Ex Parte Cantwell et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 23, 2012

10403666 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 23, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte BRAD A. CANTWELL, CLIFTON E. GRIM III,
REX E. MARZKE, and ANDREW P. MCDOWELL

Appeal 2011-0093181
Application 10/403,666
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and
ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is International Business Machines, Corp. (App.
Br. 1.) In an Opinion (2008-05534) dated August 11, 2009, another panel of
this Board reversed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20 as being
anticipated by Block.
Appeal 2011-009318
Application 10/403,666

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11-16, and 18-20. Claims 3, 6, 10, and 17
have been canceled. (App. Br. 2.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants invented a content administration system for managing the
contents of a webpage. In particular, upon a user clicking on an edit link
displayed in a live web page environment, a source content management tool
generates an interface that simultaneously displays a live content area
associated with the link, a summary of the live content area, and a plurality
of source content management tool functions wherein the tool includes an
HTML editor for editing HTML data. (Figs. 1-3, Spec. ¶ [021].)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention. It reads as
follows:
1. A content administration system for managing content
areas within a set of web pages, comprising:

a computer hardware device including:

an administrative interface for viewing and navigating
the set of web pages in a live web page environment being
served from a web server, wherein the administrative interface
causes an edit link to be displayed in the live web page
environment for each live content area within the set of web
Appeal 2011-009318
Application 10/403,666

3
pages, wherein the administrative interface further comprises a
browser having a cookie that allows access to the edit link; and

a source content management tool for managing source
content for the set of web pages, wherein the source content
resides on a content server that is separate from the web server,
wherein in response to a user clicking on the edit link for a
selected live content area, the source content management tool
generates a source content management tool interface (SMTI),
wherein the SMTI simultaneously displays at least three
sections including the live content area associated with the
selected edit link, a summary of the live content area, and a
plurality of source content management tool functions, wherein
the source content management tool includes an HTML editor
for editing hypertext mark-up language (HTML) data, and
wherein the source content comprises HTML data.

Prior Art Relied Upon
Block US Patent Pub. No.: 2003/0050976 A1 Mar. 13, 2003
Weight US Patent Pub. No. 2005/0034065 A1 Feb. 10, 2005
(Effectively filed May 2, 2001)
Szabo US 7,062,475 B1 Jun. 13, 2006
(Effectively filed May 30, 2000)
Ries US 7,287,227 B2 Oct. 23, 2007
(Filed Jul. 1, 2002)
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11-16, and 18-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Block,
Ries, Szabo, and Weight.

Appeal 2011-009318
Application 10/403,666

4
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the principal Brief, pages 5-10.
Representative Claim 1
Dispositive Issue: Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination of Block, Ries, Szabo, and Weight teaches or
suggests upon a user clicking on an edit link displayed in a live web page
environment, a source content management tool generates an interface that
simultaneously displays a live content area associated with the link, a
summary of the live content area, and a plurality of source content
management tool functions wherein the tool includes an HTML editor for
editing HTML data,2 as recited in independent claim 1?
Appellants argue that the proposed combination of the cited
references does not teach or suggest the disputed limitations. (App. Br. 10.)
In particular, Appellants argue that Ries’ graphic toolbar does not teach the
source management tool. (Id at 6.) Similarly, Appellants ague that Szabo’s
Mini-Agent does not teach a summary of live content. (Id at 7.)
Additionally, Appellants argue that beside the “quasi-Official Notice” taken
by the Examiner, the record is devoid of any evidence that the cited
combination of references teaches or even suggests simultaneously

2 We have not been able to locate sufficient support in Appellants’
originally-filed Specification for these disputed claim limitations, which
were added by amendment. We leave it to the Examiner to consider entering
a rejection against this claim in any further prosecution thereof for failing to
comply with the written description requirement under 112, first paragraph.
Appeal 2011-009318
Application 10/403,666

5
displaying the live content area, the summary thereof and the management
tool including an HTML editor in a live webpage environment. (Id. at 7-8.)
Consequently, Appellants submit that the rejection is improper. (Id. at 8-9,
Reply Br. 2-3.)
In response, the Examiner finds that Block’s disclosure of using an
edit link to generate an editable version of a web document teaches an
HTML editor. (Ans. 22) Further, the Examiner finds that Ries’ disclosure of
an edit checkbox that allows the user to change the text of a webpage
teaches a source management tool that would complement Block’s HTML
editor to yield the claimed content management tool including the HTML
editor. (Id.) Additionally, the Examiner finds that Szabo’s disclosure of
simultaneously displaying live content and the summary thereof, taken in
combination with Ries’ disclosure of simultaneously displaying live content
with a source management tool, taken in further combination with Block’s
HTML tool and Weight’s disclosure of simultaneously displaying different
kinds of contents on a webpage would have provided the ordinarily skilled
artisan with sufficient options from which to pick desired ones for
simultaneously display on the webpage. ((Id at 23-26.)
Based upon our review of the record, we agree with and adopt the
Examiner’s underlying factual findings and ultimate legal conclusion of
obviousness regarding claim 1. First, we agree with the Examiner that the
Block-Szabo combination teaches or at least suggests the source
management tool including the HTML editor. In particular, we find that
Block’s disclosure of displaying a summary of the most relevant content that
Appeal 2011-009318
Application 10/403,666

