Ex Parte Agboatwalla et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 24, 2009

10165454 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 24, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte ADNAN M. AGBOATWALLA, ADNAN H. LAWAI, ASHWIN
R. KAMATH, UMAIR A. KHAN, and WASIQ M. BOKHARI
____________________

Appeal 2008-004127
Application 10/165,454
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Decided:1 June 24, 2009
____________________

Before JAMES D. THOMAS, LEE E. BARRETT, and THU A. DANG,
Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Data (electronic delivery).

Appeal 2008-004127
Application 10/165,454

2
Appellants appeal the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-28 under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the present invention provides “a method,
system, and article of manufacture that allows a user to aggregate any
content or data from any source into a single customizable network user
interface of his/her choice” (Spec. 3, ll. 16-18).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIMS
The independent claims at issue, claims 1, 6, 9, 15, 20, and 22, are
reproduced below:

1. A method for generating a user-sharable network user
interface, comprising:

displaying a management interface for allowing a first end user
to select and manage information displayed on an information screen
of a habitat, wherein the management interface includes information
of at least one content source;

allowing the first end user to select portions of the information
available in the at least one content source;

marking the selected information of the content source;

storing the marked information;
Appeal 2008-004127
Application 10/165,454

3

retrieving the marked information;

displaying the marked information on the information screen,
wherein the information screen includes at least one view, wherein
each view contains at least one window for displaying the marked
information;

checking a permission status of a second end user for
determining whether the second end user is authorized to see a
window containing information selected by the first end user; and

allowing the second user to view a window of the information
screen if the second user is authorized.

6. A method for customizing a network user interface,
comprising:

displaying a management interface on a wireless device for
allowing a user to select and manage information to be displayed on
an information screen of a habitat, wherein the management interface
includes information of at least one content source and customization
tools;

allowing the user to select portions of the information available
in the at least one content source;

marking the selected information of the content source;

storing the marked information for subsequent output on the
information screen; and

allowing the user to interact with the customization tools via the
wireless device for customizing the management interface.

Appeal 2008-004127
Application 10/165,454

4

9. A method for generating a customizable network user
interface, comprising:

displaying a management interface for allowing a user to select
and manage information displayed on an information screen;

receiving specification of a transaction pattern, the pattern
being for performing an interaction with a remote data source for
retrieving data upon replay of the pattern, the pattern storing at least
one of information submitted by a creator of the pattern, actions taken
by the creator, actions taken by a system to generate results, and
results sent to the creator during recording of the pattern;

replaying the pattern for retrieving the data from the remote
data source; and

displaying information selected by the user on the management
interface and the retrieved data on the information screen.

15. A method for managing an enterprise network data
interface system, comprising:

assigning identification information to data of an enterprise;

allowing users to access the data via a habitat based on access
privileges;

assigning the users to groups, wherein the groups are tiered;

associating selected identification information of the enterprise
data with each group;

allowing users in a particular group to access data associated
with their particular access tier;
Appeal 2008-004127
Application 10/165,454

5

allowing users in a particular group to access data associated
with a group in a lower tier; and

controlling administrative privileges to the data interface
system;

wherein the administrative privileges are tiered, wherein a user
on a particular administrative tier has administrative rights over all
users in lower administrative tiers.

20. A method for generating a network user interface with
sharable data, comprising:

displaying a management interface for allowing a user to select
and manage information displayed on an information screen of a
habitat, wherein the management interface includes information of at
least one content source;

allowing the user to select portions of the information available
in the at least one content source;

marking the selected information of the content source;

storing the marked information in the habitat for subsequent
output on the information screen; and [sic]

allowing an external application to access the marked
information for extracting data therefrom; and

allowing the external application to add data to the habitat.

22. A method for providing a customizable network user
interface, comprising:
Appeal 2008-004127
Application 10/165,454

6

displaying a management interface for allowing a user to select
and manage information displayed on an information screen, wherein
the management interface includes information of at least one content
source;

allowing the user to select portions of the information available
in the at least one content source;

marking the selected information of the content source;

storing the marked information;

retrieving the marked information;

translating the retrieved information to a different language; and

displaying the translated information on the information screen.

C. REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:

Kelts U.S. 2001/0030667 A1 Oct. 18, 2001
Anuff U.S. 6,327,628 B1 Dec. 04, 2001
MacIntosh U.S. 2002/0138581 A1 Sep. 26, 2002
Nason U.S. 6,630,943 B1 Oct. 07, 2003
Quatrano U.S. 6,748,420 B1 Jun. 08, 2004
Saindon U.S. 6,820,055 B2 Nov. 16, 2004

Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
having insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation of “the other habit.”
Appeal 2008-004127
Application 10/165,454

7
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18-21, and 26-28 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Anuff.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Anuff and Quatrano.
Claims 6-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Anuff and Kelts.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Anuff and Official Notice.
Claims 14 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Anuff and Nason.
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Anuff and MacIntosh.
Claims 22 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Anuff and Saindon.
Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Anuff, Quatrano, Kelts, MacIntosh, and Saindon.

II. ISSUES
1) Have Appellants shown the Examiner erred in finding
that Anuff discloses “displaying a management interface for allowing
a first end user to select and manage information displayed on an
information screen of a habitat, wherein the management interface
includes information of at least one content source” (claim 1)?
Appeal 2008-004127
Application 10/165,454

8
2) Have Appellants shown the Examiner erred in finding
that Anuff discloses “receiving specification of a transaction pattern,
the pattern being for performing an interaction with a remote data
source for retrieving data upon replay of the pattern” (claim 9)?
3) Have Appellants shown the Examiner erred in finding
that Anuff discloses “assigning the users to groups, wherein the
groups are tiered;” “allowing users in a particular group to access data
associated with their particular access tier;” and “allowing users in a
particular group to access data associated with a group in a lower tier”
(claim 15)?
4) Have Appellants shown the Examiner erred in finding
that Anuff discloses “allowing the external application to add data to
the habitat” (claim 20)?
5) Have Appellants shown the Examiner erred in finding
that Anuff and Nason suggest “translating the retrieved information to
a different language; and displaying the translated information on the
information screen” (claim 22)?

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.

Anuff
Appeal 2008-004127
Application 10/165,454

9
1) A portal server presents an HTML page of modules,
where a module represents a network resource that can be accessed by
portal users (Abstract).
2) The modules can be added to a portal using an
administration graphical user interface (“GUI”) (col. 6, ll. 43-45).
3) “Module permissions” include “end-user permissions
(for example, whether a module is available to the members of the
user group, whether the user group members can customize the
module, etc.)” (col. 10, ll. 7-10).
4) A “tabbed” user interface allows users to move between
portal pages by mouse-clicking on one of a series of tabs (col. 8, ll.
14-21).
5) A “permissions architecture” includes “user group
permissions,” which “determine whether one group can perform any
administrative tasks over another group (for example, view the group
membership, add members to the group, delete members from it,
etc.)” (col. 9, l. 63 – col. 10, l. 4).
6) “[T]he portal server can be viewed as a client/server
model” whereby the “client interface is provided by HTML code
generated by the portal server to run in a user’s browser application”
(col. 4, ll. 18-21).
7) “[T]he ability to add modules to pages can be made
specific to a group” (col. 16, ll. 6-7).
Appeal 2008-004127
Application 10/165,454

10
8) The modules include “a JSP [Java Server Pages] module,
which can execute a JSP page and display the contents of that page as
the contents of the module” and which can be changed without
recompiling of Java class files (col. 7, ll. 22-37).
9) The modules also include “an XML [Extensible Markup
Language] inclusion module, which retrieves an XML style sheet and
generates the HTML [Hypertext Markup Language] for display as the
content of a module; [and] a transaction module which can employ a
script to obtain filtered data from a network location for display in a
module” (col. 7, ll. 17-22).
Quatrano
10) An “event notification” is provided to users for sharing of
a session within a web server (col. 28, ll. 47-62).
Kelts
11) An “interactive navigation system,” which may be
“entirely server based and capable of automatically scaling its features
to the capability of the client presentation device” (p. 3, ¶ [0051]),
displays “a graphical map generated in a format suitable for use with
the particular presentation device, e.g., a television, a personal
computer, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a wireless telephone, or
the like” (p. 3, ¶ [0048]).
Nason
12) “User items such as applications, documents, files, or
network links may be added to a user button via any conventional
Appeal 2008-004127
Application 10/165,454

11
method such as copy and paste or drag and drop functions of system
software or of any web browser” (col. 21, ll. 19-22).
Saindon
13) The “systems and methods for receiving live speech,
converting the speech to text, and transferring the text to a user” allow
speech or text to be translated into different languages (Abstract; col.
12, ll. 39-47).

