David SACKS et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 13, 2021

2020001370 (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 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.
13/593,462 08/23/2012 David Oliver SACKS 337262.02 3002
69316 7590 05/13/2021
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
EXAMINER
EL-BKAILY, AHMAD M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/13/2021 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):
chriochs@microsoft.com
jkarr@microsoft.com
usdocket@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DAVID OLIVER SACKS and ADAM MARC PISONI
____________________

Appeal 2020-001370
Application 13/593,462
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, MARC S. HOFF, and
MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–20. 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) (2018). According to Appellant, Microsoft Technology
Licensing, LLC is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-001370
Application 13/593,462

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed and claimed invention relates generally to generating a
web page in a manner that protects private, native content included in the
web page from improper access by third-party scripts. Spec. ¶ 5. The HTML
code for the web page creates a different shell area for each third-party web
application. Id. at ¶ 6. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A method of generating a web page that includes one or
more web applications, comprising the steps of:
in a web server, receiving a request to view the web page;
generating, on the web server, native hypertext markup
language (HTML) code for the web page, wherein the native
HTML code for the web page includes a different shell area for
each of the one or more web applications;
generating foreign HTML code for the one or more web
applications by executing on the web server in a context isolated
from the native HTML code, interpreted code associated with the
one or more web applications;
inserting the foreign HTML code for the one or more web
applications into respective shell areas included in the native
HTML code; and
transmitting the web page in response to the request,
including the native HTML code with the foreign HTML code
inserted therein.
Appeal 2020-001370
Application 13/593,462

3
EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS2
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 11, 15, 16, and 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Mitchell et
al. (US 2005/0204047 A1, Sept. 15, 2005) (“Mitchell”) and Mazzaferri (US
2009/0070404 A1, Mar. 12, 2009). Final Act. 6–8.
The Examiner rejects claims 3, 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, 17, and 19 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Mitchell,
Mazzaferri, and Hallak (US 8,464,318 B1, June 11, 2013). Final Act. 8–10.
The Examiner rejects claims 6, 13, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Mitchell, Mazzaferri, and
Wang et al. (US 2010/0281537 A1, Nov. 4, 2010) (“Wang”). Final Act. 10–
11.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, the
Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s
arguments. Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Rejection of Independent Claim 1
Appellant argues, with respect to claim 1, that the Examiner’s
rejection is in error as the combination of Mitchell and Mazzaferri does not
teach “generating . . . native hypertext markup language (HTML) code for

2 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed July 17, 2019
(“Appeal Br.”); Final Office Action mailed January 14, 2019 (“Final Act.”);
and the Examiner’s Answer mailed September 24, 2019 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2020-001370
Application 13/593,462

4
the web page, wherein the native HTML code for the web page includes a
different shell area for each of the one or more web applications”; and
“generating foreign HTML code for the one or more web applications by
executing on the web server in a context isolated from the native HTML
code, interpreted code associated with the one or more web applications.”
Claims App. (emphases added). In particular, Appellant contends that
Mitchell “fails to teach at least two different types of code (e.g., native and
foreign) and a web page containing different shell areas.” Appeal Br. 9
(citing Mitchell ¶ 23). Appellant further avers that Mazzaferri “not only fails
to disclose generating foreign HTML code, but also fails to disclose
generating any code isolated from native HTML code.” Appeal Br. 10
(citing Mazzaferri ¶ 181).
We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection. As an
initial matter, Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, which are directed
only to claim 1, are not commensurate in scope with the limitations recited
in independent claim 15. Appellant’s arguments on pages 8 and 9 of the
Appeal Brief address the claim 1 recitation of native and foreign code
isolated from the native code, whereas claim 15 does not include a limitation
directed to native HTML code or that the foreign HTML code is isolated
from the native code. Appellant’s arguments have therefore not identified
any errors in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15. See Appeal Br. 8–10.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 15
and claims 16–20 depending therefrom.
Claim 1 requires, inter alia, “generating . . . native HTML code” and
“generating foreign HTML code.” Claims App. Claim 1. The Examiner has
found that Mitchell teaches generating native HTML code, because Mitchell
Appeal 2020-001370
Application 13/593,462

5
teaches a Web server receiving a command to generate a complete HTML
page. Final Act. 6 (citing Mitchell ¶ 5). Notably, the Examiner has
additionally found that Mazzaferri teaches generating foreign HTML code,
because Mazzaferri teaches running a shell extension of a foreign
application on a local client computer. Final Act. 7 (citing Mazzaferri ¶¶
181–82).
We concur with the Examiner’s findings. Mazzaferri teaches, in
relevant part: “the local agent 614 identifies at least one shell extension . . .
within which the local machine 102 will display an integrated, full-screen
desktop providing integrated access to resources—including shell
extensions—provided by both the local machine 102 and the remote
machine 106” (emphasis added). Mazzaferri ¶ 181.
Thus, the Examiner cites combined teachings from Mitchell and
Mazzaferri for generating native HTML code and foreign HTML code.
Accordingly, Appellant’s argument that Mitchell fails to teach generating
“two different types of code (e.g., native and foreign)” (Appeal Br. 9),
addresses Mitchell for allegedly failing to teach what the Examiner relies
upon the combination of Mitchell and Mazzaferri to teach, and is therefore
unpersuasive to show error in the Examiner’s findings with respect to
Mitchell and Mazzaferri.
Furthermore, notwithstanding the teachings in Mazzaferri, the
Examiner has also found that Mitchell teaches generating both native and
foreign HTML code. Ans. 3–4. In particular, the Examiner has found that,
“(1) the framework of the HTML[ ] page[,] as taught by Mitchell, read[s]
upon the native [HTML] code, [and] (2) the code managed by the page
proxies independently updating HTML code, as taught by Mitchell, [is] the
Appeal 2020-001370
Application 13/593,462