6
is displayed on a page along with an edit link that goes to an editable version
of the detail for a particular item displayed on the page (¶ [0095]) teaches or
suggests simultaneously displaying a live content area along with the
summary thereof and an HTML tool for editing the summary. Further, we
find and agree with the Examiner that Ries’ disclosure of displaying live
content along with an editing box that can be checked to create editable
portions of the webpage (Fig. 10, col. 19, ll. 3-10, ll. 48-55) teaches
simultaneously displaying live content along with a tool for editing it.
Additionally, we find and agree with the Examiner that Szabo’s disclosure
of displaying live content and a Mini Agent for generating a summary
thereof (Col. 13, ll. 50-64) teaches or suggests simultaneously displaying the
live content with a summary thereof on the webpage.
In considering the general form of Appellants’ arguments in the
principal Brief, Appellants’ arguments appear to have attacked the
individual teachings of Block, Ries, Szabo, and Weight separately, as
opposed to the combined disclosures proffered by the Examiner. We note
that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking the references
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, the
respective references relied on by the Examiner must be read, not in
isolation, but for what the combination teaches or suggests when considered
as a whole. We find nonetheless that the cumulative weight and the totality
of the evidence on this record favor the Examiner’s position that the
Appeal 2011-009318
Application 10/403,666

7
combined disclosures of Block, Ries, Szabo, and Weight would have taught
or suggested the disputed limitations.
Rationale to Combine
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that there is
insufficient rationale for the proffered combination. (App. Br. 7-9, Reply
Br. 2-3.) The U.S. Supreme Court has held that “[t]he combination of
familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when
it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex,
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). The Court further instructs that:
[o]ften it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated teachings
of multiple patents; . . . and the background knowledge possessed by a
person having ordinary skill in the art, all in order to determine
whether there was an apparent reason for combining the known
elements in a the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.

Id. at 418. Additionally, the Court instructs that:
‘rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements. Instead, there must be some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness’… however, the analysis need not seek out
precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the
challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and
creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.

Id. (citation omitted).
Upon reviewing the record before us, we find that the Examiner’s
suggestion for the proposed modification in the prior art suffices as an
articulated reason to establish the prima facie case of obviousness. In
summary, we agree with the Examiner that the ordinarily skilled artisan,
Appeal 2011-009318
Application 10/403,666

8
being a creative individual would have would have been able to fit the
teachings of the cited patents together like pieces of a puzzle to predictably
result in simultaneously displaying live content, a summary thereof, and an
HTML editing tool on a webpage upon a user selecting an edit link.
Further, as prescribed by the controlling case law, while it is often
necessary for an Examiner to identify a reason for combining the familiar
elements obtained from the prior art in establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness, the identification of such a reason is not a sine qua non
requirement. So long as the Examiner provides articulated reasoning with
some rational underpinning to substantiate the obviousness rejection, such a
conclusion is proper. In this case, the Examiner provides more than just a
mere conclusory statement. The Examiner notes that at the time of the
claimed invention, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated
to combine the cited disclosures of Block, Ries, Szabo, and Weight by
selectively choosing desired options from those individually disclosed by the
references to simultaneously display them in the webpage. (Ans. 24-26.) In
our view, such a statement suffices as an articulated reason with a rational
underpinning to support the cited combination. As noted above, the case
law allows the Examiner to look to the state of the prior art, including the
knowledge of the ordinarily skilled artisan to arrive at such a reason for
combining the known elements of the prior art. Consequently, the
Examiner’s reliance upon the cited references in order to arrive at an
articulated reason with a rational underpinning to support the proffered
combination is proper.
Appeal 2011-009318
Application 10/403,666

9
Therefore, we find unpersuasive Appellants’ argument that Block,
Ries, Szabo, and Weight are not properly combined to teach or suggest the
disputed limitations. It follows that Appellants have not shown error in the
Examiner’s conclusion that the proffered combination renders claim 1
unpatentable.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11-16, and 18-20 (not argued separately) fall
therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11-16,
and 18-20.
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).

AFFIRMED

Vsh