IV. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
35 U.S.C. § 112, Second Paragraph
The second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 states, “The specification
shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and
distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his
invention.” If the language of the claim is such that a person of ordinary
skill in the art could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to
understand how to avoid infringement, a rejection of the claim under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See Morton Int’l, Inc. v.
Cardinal Chem. Co., 5 F.3d 1464, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

Claim Interpretation
The PTO gives claims their “broadest reasonable interpretation.”
In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211
F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). This means that the words of the claim
must be given their plain meanings, unless the plain meanings are
Appeal 2008-004127
Application 10/165,454

12
inconsistent with the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir.
1989). However, “limitations are not to be read into the claims from the
specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
(citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d at 321).

35 U.S.C. § 102
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art reference that discloses,
either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a claim invalidates that
claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368,
1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). “Anticipation of a patent claim
requires a finding that the claim at issue ‘reads on’ a prior art reference.”
Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed Cir. 1999)
(citing Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 781 (Fed. Cir.
1985).
Official notice unsupported by documentary evidence should only be
taken by the examiner where the facts asserted to be well-known, or to be
common knowledge in the art, are capable of instant and unquestionable
demonstration as being well-known. See In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091
(CCPA 1970) (stating that notice of facts beyond the record must be
“capable of such instant and unquestionable demonstration as to defy
dispute” (citation omitted)). “To adequately traverse such a finding, an
applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s
action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to
be common knowledge or well-known in the art. See 37 CFR 1.111(b).”
Appeal 2008-004127
Application 10/165,454

13
MPEP § 2144.03(C). An adequate traverse must contain adequate
information or argument to create on its face, a reasonable doubt regarding
the circumstances justifying Examiner’s notice of what is well known to one
of ordinary skill in the art. In re Boon, 439 F.2d 724, 728 (CCPA 1971).

35 U.S.C. § 103
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based on a combination of references. In re Merck &
Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). “Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when
‘the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the
prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious
at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the
art to which said subject matter pertains.’” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). In KSR, the Supreme Court cautioned against
“granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior
art,” id. at 401, and rejected “confining the obviousness analysis by a
formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or
by overemphasizing the importance of published articles and the explicit
content of issued patents.” Id. at 402. Thus, “when a patent ‘simply arranges
old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to
perform’ and yields no more than one would expect from such an
arrangement, the combination is obvious,” id. at 417 (citation omitted).
Appeal 2008-004127
Application 10/165,454

14
A reference teaches away “when a person of ordinary skill, upon
reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out
in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that
was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir.
1994).

V. ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
Appellants traverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph by arguing that “the other habitat” refers to “another habitat” in
claim 27 (App. Br. 16). Because an artisan would not reasonably ascertain
whether “the other habitat” refers to “a habitat” as recited in claim 1, from
which claim 27 depends, or “another habitat” in claim 27, we conclude that
claim 27 does not particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter which the Appellants regard as their invention. Accordingly, we
affirm the rejection of claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.

35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103
Independent Claim 1 and Dependent Claims 2, 5, 26, and 28
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellants argue that Anuff
“fails to even suggest ‘displaying a management interface for allowing a first
end user to select and manage information displayed on an information
screen of a habitat’” (App. Br. 17; Appellants’ emphasis). However, the
Examiner finds that “Appellant’s arguments center around the erroneous
Appeal 2008-004127
Application 10/165,454

