Paul Miller et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 31, 2021

2019006740 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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. 13/286,594 11/01/2011 Paul Miller 31083.34US2 5396 34018 7590 03/31/2021 Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 W. Wacker Drive Suite 3100 CHICAGO, IL 60601-1732 EXAMINER ROY, SANCHITA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2178 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/31/2021 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): chiipmail@gtlaw.com clairt@gtlaw.com jarosikg@gtlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PAUL MILLER, JASON BROWNEWELL, ROSA MANFREDI, and GEOFFRY A. WESTPHAL Appeal 2019-006740 Application 13/286,594 Technology Center 2100 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–16, and 18. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 We refer to the Specification, filed Nov. 1, 2011 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action, mailed Dec. 31, 2018 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed Apr. 24, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer, mailed July 29, 2019 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief, filed Sept. 13, 2019 (“Reply Br.”). 2 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as W.W. Grainger, Inc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-006740 Application 13/286,594 2 We REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to providing continued access to user related information. Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below with formatting altered, claim elements labeled, and a disputed limitation emphasized in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform steps comprising: [(i)] causing [(a)] an account ribbon, [(b)] having a plurality of message fields each having a unique link selected from a predetermined plurality of links, [(c)] to be persisted across a plurality of webpages of a website [(d)] as a component part of a graphical user interface that is provided by each of the plural webpages, [(ii)] wherein each of the unique links is also persisted with the account ribbon across the plurality of webpages of the website, [(iii)] wherein each of the unique links is activatable to cause a display of a menu having at least one menu link, [(iv)] wherein each menu link is activatable to access a type of user related information, [(v)] wherein the unique links are selected from the predetermined plurality of links when a first one of the plural webpages of the website is caused to be presented to a user that has logged into the website, [(vi)] wherein the type of user related information that is accessible via activation of a one of the menu links is determined when each of the unique links is activated, and Appeal 2019-006740 Application 13/286,594 3 [(vii)] wherein the unique links are selected and the menu items are determined considering at least one characteristic of the user. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Lindoerfer US 2002/0069096 A1 June 6, 2002 Katz US 2002/0178077 A1 Nov. 28, 2002 Sattler US 2006/0259367 A1 Nov. 16, 2006 Lee US 7,792,889 B1 Sept. 7, 2010 Racco US 2011/0161182 A1 June 30, 2011 Wechsler US 2012/0185921 A1 July 19, 2012 Scott Mitchell “Examining ASP.NET 2.0's Site Navigation - Part 1 Examining ASP.NET 2.0’s Site Navigation - Part 1” 4GuysFromRolla.com, https://www.4guysfromrolla.com/articles/111605- 1.aspx (published November 16, 2005) (last visited Mar 24, 2021) (“Mitchell”) REJECTIONS Claims 1, 3, and 5 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee, Mitchell, and Sattler. Final Act. 5–8. Claim 4 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee, Mitchell, Sattler, and Wechsler. Final Act. 8–9. Claims 6–8 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee, Mitchell, Sattler, and Katz. Final Act. 9–10. Claim 9 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee, Mitchell, Sattler, and Good. Final Act. 10–11. Claims 10 and 18 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee, Mitchell, Sattler, and Racco. Final Act. 11–12. Appeal 2019-006740 Application 13/286,594 4 Claims 11–16 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee, Mitchell, Sattler, Racco, and Lindoerfer. Final Act. 12–15. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). OPINION The Examiner finds the combination of Lee, Mitchell, and Sattler teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 1, the only independent claim now pending and on appeal. Final Act. 5. In particular, the Examiner finds Lee’s database graphical user interface teaches claim element (i)(a)–(i)(c), (iii), (iv), (vi), and (vii). Id. (citing Lee, col. 4, ll. 32–47, col. 7, ll. 9–32, col. 8, ll. 25–42, col. 16, ll. 4–64, col. 20, ll. 1–22, Figs. 29–33). The Examiner finds Mitchell’s description of how to create a simple site map (including creation of a master page and limiting the display of navigation controls dependent upon a user’s role) teaches an account ribbon (claim element (i)(a)) including the features defined by claim elements (i)(c) and (i)(d) and persisting links with the account ribbon across plural webpages of a website as recited by claim element (ii). Id. at 6 (citing Mitchell pp. 3–5). According to the Examiner, modifying the teachings of Lee to incorporate the teachings of Mitchell “would provide the added advantage of displaying [a] navigation bar as it is commonly displayed - that is on all pages of the website.” Id. The Examiner cites to Sattler to remedy the deficiency of Lee and Mitchell to specifically teach claim element (v). Id. at 7. In particular, Appeal 2019-006740 Application 13/286,594 5 the Examiner finds that Sattler’s web shopping system, which filters operations made available to a user based on the user’s role, teaches selecting links when a first one of the plural webpages of a website is presented to a user that has logged into the website as recited by claim element (v). Id. (citing Sattler ¶¶ 13, 21–24; Figs. 4A, 4B). The Examiner’s reasoning for modifying Lee and Mitchell to include Sattler’s teachings is to “provide the added advantage of displaying the user only with links that they are authorized to view, thereby allowing the system to restrict access based on user characteristics, to information by not displaying menu links that would provide a user with access to restricted information.” Id. Appellant contends that Lee fails to disclose an account ribbon wherein each of its links is activatable to display a menu having at least one menu link as recited by claim element (iii). Appeal Br. 4. Appellant argues as follows: [W]hen cited to Figs. 29-33 [of Lee] are considered, the only element of Lee that might arguably be considered to be an “account ribbon” that is “persisted across plural webpages of the website” is the “uniform navigation bar” of Lee. This “uniform navigation bar” - which has links “Home,” “Login,” “Account,” “Tracking,” “Chat,” “Support,” “Customer Service,” “Shopping Cart,” “Get My Info,” and “Checkout” - is best seen in each of Figs. 29–31 of Lee. Furthermore, while the “uniform navigation bar” of Lee may arguably be an element that is persisted across plural webpages of a website, it is submitted that Lee never discloses that an activation of a link contained within the “uniform navigation bar,” e.g., an activation of any one of the “Home,” “Login,” “Account,” “Tracking,” “Chat,” “Support,” “Customer Service,” “Shopping Cart,” “Get My Info,” and “Checkout” links, causes a display of a menu, let alone causes a display of a menu having at least one menu link where the menu link [within the menu that was caused to be displayed when the Appeal 2019-006740 Application 13/286,594 6 link in the “uniform navigation bar” was activated] is further activable to access a type of user related information as claimed. Id. The Examiner responds: Lee Col 16, 40-64 and Figs. 29-31 teaches that menu(s) are displayed for various types of user (i.e. a user characteristic), and include links that allow navigation and searching. Upon user selection of menu options further screens may be displayed that include menu links (such as the manufacture drop-down menu in Fig. 30 and various menus for selection and menus with links for parts as discussed in Col 20, lines 1–22 and Fig. 33), and Lee Col 7, lines 10–30, Col 19, line 65–Col 20, line 22 and Figs. 29-33 teach that the links within the uniform navigation bar are based on user type(s) and the links may be clicked to display menus. Ans. 4. Appellant replies, arguing that “while Lee may disclose certain graphical user interface elements that can be used to display ‘drop-down’ menus . . . , Lee never discloses, teaches, or suggests that an activation of a link in the relied upon ‘uniform navigation bar’ will result in the display of a menu.” Reply Br. 2–3. Appellant’s argument is persuasive of reversible Examiner error. In particular, the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or reasoning explaining why activation of links corresponding to the recited account ribbon result in display of a menu. In our review of the Lee reference, we are unable to identify a detailed description of what is depicted in Lee’s Figures 29–31 that would support a conclusion that activation of links associated with, what has been referred to as, Lee’s “uniform navigation bar,” would result in display of a menu. Similarly, although Figure 30 depicts buttons with down-arrows that we might speculate can or would cause a menu to be displayed, no such menu is depicted or described by Lee. Appeal 2019-006740 Application 13/286,594 7 Instead, Lee uses the word “menu” only once, describing use of a menu in building an HTML web page, but not in the HTML page that is built as a result. See Lee, col. 8, ll. 29–35. We decline to sustain the rejection of claim 1 based on speculation as a substitute for evidence. Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced by Appellant, we do not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments. For the reasons discussed above, and constrained by the record before us, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Furthermore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 3–16 and 18, which depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Lee, Mitchell, and Sattler. We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Lee, Mitchell, Sattler, and Wechsler. We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6–8 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Lee, Mitchell, Sattler, and Katz. We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Lee, Mitchell, Sattler, and Good. We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10 and 18 under pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Lee, Mitchell, Sattler, and Racco. We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11–16 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Lee, Mitchell, Sattler, Racco, and Lindoerfer. Appeal 2019-006740 Application 13/286,594 8 DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 5 103(a) Lee, Mitchell, Sattler 1, 3, 5 4 103(a) Lee, Mitchell, Sattler, Wechsler 4 6–8 103(a) Lee, Mitchell, Sattler, Katz 6–8 9 103(a) Lee, Mitchell, Sattler, Good 9 10, 18, 103(a) Lee, Mitchell, Sattler, Racco 10, 18 11–16 103(a) Lee, Mitchell, Sattler, Racco, Lindoerfer 11–16 Overall Outcome 1, 3–16, 18 REVERSED