6
foreign code.” Id. at 4 (citing Mitchell ¶¶ 23, 36, 49–50). Appellant does not
contest the Examiner’s findings, and we agree with the Examiner’s findings.
Figure 5 of Mitchell, reproduced below, “illustrates a Web page 510 in Web
Browser 500 made up of nested partial pages 520.” Mitchell ¶ 50.

Figure 5 of Mitchell, above, depicts one embodiment in which a Web
page is composed of nested partial pages in a Web Browser. Mitchell ¶ 29.
Mitchell explains that, “each Web page served up to a client machine is
really a complex of aggregated Web pages, many of which are embedded
Appeal 2020-001370
Application 13/593,462

7
like Russian dolls within yet other Web pages or other interactive content.”
Mitchell ¶ 49. Mitchell continues:
Page Proxies may be recursive, including the ability to
track state on pages nested or embedded within one another. For
example, a “single” page may consist of three frames, each
having four frames that in turn contain ten parent tags with many
children. . . . The state for all of these levels allows updates of
content . . . .

Id. at ¶ 50. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Mitchell teaches
native HTML in the form of the HTML framework that provides the
structure of the web page 510, and foreign HTML in the form of HTML
code provided by the page proxies into the partial pages 520. Ans. 3–4.
We additionally concur with the Examiner’s finding that Mitchell
teaches a different shell area for each of the one or more web applications.
Ans. 3–4. Specifically, the Examiner has found that “Mitchell [at paragraphs
49–50] further define[s] page proxies as independently updating the
appearance of nested partial pages. Those partial pages inserted in the
framework of the HTML page appear[ ] to the user to be a single page.”
Ans. 4. Mitchell teaches, as discussed above, each of the partial pages 520
contained within a different frame (see Mitchell Fig. 5, ¶ 50), and we
therefore concur with the Examiner that Mitchell teaches a different shell
area for each of the web applications. Ans. 3–4.
Further, Appellant’s contention that Mazzaferri “fails to disclose
generating any code isolated from native HTML code” is unpersuasive.
Appeal Br. 10 (citing Mazzaferri ¶ 181). To the extent Appellant argues here
that Mazzaferri fails to teach generating foreign HTML code, such argument
is unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above. As to the claimed
Appeal 2020-001370
Application 13/593,462

8
generating foreign HTML code “in a context isolated from the native HTML
code” (see Claim 1), we concur with the Examiner’s findings.
With respect to Mazzaferri generating foreign HTML code “isolated”
from native HTML code, Appellant argues that Mazzaferri “instead
explicitly states that ‘the local machine 102 will display an integrated, full-
screen desktop providing integrated access to resources – including shell
extensions – provided by both the local machine 102 and the remote
machine 106.’” Appeal Br. 10 (quoting Mazzaferri
¶ 181).
In response, the Examiner states:
[T]he Appellant argues that the ability to access the isolated
environment negates the isolation of that environment. Examiner
points out that access to the isolated environment is required to
access the newly generated data. The invention as claimed does
not preclude the invention from accessing that data. If the
isolation of the data was so complete as to cut off all access to
the wider computing system, the invention would be rendered
inoperable. If data is unable to enter or exit the isolated
environment then they cannot function to update the portions of
the webpage they are responsible for. The instantiated server
shell described by the cited portion Mazzaferri [181-182]
teaches an isolated environment at a server where the system can
run foreign code without endangering the client system. Th[is] is
the exact reasoning given by Appellant's specification [26]
where the only time the term “isolate” appears is to describe a
scenario where foreign code is executed in isolation [so] as to
avoid endangering the wider system.

Ans. 4–5 (emphases added). Thus, the Examiner has proffered an
interpretation of “isolated” consistent with the term’s use in Appellant’s
Specification. Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s claim
interpretation, and we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection.
Appeal 2020-001370
Application 13/593,462

9
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded
us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Appellant has not
presented separate arguments for independent claim 8, which recites similar
features of commensurate scope. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 8, and claims 2–7 and 9–14 depending
therefrom.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim
Rejected
35
U.S.C. § 
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 8, 9,
11, 15, 16,
18
103 Mitchell,
Mazzaferri
1, 2, 4, 8, 9,
11, 15, 16, 18

3, 5, 7, 10,
12, 14, 17,
19
103 Mitchell,
Mazzaferri,
Hallak
3, 5, 7, 10,
12, 14, 17, 19

6, 13, 20 103 Mitchell,
Mazzaferri,
Wang
6, 13, 20
Overall
Outcome
1–20
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