Ex Parte Antipa

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2017

13929660 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2017)

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.
13/929,660 06/27/2013 Damien M. Antipa 3063US01 1692
108982 7590
Wolfe-SBMC
116 W. Pacific Avenue
Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201
09/01/2017 EXAMINER
TRUONG, CAMQUY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2193
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2017 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):
docket@sbmc-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAMIEN M. ANTIPA1
Appeal 2017-005304
Application 13/929,660
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ERIC B. CHEN, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1—12 and 17—24. Claims 13—16 have been cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to content package generation, in
particular, processing a web content project into a content package
1 Appellant identifies Adobe Systems, Incorporated as the real party in
interest. (App. Br. 3.)
Appeal 2017-005304
Application 13/929,660
automatically and without user intervention by the computing device.
(Abstract.)
Claims 1 and 17 are exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics
1. A method comprising:
receiving one or more inputs via an authoring tool of a
computing device to compose a web content project in
accordance with a dynamic stylesheet language; and
processing the web content project into a content package
automatically and without user intervention by the computing
device, the processing including:
verifying syntax of the web content project;
performing one or more unit tests on the web
content project; and
taking portions of the web content project into
corresponding locations in a hierarchical structure of
nodes of the content package.
17. One or more computer-readable storage media
comprising instructions that are stored thereon that, responsive
to execution by a computing device, causes the computing device
to perform operations comprising processing a web content
project configured in according with a dynamic style sheet
language into a content package automatically and without user
intervention, the processing including:
performing one or more unit tests on the web content
project;
extracting documentation from the web content project to
create one or more pages having the documentation, the
documentation including inline documentation; and
taking the web content project into a hierarchical structure
of nodes of the content package.
2
Appeal 2017-005304
Application 13/929,660
Claims 1, 2, 5—9, and 17—24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Pearson (US 2007/0240041 Al; Oct. 11, 2007) and
Birmiwal (US 2015/0195181 Al; July 9, 2015).
Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Pearson, Birmiwal, and Gerchev (Ivaylo Gerchev, A
Comprehensive Introduction to LESS: Mixins (March 27, 2012),
http://www.sitepoint.com/html-css/).
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Pearson, Birmiwal, and Takakura (US 5,574,842; Nov. 12, 1996).
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Pearson, Birmiwal, and Smaltz (US 2013/0019162 Al; Jan. 17, 2013).
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Pearson, Birmiwal, and Krysiuk (US 2011/0099525 Al; Apr. 28,
2011).
§103 Rejection—Pearson and Birmiwal
Claims 1,2, and 5—9
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 17—24) that
the combination of Pearson and Birmiwal would not have rendered obvious
independent claim 1, which includes the limitation “performing one or more
unit tests on the web content project.”
The Examiner found that the availability checking component, the
content checking component, and the execution checking component of
Birmiwal collectively correspond to the limitation “unit tests.” (Ans. 3.)
The Examiner further found that the test applications of Birmiwal, which
requests dynamic web content, corresponds to the limitation “performing
3
Appeal 2017-005304
Application 13/929,660
one or more unit tests on the web content project.” (Final Act. 4—5; see also
Ans. 4.) The Examiner concluded that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art
could be motivated to provide technologies related to repeated testing of
applications that request dynamic web content to ensure quality and security
of such applications.” (Final Act. 5.) We agree with the Examiner’s
findings and conclusion.
Pearson relates to portal web pages, in particular, “generating an
aggregated cascading style sheet (CSS) for display of a web page.” (11.)
Figure 3 of Pearson illustrates system 300 that provides dynamic creation of
Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) for a web page generated by portal
provider 10. (132.) Pearson explains that portal provider 10, includes
portlets offered by content providers 22—26, each having portlet 302, 304
and 306, respectively. (Id.) Pearson further explains that portal provider 10
includes content aggregator 330 (135), such that content aggregator 330 is
linked to “CSS aggregator 336 [which] assembles the CSS file fragments
322, 324 and 326 received from the portlet providers 22, 24 and 26” (136).
Birmiwal relates to “testing of applications that request dynamic web
content” (| 1), in particular, “repeated testing of applications that request
dynamic web content, e.g., to ensure the quality and security of such
applications” (1 6). Figure 1 of Birmiwal illustrates system 100 for
“repeated testing of applications that request dynamic web content,”
including server system 105, collection of application testing clients 110,
115, 120, 125, and roll 130 of applications. (125.) Birmiwal explains that
“clients 110, 115, 120, 125 repeatedly test applications that request dynamic
web content to ensure the quality and security of the data processing
activities performed by those applications under the direction of server
4
Appeal 2017-005304
Application 13/929,660
system 105.” (Id.) Figure 2 of Birmiwal illustrates application testing
client 200, which serves application testing clients 110, 115, 120, 125 in
system 100, and includes availability checking component 205, content
checking component 210, and execution checking component 210. (| 44.)
