WP Company LLC d/b/a The Washington Post

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 2, 2022

2021000916 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2022)

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. 15/221,283 07/27/2016 Gregory FRANCZYK 6229-7 4968 23117 7590 03/02/2022 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC 901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR ARLINGTON, VA 22203 EXAMINER MCINTOSH, ANDREW T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2176 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/02/2022 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): PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com pair_nixon@firsttofile.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte GREGORY FRANCZYK, TIMOTHY KIM, and WILLIAM MAXIM VAN WAZER ____________ Appeal 2021-000916 Application 15/221,283 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before DAVID M. KOHUT, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction over the pending rejected claims 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 (2019). Appellant identifies WP Company LLC d/b/a The Washington Post, as the real party in interest. (Appeal Br. 3 (referring to physical page; Appeal Brief has erroneous pagination).) Appeal 2021-000916 Application 15/221,283 2 THE INVENTION Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention is directed to integrating external content for web page display. (Abstr.) Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A system comprising: a memory; a network interface; and a processor configured to: receive a request for displaying a web page on an end user device, wherein the request identifies a type of the end user device; identify a plurality of page features for displaying the web page, each of the page features being associated with content from a respective content source; select, for each of the identified page features, a corresponding content resolver object from a plurality of content resolver objects stored in the memory, wherein the selecting is based at least on the type of the end user device identified in the received request, wherein the selecting of the content resolver object corresponding to an identified page feature is performed before content associated with the identified page feature is retrieved from a source of said content, and wherein the content resolver object corresponding to an identified page feature specifies one or more parameters associated with rendering the identified page feature as part of the web page on the end user device; using the selected content resolver object, obtain the content from an external content source via the network interface; render, in accordance with the one or more parameters, said obtained content on the web page for display on the end user device; and Appeal 2021-000916 Application 15/221,283 3 transmit, via the network interface, the rendered web page for display on the end user device. (Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.).) REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1-7, 11, 12, 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Goswami (US 2014/0229818 A1, pub. Aug. 14, 2014) and Suryanarayana (US 2009/0248883 A1, pub. Oct. 1, 2009). (Final Act. 3-10.) The Examiner rejected claims 8-10 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Goswami, Suryanarayana, and Azar (US 2010/0332513 A1, pub. Dec. 30, 2010). (Final Act. 11-15.) ISSUES ON APPEAL Appellant’s arguments present the following issues:2 Issue One: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Goswami and Suryanarayana would have taught or suggested the independent claim 1 limitation, “wherein the selecting of the content resolver object corresponding to an identified page feature is performed before content associated with the identified page feature is retrieved from a source of said content,” and the commensurate limitations of independent claims 14 and 15. (Appeal Br. 9-16.) 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the positions of the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Aug. 17, 2020) (“Appeal Br.”); the Reply Brief (filed Nov. 18, 2020) (“Reply Br.”); the Final Office Action (mailed Dec. 12, 2019) (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed Sept. 18, 2020) (“Ans.”) for the respective details. Appeal 2021-000916 Application 15/221,283 4 Issue Two: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Goswami and Suryanarayana would have taught or suggested the additional limitation of claim 3. (Appeal Br. 16.) Issue Three: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Goswami and Suryanarayana would have taught or suggested the additional limitations of claim 7. (Appeal Br. 17.) ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s arguments. Arguments Appellant could have made, but chose not to make are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). We disagree with Appellant’s arguments, and we adopt as our own: (1) the pertinent findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3-15); and (2) the corresponding reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. (Ans. 15-22.) We concur with the applicable conclusions reached by the Examiner and emphasize the following. Issue One For the aforementioned claim 1 requirement that the content resolver object be selected before the page feature content is retrieved, the Examiner relies on Figure 18 of Suryanarayana, reproduced below. (Final Act. 5.) Appeal 2021-000916 Application 15/221,283 5 Figure 18 of Suryanarayana Figure 18 depicts: [A] high level call flow [that] relates to a widget management portal (WMP)-originated selection and configuration of a new mobile widget. In particular, WMP interacts with WMS [Widget Management System] to select and configure the mobile widget. The WMS interacts with CAS [Content Access Server] to obtain the content for the mobile widget. Additionally, the WMS forwards the mobile widget and/ or the content update for the mobile widget to the WMC [Widget Management Client] via the message router. (Suryanarayana ¶ 165, see ¶¶ 74, 76, 82-84.) The Examiner finds that the above disclosure that widget configuration precedes widget updates “teaches or suggests that the selecting and configuring of the ‘mobile widget’ occur before content is retrieved,” and therefore satisfies the claim requirement at issue. (Ans. 15-16.) Appellant argues that the Examiner erroneously equates the widget of Suryanarayana with the claimed “content resolver object,” when in fact, argues Appellant, a widget is an example of the claimed “page feature.” (Appeal Br. 10-11.) We agree that a widget is an example of the claimed Appeal 2021-000916 Application 15/221,283 6 page feature, but do not agree that the Examiner’s rejection is inconsistent with that fact. Rather, we understand from the above-quoted findings that the Examiner relies on Figure 18 and its accompanying description as teaching that the widget configuration calls of Figure 18 correspond to the claimed “selecting of the content resolver object,” and the widget update calls correspond to the claimed retrieval of “content