salesforce.com, inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 30, 2020

2019002648 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2020)

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.
14/513,109 10/13/2014 Gavin Andrew Ross Uhma 37633.6152D2 2404
151445 7590 06/30/2020
salesforce.com, inc.
Salesforce Tower
415 Mission Street, 3rd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
EXAMINER
KIM, SANG H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2141
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2020 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):
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
ipdocketing@eoplaw.com
ngorney@salesforce.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GAVIN ANDREW ROSS UHMA and JEVON MACDONALD
Appeal 2019-002648
Application 14/513,109
Technology Center 2100
Before LARRY J. HUME, MATTHEW J. McNEILL, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–10 and 27–46. Claims 11–26 are canceled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to applicant as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). According to Appellant, the real party in interest is
“salesforce.com, inc., The Landmark@ One Market, suite 300, San
Francisco, California 94105.” Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-002648
Application 14/513,109

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention simultaneously displays multiple cursors in a
shared web-browsing session. Spec. ¶ 3.
Claims 1, 27, and 37 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A method comprising:
creating a shared browsing session at a shared session
server computing device (“session server”);
initiating, by the session server, the shared browsing
session between a first shared session client computing device
(“first shared client”) and a second shared session client
computing device (“second shared client”), wherein the first
and second shared clients are communicatively interfaced with
the shared session server via a network;
downloading, by the session server, a webpage for
display to each of the first and second shared clients within the
shared browsing session;
adding, by the session server, collaboration features to a
source code of the webpage downloaded by the session server
prior to displaying the webpage to either of the first and second
shared clients;
displaying the webpage to the first and second shared
clients using one or more display devices;
receiving, by the session server, first input/output (I/O)
coordinates relating to a first I/O device from the first shared
client pursuant to a first user of the first I/O device within a
context of the shared browsing session accessible from the first
shared client;
receiving, by the session server, second I/O coordinates
relating to a second I/O device from the second shared client
pursuant to a second user of the second I/O device within the
context of the shared browsing session accessible from the
second shared client;
Appeal 2019-002648
Application 14/513,109

3
in response to the first and second I/O coordinates,
simultaneously displaying, by the session server, a first I/O
device image and a second I/O device image to each of the first
shared client and the second shared client corresponding to the
first I/O coordinates and the second I/O coordinates of the first
I/O device and the second I/O device, respectively;
applying, by the session server, a change to the webpage
displayed to the first shared client and the second shared client,
wherein the change to the webpage includes at least an
interaction by one of the first shared client and the second
shared client with the collaboration features added to the source
code of the web content displayed to the first shared client and
the second shared client; and
wherein applying the change to the webpage displayed to
the first shared client and the second shared client comprises
displaying real-time movements of the first I/O device image at
each of the first shared client and the second shared client in
accordance with the first I/O coordinates received from the first
shared client and displaying real-time movement of the second
I/O device image at each of the first shared client and the
second shared client in accordance with the second I/O
coordinates received from the second shared client.
Appeal Br. 31–32.2

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Office Action (“Final”),
mailed July 28, 2017; the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”), filed July 29, 2018;
the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”), mailed December 14, 2018; and Reply
Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed February 14, 2019.
Appeal 2019-002648
Application 14/513,109

4
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the references in the table below.
Name Reference Date
Graham US 6,871,213 B1 Mar. 22, 2005
Lemonik US 2012/0110443 A1 May 3, 2012
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1–10 and 27–463 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as indefinite. Final 3–4.
The Examiner rejects claims 1–10 and 27–46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Graham and Lemonik. Final 4–18.
OPINION
The Indefiniteness Rejection
The Examiner determines that claims 1, 27, and 37 are indefinite
because the claims lack the proper antecedent basis for “the web content.”
Final 3. Appellant agrees and does not contest the rejection. Appeal Br. 13.
Thus, we summarily sustain the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection. See Ex
parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075–76 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)
(explaining that if Appellant fails “to present arguments on a particular
issue—or, more broadly, on a particular rejection—the Board will not, as a
general matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the
rejection”); see also MPEP § 1205.02 (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018) (“If
a ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the

3 The Examiner’s rationale only discusses the independent claims. Final 3.
Claims 2–10, 28–36, and 38–46 incorporate the purported indefinite
limitation by reference because they are dependent claims. Thus, we
understand the Examiner to reject these claims under the same rationale.
Appeal 2019-002648
Application 14/513,109

5
appellant’s brief, appellant has waived any challenge to that ground of
rejection and the Board may summarily sustain it.”).
The Obviousness Rejection
The Examiner finds that Graham teaches all limitations of
representative4 claim 1 except for certain limitations related to the I/O
coordinates. Final 4–11. For these features, the Examiner turns to Lemonik.
Id. at 7–8. In particular, the Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to incorporate Lemonik’s teachings about collaborative cursors to
improve Graham. Id. at 10–11 (citing Lemonik ¶ 4).
Appellant’s Arguments
Appellant argues that Graham does not teach or suggest a session
server that adds the recited collaboration features to a webpage’s source
code before displaying the webpage to the clients. Appeal Br. 14–23;
Reply Br. 4–8. In particular, Appellant argues that Graham creates parts of
the webpages on the client side. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 20–21; Reply Br. 7–8.
Appellant argues that Graham does not display real-time movements
of the first I/O device image. Appeal Br. 24–26. In Appellant’s view,
Graham only causes a second browser to scroll to a particular location
identified in a first browser. Id. at 25 (citing Graham 12:28–48).
Appellant argues that the Examiner improperly applies the broadest
reasonable interpretation to the cited reference instead of the claims.
Id. at 26–27.