15
premise that a portal administrator in the system of Anuff is not an ‘end
user’” (Ex. Ans. 21). In view of the above, we address whether Anuff
discloses “displaying a management interface for allowing a first end user to
select and manage information displayed on an information screen of a
habitat, wherein the management interface includes information of at least
one content source” (claim 1).
We begin our analysis by giving the claims their broadest reasonable
interpretation. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1324. Furthermore, our analysis
will not read limitations into the claims from the Specification. See In re
Van Geuns, 988 F.2d at 1184. Appellants’ claim 1 simply does not place
any limitation on what the terms “management interface” and “end user” are
to be, to represent, or to mean other than that the management interface is
displayed to allow the end user to select and manage information.
Anuff’s portal administrator uses an administrative GUI to add
modules to the portal (FF 2), where each module represents a network
resource that can be accessed by portal users (FF 1). We find the
“management interface” of claim 1 as reading on Anuff’s administrative
GUI and the “first end user” of claim 1 as reading on Anuff’s portal
administrator that is allowed to select and manage information.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Anuff.
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites “the first end user sets
permissions for allowing other users to view at least one of a view and a
window of the information screen.” In reply to a clarification by the
Appeal 2008-004127
Application 10/165,454

16
Examiner (Ex. Ans. 22), Appellants argue that “allowing an administrator to
set permissions, as in Anuff fails to meet appellant’s [sic] claimed ‘first end
user [that] sets permissions’” (Reply Br. 6; Appellants’ emphasis).
As set forth above regarding claim 1, we find the recited “first end
user” as reading on Anuff’s portal administrator. Anuff’s “various types of
permissions” include “end user permissions” for controlling a module’s
availability to a user group (FF 3). Thus, we find that Anuff teaches an end
user that sets permissions, as required by claim 2. Accordingly, we affirm
the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Anuff.
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and recites “sending a notice to the
second end user of the sharing of the window.” Appellants argue it would
not have been obvious to combine Anuff and Quatrano because “the purpose
of Anuff’s portal server is to allow ‘individual businesses and other entities
[to] exercise complete ownership of their portals’. . . [while in] sharp
contrast, . . . the purpose of Quatrano is to ‘allow multiple computer user
participants to access a single shared session to an application in a
collaborative manner’” (App. Br. 27; Appellants’ emphasis). The
Appellants appear to be arguing that Anuff teaches away from Quantrano’s
use of shared sessions. However, Appellants make no such showing that a
person of ordinary skill, upon reading Anuff, would be discouraged from
allowing shared sessions as set out in Quantrano. See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d
at 553.
Furthermore, Quatrano discloses an “event notification” to assist users
in the sharing of a session within a web server (FF 10). Appellants fail to
Appeal 2008-004127
Application 10/165,454

17
show that “modify[ing] the shared portal of Anuff to include the shared
notification of Quatrano, in order to obtain a shared portal” (Ex. Ans. 9),
would yield more than one would expect from such an arrangement. See
KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1740. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 5
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Anuff and Quatrano.
With respect to claim 26 depending from claim 1, Appellants argue
“disclosing that certain types of modules can be defined fails to suggest that
‘at least one content source is not predefined’ [as recited in claim 26]” (App.
Br. 24; Appellants’ emphasis). However, claim 26 simply does not place
any limitation on what the term “predefined” is to be, to represent, or to
mean. Thus, we interpret the “content source [that] is not predefined” of
claim 26 to be a content source that has no preset definition.
Anuff’s “JSP module” is changed by modifying the HTML code in a
JSP file (FF 8). We find the content source that “is not predefined” of claim
26 as reading on Anuff’s modifiable JSP module and file. That is, we find
that the JSP module and file have no preset definition. Accordingly, we
affirm the rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Anuff.
As to claim 28 depending from claim 1, Appellants argue that the
cited “clip module” of Anuff is “capable of capturing the entirety of an
HTML page for inclusion in a module,” but does not “suggest a technique
‘wherein the habitat retrieves the marked information, stores the marked
information, and displays the marked information on the information screen’
[as recited in claim 28]” (App. Br. 25; Appellants’ emphasis). However,
Appeal 2008-004127
Application 10/165,454

18
Anuff discloses “an XML inclusion module, which retrieves an XML style
sheet and generates the HTML for display as the content of a module;” and
discloses “a transaction module which can employ a script to obtain filtered
data from a network location for display in a module” (FF 9). We find
Anuff teaches a technique “wherein the habitat retrieves the marked
information, stores the marked information, and displays the marked
information on the information screen.” Accordingly, we affirm the
rejection of claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Anuff.

Independent Claim 6
With respect to independent claim 6, Appellants argue that Kelts
discloses a navigation interface “using a graphical map generated in a format
suitable for use with the particular presentation device, e.g., a television, a
personal computer, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a wireless telephone,
or the like” (App. Br. 27; Appellants’ emphasis); and argue that “the mere
disclosure that the navigation interface is generated for use with a wireless
telephone, as in Kelts, fails to even suggest ‘allowing the user to interact
with the customization tools via the wireless device for customizing the
management interface’” (id. at 27-28). However, the Examiner finds “it
would have been obvious to . . . modify the portal information interface of
Anuff to include the wireless device compatibility of Kelts in order to obtain
an interface navigation system capable of being displayed on wireless
devices” (Ex. Ans. 10-11). In view of the above, we address whether Anuff
Appeal 2008-004127
Application 10/165,454

19
and Kelts suggest “allowing the user to interact with the customization tools
via the wireless device for customizing the management interface” (claim 6).
Contrary to Appellants’ argument, the Examiner is not citing Kelts as
teaching a client wireless device that interacts with customization tools of a
portal, e.g., Anuff’s portal. Rather, the Examiner substitutes Kelts’ client
wireless device (which operates a customizable interface) for Anuff’s client
device (which also operates a customizable interface). As the rejection is
based on this combination of Anuff and Kelts, Appellants cannot show
nonobviousness by attacking Kelts individually as failing to suggest an
interaction between customization tools, such as Anuff’s, via a wireless
device. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d at 1097.
Further, the “interactive navigation system” of Kelts is “entirely
server based” and (FF 11) and can include a wireless telephone or the like
(FF 11). Appellants fail to show that substituting a wireless device of Kelt’s
client-server model, for the client device of Anuff’s client-server model,
would yield more than one would expect from such an arrangement. See
KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 6 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Anuff and Kelts.

Independent Claims 9, 12, and 13 and Dependent Claims 10 and 11
As to independent claim 9 (and independent claims 12 and 13 falling
therewith), Appellants argue that “Anuff merely discloses that ‘[i]n a tabbed
user interface, the end user mouse-clicks on one of a series of tabs to move
between pages’” (App. Br. 19); and further argue that such action does not
Appeal 2008-004127
Application 10/165,454

20
teach “receiving specification of a transaction pattern, the pattern being for
performing an interaction with a remote data source for retrieving data upon
replay of the pattern” (id.). However, the Examiner finds, “By using a well-
known Internet protocols such as TCP/IP, the system would perform and
replay a ‘transaction pattern’ every time a link to a web page is selected in
the user portal” (Ex. Ans. 5). In view of the above, we address whether
Anuff discloses “receiving specification of a transaction pattern, the pattern
being for performing an interaction with a remote data source for retrieving
data upon replay of the pattern” (claim 9).
Claim 9 simply does not place any limitation on what the terms
“transaction pattern” and “remote data source” are to be, to represent, or to
mean other than that the pattern is for performing an interaction with the
remote data source. An artisan would have understood a hyperlink as a
pattern for performing an interaction with a data source. Furthermore, the
label “remote” in “remote data source” does not change the functionality of
or provide any additional function to the claimed “data source.”
Accordingly, we interpret “remote data source” as reading on any data
source.
As admitted by Appellants, Anuff discloses a tabbed user interface by
which a user mouse-clicks on a series of tabs to change pages of the portal
(App. Br. 19; FF 5). We find “receiving specification of a transaction
pattern, the pattern being for performing an interaction with a remote data
source for retrieving data upon replay of the pattern” of claim 9 as reading
on the use of Anuff’s tabbed interface to link from page to page.
Appeal 2008-004127
Application 10/165,454