associated with the identified page feature.” Given that the former precedes the latter, the claim requirement at issue is satisfied. Appellant does not sufficiently address this finding of the Examiner and, therefore, we are not persuaded that it is in error. Appellant also argues that “[t]he Office Action does not adequately describe how a person of ordinary skill in the art can modify Goswami in accordance with Suryanarayana, and merely and conclusively states it would have been obvious.” (Appeal Br. 12.) In response the Examiner states: Both Goswami and Suryanarayana are in the same field of endeavor, such as dynamic content retrieval and display. Further . . . Goswami and Suryanarayana include corresponding components used for retrieving and rendering content. The Office Action states obviousness to combine “because both manage user interface elements such as widgets which display content. The motivation to combine is that it improves the experience of an end user in interacting with web services on a wireless communication device (Suryanarayana, [0010]).” Further, Suryanarayana teaches to provide a mobile widget service optimized for the wireless network environment. Para. 0091. Further, the described mobile widgets provide an alternative to the mobile browser to access content on a wireless device, and also allow individual users to easily create custom mobile widgets for arbitrary wireless device or web resources. Para. 0092. Accordingly, it remains the Examiner's position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the Appeal 2021-000916 Application 15/221,283 7 art to combine the teachings to Goswami and Suryanarayana to teach the limitations of the claims at issue . . . . (Ans. 18-19.) (emphasis omitted) We are not persuaded that the Examiner’s articulation of the motivation to combine the references is in error. Appellant further argues that, even when combined, the references do not teach or suggest “select[ing], for each of the identified page features, a corresponding content resolver object from a plurality of content resolver objects stored in the memory,” as recited in the claim. (Appeal Br. 15-16.) In particular, Appellant argues that the fact that each widget in Suryanarayana has “its own ‘widget-specific renderer,’” there is no selection of a content resolver object from a plurality of such objects. (Id.) This argument is unpersuasive because the Examiner relies on Goswami as teaching this limitation. (Final Act. 4.) Therefore, we sustain the rejections of independent claims 1, 14, and 15 over Goswami and Suryanarayana. Issue Two Claim 3 adds to claims 1 and 2 the requirement that: [T]he content resolver objects each [sic] is associated with a respective priority value and a respective instruction logic, wherein the selecting further comprises running the received request against the respective instruction logic of respective ones of said plurality of content resolver objects ordered in accordance with the respective priority value of each of said plurality of content resolver objects. (Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.).) In rejecting this claim, the Examiner relies on the disclosure in Suryanarayana that the Widget Management System can implement usage data to prioritize widgets, and a wireless device can use a Appeal 2021-000916 Application 15/221,283 8 “content priority determiner” to determine the significance or priority of content. (Final Act. 7 (citing Suryanarayana ¶¶ 139, 141, 195).) Appellant argues that the rejection is in error because Suryanarayana discloses prioritizing content, rather than priority values of each content resolver object for ordering the content resolver objects. (Appeal Br. 16.) In response, the Examiner further relies on the fact that the Widget Management System of Suryanarayana includes widget-specific renderers that prioritize widgets based on frequency of use and the like, and thus “Suryanarayana teaches not just prioritization of the requested content, but prioritization of the widgets (and associated logic) themselves.” (Ans. 20- 21 (citing Suryanarayana ¶¶ 139, 141, 195).) Appellant does not reply to the Examiner’s specific finding and, therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 3. Issue Three Claim 7 adds to independent claim 1 the requirement that: [T]he processor is further configured to: select, for the identified page feature, a corresponding content source access logic bundle from a plurality of content source access logic bundles; and retrieving, using the corresponding content source access logic bundle and using a content configuration object created by the content resolver object corresponding to the identified page feature, content for the identified page feature. (Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.).) In rejecting this claim, the Examiner relies on the disclosure in Goswami the retrieval of “module data . . . from the layout using a data extraction API that is configured in accordance with the module-specific identifier(s) that correspond to the respective module(s),” wherein the module data: Appeal 2021-000916 Application 15/221,283 9 [M]ay be associated with metadata . . . which are information that describe the module data. Metadata . . .may include module-specific identifiers that uniquely identify the data type contained in the corresponding module and enable the desired module data to be identified and queried. Thus, data for the module may be fetched by using the module-specific identifiers. (Final Act. 7 (citing Goswami ¶ 56).) Appellant argues the Examiner errs because “there is nothing in Goswami paragraph [0056] and elsewhere that it is the Goswami renderer, which the Office Action alleges corresponds to the content configuration object, which is used to retrieve the content for the identified page feature.” (Appeal Br. 17.) However, nowhere does the Examiner equate the Goswami renderer with a content configuration object. Moreover, the Examiner responds that Goswami teaches that the module data may be associated with metadata, which may include module-specific identifiers that uniquely identify the data type contained in the corresponding module and enable the desired module data to be identified and queried, and data for the module may be fetched by using the module-specific identifiers. (Ans. 22 (citing Goswami ¶ 56).) Appellant does not reply to the Examiner’s specific finding and, therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 7. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, we sustain the rejections of claims 1, 3, 7, 14, and 15 as obvious over Goswami and Suryanarayana. We also sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, and 12 over Goswami and Suryanarayana, and of claims 8-10 and 13 over Goswami, Appeal 2021-000916 Application 15/221,283 10 Suryanarayana, and Azar, which rejections are not argued separately with particularity. (Appeal Br. 17.) DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-7, 11, 12, 14, 15 103 Goswami, Suryanarayana 1-7, 11, 12, 14, 15 8-10, 13 103 Goswami, Suryanarayana, Azar 8-10, 13 Overall Outcome 1-15 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). AFFIRMED