4 Appellant argues the claims 1–10 and 27–46 as a group. See Appeal Br. 30.
We select claim 1 as representative of this group. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2019-002648
Application 14/513,109

6
Lastly, Appellant argues that the rejection improperly dissects
Appellant’s claim into its constituent parts. Id. at 27–29.
Analysis
I
Claim 1 recites, in part,
adding, by the session server, collaboration features to a
source code of the webpage downloaded by the session server
prior to displaying the webpage to either of the first and second
shared clients;
Appeal Br. 31–32. We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the
Examiner erred in finding that Graham teaches this limitation. See id. at 14–
23; Reply Br. 4–8.
Graham generally relates to creating a shared session between clients
and enabling “co-navigation” of webpages. Graham, Abstract. Before
Graham’s system presents the webpage to the clients, the webpage goes
through a parsing-and-lexing process. Id. at 10:53–54.
Graham’s Figure 6, below, is a flow diagram of that process.
Id. at 10:54–58.
Appeal 2019-002648
Application 14/513,109

7

The process, above, identifies every dynamic event in a webpage
(block 604) and modifies the webpage by replacing each link directing a
dynamic event to the original website with a link directing the event to a
proxy (block 606). Id. at 10:63–65. Co-navigation service 315 performs this
parsing-and-lexing process. Id. at 10:59–62. “Co-navigation service 315
Appeal 2019-002648
Application 14/513,109

8
includes one or more routing servers 320, one or more application servers
330 and one or more database servers 340.” Id. at 7:10–12.
The Examiner finds that Graham’s co-navigation service 315
corresponds to the recited session server. Final 4. Appellant argues that, in
making this finding, the Examiner improperly applies the broadest
reasonable interpretation to Graham. Appeal Br. 26–27. We see no evidence
that the Examiner’s findings are broader “than that which is actually
disclosed by the reference.” Id. at 27. On the contrary, the Examiner’s
findings about Graham’s co-navigation service 315 (Final 6) are adequately
supported by the record.
Like the session server, Graham’s co-navigation service 315 adds
“collaboration features to a source code of the webpage.” Id. at 5. In
particular, co-navigation service 315 replaces each link directing a dynamic
event to the website with a link directing this dynamic event to the co-
navigation service. Graham 11:18–20. These links are collaboration features.
Id. at 11:25–29. For example, a customer triggers a dynamic event by
clicking on a link during the shared session. Id. The co-navigation service
then enables the resulting web content to be displayed to all participating
clients. Id. In this way, the links allow the participants to collaborate. See id.
Also like the recited session server, Graham’s co-navigation service
315 adds the links before the clients display the webpage. In fact, Figure 6
shows that co-navigation service 315 replaces the links (step 606) before
delivering the webpage to participating clients (step 610). Id. Fig. 6.
To be sure, Graham teaches that various functions within the
webpage’s code “enable creation of web page portions on the client side
without accessing the web site being co-navigated.” Id. at 11:1–3. But claim
Appeal 2019-002648
Application 14/513,109

9
1 does not exclude clients from creating parts of a webpage. Rather, claim 1
uses the transitional term “comprising,” which indicates that additional
unrecited elements are not excluded from the claim.
Appellant argues,
A symptom of examination by dissection is plainly evident by
the fact that the present Office Action requires Graham’s
mechanism modify a webpage at the shared session server in
direct contradiction to Graham’s requirement that that such
modifications are enabled via the “ . . . creation of a new web
page on the client side by accessing the web site being co-
navigated,” and not at the co-navigation server.
Appeal Br. 28 (emphasis omitted). We, however, see little evidence showing
a contradiction here. Graham’s server modifies the webpage to direct the
dynamic events to the co-navigation service. Graham 11:18–20. Because
both Graham and the recited server add collaboration features to the
webpage, as discussed above, the rejection is consistent with Graham’s
teachings. See Final 4.
Thus, we are unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that
Graham teaches “adding, by the session server, collaboration features to a
source code of the webpage downloaded by the session server prior to
displaying the webpage to either of the first and second shared clients.”
II
Appellant further argues that Graham lacks the recited feature of
displaying real-time movements of the I/O device images. Appeal Br. 24–26.
The Examiner, though, relies on Lemonik—not Graham alone—to
teach this feature. Final 10 (citing Lemonik, Fig. 1, ¶ 21); Ans. 7. In
Lemonik, multiple users collaboratively edit a single document.
Lemonik ¶ 21. The Examiner finds that Lemonik’s system 100 coordinates
Appeal 2019-002648
Application 14/513,109

10
cursor locations for collaborative document editing. Final 10. In one
example, Lemonik simultaneously displays cursor positions for three users.
Lemonik ¶ 24. Apart from stating that Lemonik does not cure Graham’s
deficiency, Appellant does not rebut the Examiner’s findings about
Lemonik, which are adequately supported by the record here. See
Appeal Br. 14–29. For this reason, we are unpersuaded that the Examiner
erred in finding that Lemonik teaches displaying real-time movements of the
first and second I/O device images.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of representative claim 1 and claims 2–
10 and 27–46, which are argued as a group. Supra n.4.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–10 and 27–46.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–10, 27–46 112(b) Indefiniteness 1–10, 27–
46

1–10, 27–46 103 Graham, Lemonik 1–10, 27–
46

Overall
Outcome
1–10, 27–
46

Appeal 2019-002648
Application 14/513,109

11
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED