user and making it available for use on their device, where data is updated when the device is connected to a network and ‘synchronized’ (col. 4, ll. 3-9). IV. ANALYSIS Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 24 Appellant contends that “Kloba does not teach a request for an update to a compressed file” since client and server “knows what data is … ‘on the client’” (App. Br. 10-11). Appellant contends further that the Bishop’s disclosure of “[t]he fact that a compressed data is decompressed in order to display information is not relevant to whether Kloba teaches a request for an Appeal 2011-001260 Application 10/654,214 6 update to a compressed file” (App. Br. 13). Appellant finally argues that the Examiner’s finding is silent about “the request to update the compressed file contains a listing of stored page element names and their associated last modified date locally stored” (App. Br. 14). However, the Examiner finds that “Kloba does request an update to a file” which “occurs during the synchronization step of Kloba” and “Kloba did disclose the transmission of compressed data to the mobile device” (Ans. 7). The Examiner finds further that “Bishop augments the teachings of Kloba by disclosing how a file could be updated during synchronization” including “the use of compression” (Ans. 7). The Examiner notes that “[c]laim 1 does not refer to a ‘last modified date of the web page,’” rather, it “refers to a listing of stored page element names and their associated last modified date locally stored” which may be interpreted to be “the last time the file was downloaded to the local mobile device and NOT the last time the file was modified on the server” (Ans. 8). The Examiner finds finally that the disclosure in Kloba to “custom channels to identify Web pages using URLs, which are addresses” represents “‘a listing of stored page element names’” (id.). We give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We note that claim 1 merely requires that the software component “operates to” perform a request for an update to the compressed file, wherein such “operates to” language merely represents a statement of intended use of the software component. An intended use will not limit the scope of the claim because it merely defines a context in which the invention operates. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d Appeal 2011-001260 Application 10/654,214 7 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Thus, we conclude that claim 1 merely requires a software that is capable of requesting an update to a compressed file. We note further that claim1 does not define “page element” other than “the request” contains a listing of stored names and associated last modified date thereof. The Specification discloses that a page element refers to a computer file of text, graphics, video or audio data (FF 1). Thus, we give “page element” its broadest reasonable interpretation as any file wherein data associated therewith is contained in the request. Kloba discloses a client-server system that enables the user to view Internet content off-line using cached Web pages on the client device; wherein, when the user selects a page to view, the page is obtained either from the cache of the client or from the server (when the page is not in the cache) during on-line mode or a sync process when not on-line (FF 2). Synchronization of data from the server to the client occurs periodically which includes is a specific process of updating information between a client and a server (FF 3). When a user creates a bookmark, a script from an automatic channel link, queries the browser for the URL of the previous Web site and automatically populates user’s list of channels, including channel parameters, such as channel name and root URL (FF 4). We find that the client device that retrieves a Web page from the cache or from the server comprises software that is capable of requesting an update to a file. In particular, we find that Kloba’s updating of the list of channels comprises a request to update a file which contains a listing of stored page element (file) names with respect to their associated last modified date locally stored. Appeal 2011-001260 Application 10/654,214 8 In addition, Bishop discloses a PDA device that enables a user to request secure information (compressed files) from a server (FF 5 and 7). After a pre-set amount of time, the information is deleted from the PDA and the user may enter the pass-phrase again for an updated file (FF 6). Specific information of interest for a particular user is updated when the device is connected to a network and ‘synchronized’ (FF 8). We find that the update information of interest comprises a request to update a compressed file. In view of our claim construction above, we find that the combination of Kloba and Bishop at least suggests all the features of claim 1. Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kloba in view of Bishop. Further, independent claim 24 having similar claim language and claims 4, 6, 8, and 9 (depending from claim 1) which have not been argued separately, fall with claim 1. Claims 2, 3, and 10 Appellant argues that claim 2, 3, and 10 are patentable over the cited prior art for the same reasons asserted with respect to claim 1 and that the secondary references do not cure “the argued deficiencies of Kloba and Bishop” (App. Br. 16-17). As noted supra, however, we find that the combined teachings of Kloba and Bishop at least suggest all the features of claim 1. We therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kloba in view of Bishop and Kouznetsov, of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kloba in view of Bishop and Van Huben, and of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kloba in view of Bishop and Gouge. Appeal 2011-001260 Application 10/654,214 9 V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 8-10, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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 llw