21
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claims 9, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Anuff.
As to claim 10 depending from claim 9, Appellants argue that Anuff’s
storing of login information, as a browser cookie, fails to meet the
limitations of claim 10 (App. Br. 20), and that “simply selecting a URL that
links to content, as the Examiner notes, fails to specifically suggest” the
above-quoted limitation of claim 9 (App. Br. 21). However, Appellants do
not specifically point out the Examiner’s error and how the claim
distinguishes over Anuff, and merely reiterate the contentions regarding the
rejection of claim 9.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants add the new argument that “a URL, as
relied on by the Examiner, is simply utilized for locating content, which
does not teach or suggest that such URL is a ‘required [parameter]…stored
in the transaction pattern’” (Reply Br. 10; Appellants’ emphasis). However,
this new argument should have been raised in the Appeal Brief and is not
considered on this Appeal. See Kaufman Co., Inc. v. Lantech, Inc., 807 F.2d
970, 973 n.* (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e) as anticipated by Anuff.
Claim 11 depends from claim 9 and recites “the replaying of the
transaction pattern involves automatic navigation during the transaction
without requiring input from the user specifically requesting the data.”
Appellants argue the Examiner “simply dismissed” this limitation (App. Br.
28) in taking Official Notice that “web browsers are well known in the art to
Appeal 2008-004127
Application 10/165,454

22
include a user-specified homepage that automatically loads each time the
browser application is started” (Ex. Ans. 11). However, Appellants do not
state why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or
well-known in the art, and provides no adequate information or argument to
create on its face, a reasonable doubt regarding the circumstances justifying
Examiner’s notice of what is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
See In re Boon, 439 F.2d at 728. As no such statement is provided,
Appellants’ argument is not persuasive. Furthermore, Appellants do not
show that Anuff’s tabbed user interface (cited against claim 9), whereby the
user mouse-clicks to move between pages of the portal (FF 4), does not
involve “automatic navigation during the transaction” (claim 11) of page
retrieval. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Anuff and Official Notice.

Independent Claim 14 and Dependent Claim 25
With respect to independent claim 14, Appellants argue “Nason
simply teaches that ‘[u]ser items such as applications, documents, files, or
network links may be added to a user button via any conventional method
such as copy and paste or drag and drop functions;” and further argue that
“adding applications, documents, files, or network links to a user button, as
in Nason, fails to teach . . . ‘allowing the user to drag and drop information
from remote sources onto the management interface for display on the
information screen” (App. Br. 29-30; Appellants’ emphasis). However, the
Examiner finds that “Nason teaches a system for displaying selected varied
Appeal 2008-004127
Application 10/165,454

23
content on an interface, similar to the portals of Anuff” and allows “the user
to drag and drop information from remote sources onto the management
interface for display on the information screen” (Ex. Ans. 12-13). In view of
the above, we address whether Anuff and Nason suggest “the selection of
information includes allowing the user to drag and drop information from
remote sources onto the management interface for display on the
information screen” (claim 14).
Contrary to Appellants’ argument, Nason is not cited as using a “drag
and drop” method to add links to a “user button.” Rather, Nason is cited for
the broader teaching of using a “drag and drop” method to add information
to an interface for display (Ex. Ans. 12; see also FF 12). Appellants’
argument fails to address why the use of a conventional “drag and drop”
method, to add elements to the management interface of Anuff, would not be
obvious to a skilled artisan; e.g., would yield more than one would expect
from such an arrangement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Instead, the argument
merely quotes the cited excerpt of Nason and makes a general allegation that
such teaching fails to meet the above-quoted limitation of claim 14. As the
argument fails to specifically point out the Examiner’s error, it is not
persuasive. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 14 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Anuff and Nason.
Claim 25 depends from claim 1 and similarly recites “the allowing the
first end user to select information displayed on an information screen of the
habitat includes allowing the user to drag and drop information from remote
sources onto the management interface for display on the information
Appeal 2008-004127
Application 10/165,454

24
screen.” For the reasons stated above with respect to claim 14, we find that
the combination of Anuff and Nason discloses and strongly suggests this
limitation. Accordingly, we also affirm the rejection of claim 25 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Anuff and Nason.