Because Birmiwal explains that application testing clients 110, 115, 120,
125 (i.e., the claimed “web content project”) are tested by applications
testing client 200, which includes individual availability checking
component 205, content checking component 210, and execution checking
component 210 (i.e., the claimed “unit tests”), Birmiwal teaches the
limitation “performing one or more unit tests on the web content project.”
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that
incorporating the test applications of Birmiwal, with the system of Pearson
for generating an aggregated cascading style sheet (CSS) would improve
Pearson by providing the advantage of additional security. See KSR Int 7
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“[I]f a technique has been
used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the
technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her
skill.”). Thus, we agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 5) that modifying
Pearson to incorporate the test applications of Birmiwal would have been
obvious.
First, Appellant argues that “[t]he Office argues that the ‘identifiers of
applications’ described in Birmiwal ‘are equivalent as one or more unit tests
as claimed’” however, “[tjhis argument is not supported by Birmiwal
because the ‘identifiers of applications’ described in Birmiwal are simply a
way to identify applications to be tested and in no manner are comparable or
5
Appeal 2017-005304
Application 13/929,660
equivalent to a test or a ‘unit test’.” (App. Br. 18.) However, the Examiner
also cited application testing client 200 of Birmiwal, which includes
availability checking component 205, content checking component 210, and
execution checking component 210, for teaching the limitation “unit test.”
(Ans. 3.)
Second, Appellant argues that “Birmiwal describes application testing
the complete application and not testing portions of the complete
application,” however, “unit testing is known in the art as taking the smallest
testable pieces of an application, isolating these pieces, and testing them
individually to ensure the pieces behave as expected.” (App. Br. 20.)
However, the claim limitation “unit testing” is broad enough to encompass
application testing client 200 of Birmiwal, which includes availability
checking component 205, a content checking component 210, and execution
checking component 210. Appellant does not point to any special definition
of “unit testing” from the Specification that would require a different
interpretation. Moreover, Appellant has not provided any evidence as to
how one skilled in the art would understand “unit testing.” Arguments of
counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See,
e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-40 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Fast, Appellant argues that “[t]he Office’s proposed combination also
results in no improvement to Pearson, making the proposed combination
unreasonable and lacking a rational underpinning.” (App. Br. 22.) Contrary
to Appellant’s arguments, the combination of Pearson and Birmiwal is based
on the improvement of a similar device in the same way as in the prior art.
(See Final Act. 5.) In particular, Birmiwal explains that repeated testing of
6
Appeal 2017-005304
Application 13/929,660
applications offers the advantage of “ensuring] the quality and security of
such applications.” (1 6.)
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Pearson
and Birmiwal would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which
includes the limitation “performing one or more unit tests on the web
content project.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 2 and 5—9 depend from claim 1, and Appellant has
not presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these
claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 5—9 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a), for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent
claim 1.
Claims 17—20
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 26—29; see
also Reply Br. 11—12) that the combination of Pearson and Birmiwal would
not have rendered obvious independent claim 17, which includes the
limitation “extracting documentation from the web content project to create
one or more pages having the documentation, the documentation including
inline documentation.”
The Examiner found that the statement of Pearson, contained in a CSS
fragment corresponds to the limitation “extracting documentation from the
web content project to create one or more pages having the documentation,
the documentation including inline documentation.” (Final Act. 12—13; see
also Ans. 7—8.) We agree with the Examiner’s findings.
7
Appeal 2017-005304
Application 13/929,660
Pearson explains that a cascading style sheet (CSS) fragment includes
instructions or statements, such that “[a]statement identifies the element in
content data such as the html file fragments 312, 314 and 316 or complete
html files that it affects and contains instructions how to present these
elements” and “includes a selector which identifies page elements and a
declaration which is an instruction on how the selected element(s) identified
by the computer selector should be drawn.” (| 34.) Because Pearson
explains that the CSS fragment incudes statements identifying the element in
content data, such as the html file fragments 312, 314 and 316, Pearson
teaches the limitation “extracting documentation from the web content
project.” Furthermore, because Pearson explains that the declaration
provides instructions on how selected elements identified by the computer
selector should be drawn, Pearson teaches the limitation “documentation
including inline documentation.”