Independent Claim 15 and Dependent Claims 17 and 19
With respect to independent claim 15, Appellants argue that “Anuff
merely discloses that ‘[r]egistered portal users can be assigned to one or
more user groups’” which “fails to even suggest ‘assigning the users to
groups, wherein the groups are tiered’” (App. Br. 21; Appellants’ emphasis).
However, the Examiner finds that “a site administrator with access to all
groups and portals is capable of viewing data associated with a group of a
lower tier, while a user who has not been delegated any administrative
privileges and granted only access to a single group portal may only ‘access
data associated with their particular access tier’” (Ex. Ans. 23). In view of
the above, we address whether Anuff discloses “assigning the users to
groups, wherein the groups are tiered;” “allowing users in a particular group
to access data associated with their particular access tier;” and “allowing
users in a particular group to access data associated with a group in a lower
tier” (claim 15).
Anuff discloses “a permissions architecture” including “user group
permissions” that “determine whether one group can perform any
administrative tasks over another group (for example, view the group
membership, add members to the group, delete members from it, etc.)” (FF
Appeal 2008-004127
Application 10/165,454

25
5) (Board’s emphasis). We find “assigning the users to groups, wherein the
groups are tiered” (claim 15) as reading on Anuff’s “user group permission”
to add members to a lower group; and find “allowing users in a particular
group to access data associated with a group in a lower tier” (claim 15) as
reading on Anuff’s “user group permission” to view the membership of a
lower group. Anuff also discloses “end-user permissions,” which control
whether a module is available to a user group (FF 3). We find “allowing
users in a particular group to access data associated with their particular
access tier” (claim 15) as reading on Anuff’s “end-user permission” to view
modules available to a group. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim
15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Anuff.
Claim 17 depends from claim 15 and recites “wherein deleted user
accounts are archived.” Appellants argue claim 17 is not met by the prior art
for the reasons argued with respect to claim 15 (App. Br. 31). As discussed
above, we find that claim 15 is anticipated by Anuff. Accordingly, we
affirm the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Anuff and MacIntosh.
Claim 19 depends from claim 15 and recites “a user with
administrative privileges assigns users to groups.” Appellants argue that
Anuff fails to disclose “a user with administrative privileges assign[ing]
users to groups” (App. Br. 23; Appellants’ emphasis). We find Anuff’s
“user group permission” to add members to a lower group (FF 5) to be
assigning users to groups, as required by claim 19. Accordingly, we affirm
the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Anuff.
Appeal 2008-004127
Application 10/165,454

26
Independent Claim 20
With respect to independent claim 20, Appellants argue that “the
disclosure that the HTML code is generated by the portal server to run in a
user’s browser where only the user is able to revise the portal, as in Anuff,
fails to even suggest ‘allowing the external application to add data to the
habitat’” (App. Br. 23; Appellants’ emphasis). However, the Examiner finds
that “the browser application of Anuff is external to the data source, and
capable of extracting, viewing, and modifying portal data, regardless of
whether of [sic] not the HTML code for the client interface is generated by
the portal server” (Ex. Ans. 23). In view of the above, we address whether
Anuff discloses “allowing the external application to add data to the habitat”
(claim 20).
Claim 20 simply does not place any limitation on what the term
“external” in “external application” is to be, to represent, or to mean other
than that application is allowed to add data. Rather, it is merely a label that
does not change the functionality of or provide any additional function to the
claimed “application.” In fact, claim 20 does not recite an entity to which
the “external application” is external. We therefore interpret the recited
“external application” as reading on any application.
Anuff’s end users can access the portal from a client browser
application (FF 6) and add modules to the portal (FF 7). We find Anuff’s
addition of modules via a client browser application to be “allowing the
external application to add data to the habitat” as required by claim 20.
Appeal 2008-004127
Application 10/165,454

27
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Anuff.

Independent Claim 22 and Dependent Claim 23
With respect to independent claim 22, Appellants argue, “Saindon
merely discloses that ‘text is encoded in an information stream and streamed
to a viewer along with the audio or video event’” and further argue that
“streaming text to a viewer fails to even suggest ‘translating the retrieved
information to a different language’” (App. Br. 31; Appellants’ emphasis).
However, the Examiner finds that “Saindon teaches translating retrieved
information into a different language, displaying the translated information,
and translating audio data into a different language for output” (Ex. Ans.
15). In view of the above, we address whether Anuff and Saindon suggest
“translating the retrieved information to a different language; and displaying
the translated information on the information screen” (claim 22).
Contrary to Appellants’ argument, Saindon does not merely disclose
that text is encoded in an information stream and streamed to a viewer along
with the audio or video event. Rather, Saindon discloses the translation and
display of speech or text into different languages (FF 13). Accordingly, we
affirm the rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Anuff and Saindon.
Claim 23 depends from claim 22 and recites “the marked information
includes audio data, wherein the audio data is translated to a different
language and output.” Appellants argue that “Saindon merely discloses that
Appeal 2008-004127
Application 10/165,454

28
‘text is encoded in an information stream and streamed to a viewer along
with the audio or video event’” (App. Br. 32; Appellants’ emphasis); and
argue this disclosure “fails to even suggest a technique ‘wherein the marked
information includes audio data, wherein the audio data is translated to a
different language and output’” (id.). As stated, Saindon discloses the
translation of speech or text into different languages (FF 13). Accordingly,
we affirm the rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Anuff and Saindon.

Independent Claim 24
With respect to independent claim 24, Appellants assert limitations
and arguments already discussed with respect to claims 1, 5, 9, 14, 15, and
22.
In particular, Appellants assert that it would not have been obvious to
combine Anuff and Quatrano. As Appellants provide the same comments
made with respect to claim 5, we find this argument unpersuasive.
Appellants assert that Anuff does not teach “displaying a management
interface for allowing a user to select and manage information displayed on
an information screen of a habitat, wherein the management interface
includes information of at least one content source and customization tools”
(App. Br. 35; Appellants’ emphasis). For the reasons provided with respect
to claim 1, we find this limitation is disclosed by Anuff.
Appellants assert that Anuff does not teach “receiving specification of
a transaction pattern, the pattern being for performing an interaction with a
Appeal 2008-004127
Application 10/165,454

29
remote data source for retrieving data upon replay of the pattern” (App. Br.
35; Appellants’ emphasis). For the reasons provided with respect to claim 9,
we find this limitation is disclosed by Anuff.
Appellants assert that Anuff does not teach “assigning the users to
groups, wherein the groups are tiered; . . . allowing users in a particular
group to access data associated with their particular access tier; [and]
allowing users in a particular group to access data associated with a group in
a lower tier” (App. Br. 36; Appellants’ emphasis). For the reasons provided
with respect to claim 15, we find this limitation is disclosed by Anuff.
Appellants assert that Anuff does not teach “allowing the external
application to add data to the habitat” (App. Br. 37; Appellants’ emphasis).
For the reasons provided with respect to claim 20, we find this limitation is
disclosed by Anuff.
Appellants assert that Anuff and Saindon do not suggest “translating
the retrieved information to a different language” and “displaying the
translated information on the information screen” (App. Br. 37; Appellants’
emphasis). For the reasons provided with respect to claim 22, we find this
limitation is disclosed or suggested by Anuff and Saindon.
Accordingly, for the above reasons, we affirm the rejection of claim
24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Anuff in view of
Quatrano, Kelts, MacIntosh, and Saindon.

Appeal 2008-004127
Application 10/165,454

30
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
(1) Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding
claim 27 has insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation of “the other
habit.”
(2) Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding
claims 1-4, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18-21, and 26-28 are anticipated by Anuff.
(3) Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding
claim 5 is unpatentable over Anuff and Quatrano.
(4) Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding
claims 6-8 are unpatentable over Anuff and Kelts.
(5) Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding
claim 11 is unpatentable over Anuff and Official Notice.
(6) Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding
claims 14 and 25 are unpatentable over Anuff and Nason.
(7) Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding
claim 17 is unpatentable over Anuff and MacIntosh.
(8) Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding
claims 22 and 23 are unpatentable over Anuff and Saindon.
(9) Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding
claim 24 is unpatentable over Anuff, Quatrano, Kelts, MacIntosh, and
Saindon.

Appeal 2008-004127
Application 10/165,454

31
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-4, 9, 10, 12, 13,
15, 16, 18-21, and 26-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and claims 5-8, 11, 14,
17, and 22-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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.

nhl

Zilka-Kotab, PC
P.O. BOX 721120
SAN JOSE, CA 95172-1120