Appellant argues that “at no point does Pearson describe checking or
comparing the inline documentation (e.g., program comments) in the CSS
files/fragments, nor does Pearson describe bringing inline documentation
into the aggregate CSS file.” (App. Br. 28—29.) However, Appellant’s
arguments are not commensurate in scope with claim 17, because the claim
neither requires “checking and comparing inline documentation” nor does
the claim require “bringing inline documentation into the aggregate CSS
file.”
Appellant further argues “as described in | [0036] of Applicant’s
specification, ‘inline documentation’ is equivalent to program comments that
serve as a resource describing functions or features of the web content
project” and thus, “at no point does Pearson describe extracting code from
8
Appeal 2017-005304
Application 13/929,660
the CSS files/fragments that are not actually used for content presentation
(e.g., functional code).” (App. Br. 29; see also Reply Br. 11—12.) However,
paragraph 36 of Appellant’s Specification discloses that “inline
documentation may be parsed and applied by a documentation module 324
to a template to form one or more documentation pages 326 that include this
inline documentation” and “the documentation page 326 may serve as a
resource to locate documentation that describes functions included in the
source code in a markup language page that may be included as part of the
content package 124” (emphases added). Because of Appellant’s use of the
term “may,” such disclosures of “inline documentation” represent a
preferred embodiment, rather than a definition. Accordingly, the
importation of a narrow embodiment into the broader independent claim 17
is improper. See SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870,
875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“For example, a particular embodiment appearing in
the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language
is broader than the embodiment.”)
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Pearson
and Birmiwal would have rendered obvious independent claim 17, which
includes the limitation “extracting documentation from the web content
project to create one or more pages having the documentation, the
documentation including inline documentation.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 18—20 depend from claim 17, and Appellant has
not presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these
claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 18—20 under 35 U.S.C.
9
Appeal 2017-005304
Application 13/929,660
§ 103(a), for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent
claim 17.
Claims 21-24
Independent claim 21 recites limitations similar to those discussed
with respect to independent claims 1 and 17, and Appellant has not
presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims.
We sustain the rejection of claim 21, as well as dependent claims 22—24 for
the same reasons discussed with respect to claims 1 and 17.
§103 Rejection—Pearson, Birmiwal, and Gerchev
Although Appellant nominally argues the rejection of dependent
claims 3 and 4 separately (App. Br. 35), the arguments presented do not
explain why the limitations of these dependent claims are separately
patentable. Instead, Appellant argues that “dependent claims 3^4 depend
from independent claim 1 and thus are allowable because they depend from
an allowable base claim” and “Gerchev as cited does not cure the
deficiencies of Pearson and Birmiwal as discussed above regarding claim 1.”
(Id.) We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed
with respect to claim 1, from which claims 3 and 4 depend. Accordingly, we
sustain this rejection.
§103 Rejection—Pearson, Birmiwal, and Takakura
Although Appellant nominally argues the rejection of dependent
claim 10 separately (App. Br. 36), the arguments presented do not explain
why the limitations of this dependent claim are separately patentable.
10
Appeal 2017-005304
Application 13/929,660
Instead, Appellant argues that “dependent claim 10 depends from
independent claim 1 and thus is allowable because claim 10 depends from an
allowable base claim” and “Takakura as cited does not cure the deficiencies
of Pearson and Birmiwal as discussed above regarding claim 1.” (Id.) We
are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed with respect
to claim 1, from which claim 10 depends. Accordingly, we sustain this
rejection.
§103 Rejection—Pearson, Birmiwal, and Smaltz
Although Appellant nominally argues the rejection of dependent
claim 11 separately (App. Br. 37), the arguments presented do not explain
why the limitations of this dependent claim are separately patentable.
Instead, Appellant argues that “dependent claim 11 depends from
independent claim 1 and thus is allowable because claim 11 depends from an
allowable base claim” and “Smaltz as cited does not cure the deficiencies of
Pearson” (Id.) We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons
discussed with respect to claim 1, from which claim 11 depends.
Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.
§103 Rejection—Pearson, Birmiwal, and Krysiuk
Although Appellant nominally argues the rejection of dependent
claim 12 separately (App. Br. 38), the arguments presented do not explain
why the limitations of this dependent claim are separately patentable.
Instead, Appellant argues that “dependent claim 12 depends from
independent claim 1 and thus is allowable because claim 12 depends from an
allowable base claim” and “Krysiuk as cited does not cure the deficiencies
of Pearson and Birmiwal as discussed above regarding claim 1.” (Id.) We
11
Appeal 2017-005304
Application 13/929,660
are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed with respect
to claim 1, from which claim 12 depends. Accordingly, we sustain this
rejection.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—12 and 17—24 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
12