Ex Parte Chiang

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 29, 2010

09810716 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 29, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte HIANG-SWEE CHIANG
____________

Appeal 2009-001205
Application 09/810,716
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: April 30, 2010
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
DEBRA K. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final
rejection of claims 2, 4-29, 31-50, 52-64, 66-78, and 162-169. Claims 1, 3,
30, 51, 65, 79-161, and 170-174 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We Affirm.

Appeal 2009-001205
Application 09/810,716

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
The invention at issue on appeal relates to a method, system and
apparatus for generating a complete web application source code by reading
a set of graphical web application screens (Spec. 1).

The Illustrative Claim
Claim 2, an illustrative claim, reads as follows:
2. A method of generating computer code for a web
application, comprising:
receiving input files, wherein the input files are at least one web
application graphical user interface;
generating an application framework code and an event handler
skeleton, wherein generating an event handler skeleton
comprises:
parsing at least one input file;
reviewing the parsed input file for one or more of a tag type, an
attribute name and an attribute value; and
determining an event handler method based on one or more of
the tag type, the attribute name and the attribute value;
receiving web application business logic objects;
receiving event handler methods;
Appeal 2009-001205
Application 09/810,716

3
organizing the application framework code, the web application
business logic objects and the event handler methods into
application source code; and
binding the web application source code with the input files at
runtime.
The References
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence:
Lau US 5,987,247 Nov. 16, 1999
Quaeler-Bock US 6,023,271 Feb. 8, 2000
Lindhorst US 6,337,696 B1 Jan. 8, 2002
(filed May 10, 1999)

The Rejection
The following rejections are before us for review:
Claims 2, 4-29, 31-50, 52-64, 66-78, and 162-169 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of
Lau, Lindhorst, and Quaeler-Bock.
Only those arguments actually made by the Appellant have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which the Appellant could have
made but chose not to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are
deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(vii) (2008).

II. ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Lau,
Lindhorst, and Quaeler-Bock teaches or fairly suggests “generating an event
Appeal 2009-001205
Application 09/810,716

4
handler skeleton comprises . . . determining an event handler method based
on one or more of the tag type, the attribute name and the attribute value,” as
recited in claim 1?

III. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Scope of Claim
During prosecution before the USPTO, claims are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation, and the scope of a claim cannot be
narrowed by reading disclosed limitations into the claim. See In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The Office must apply the broadest
reasonable meaning to the claim language, taking into account any
definitions presented in the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr.,
367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re Bass, 314 F.3d 575, 577
(Fed. Cir. 2002)).
“Giving claims their broadest reasonable construction ‘serves the
public interest by reducing the possibility that claims, finally allowed, will
be given broader scope than is justified.’” Id. (quoting In re Yamamoto, 740
F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). “Construing claims broadly during
prosecution is not unfair to the applicant . . . because the applicant has the
opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage.” Id.

Appeal 2009-001205
Application 09/810,716

5
Obviousness
“Obviousness is a question of law based on underlying findings of
fact.” In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The underlying
factual inquiries are: (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the
differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, (3) the level of
ordinary skill in the pertinent art, and (4) secondary considerations of
nonobviousness. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007)
(citation omitted).

IV. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following findings of fact (FFs) are supported by a preponderance
of the evidence.
Specification
1. Appellant’s Specification describes an event handler as follows:
Event handler code 620 comprises a skeleton or framework
made up of an event handler (click method) object that accepts
requests from HTML tags with JLMClick name and
submit type attributes in the HTML files . . . web developers
215 simply need to write appropriate source code into the event
handler code skeleton to drive the application business logic in
response to user interactions.
(Spec. 18, ll. 3-11, emphasis added).

Appeal 2009-001205
Application 09/810,716

6
Lindhorst
2. Lindhorst discloses that an event handler script is recognized
(generated) by scanning or parsing an indexed HTML text such as:
1.
(col. 15, ll. 60-64).
3. Lindhorst further discloses the process of generating a script for an
event handler:
If a script start tag was not found at the decision state 334
then the process 110 moves to a decision state 340 wherein a
determination is made whether the tag discovered at the
decision state 314 is an HTML start tag. If an HTML start tag is
found at the decision state 340, the process 110 moves to a
decision state 344 wherein a determination is made whether the
HTML start tag is a scriptable tag. As discussed above, a
scriptable HTML tag is the type of tag that provides events and
actions that can be associated with VBScript JavaScript
programs. See Table 1 above for a list of scriptable HTML tags.
If a scriptable HTML tag is found at the decision state
344, then the process 110 moves to a state 348 wherein the
location of the scriptable HTML tag within the document is
saved. The process 110 then advances to a state 350 and moves
to the HTML end tag and captures the text between the HTML
start and end tags.
Appeal 2009-001205
Application 09/810,716

7
It should be noted that advances in HTML programming
may yield additional types of scriptable tags which may be used
within the present invention. Thus, this invention is not limited
to providing event handlers for object, script and HTML tags,
but can be more generally used to provide scripts between
events and actions of many types of objects.
(col. 16, ll. 34-56, Fig. 5, emphasis added).
4. More specifically, Lindhorst further describes an example of
generating an event handler method of invocation:
As an example of a method invocation, consider the invocation
of the `Show` method of the `Button` object. The invocation is
again a merging of the names taken from the meta information
describing the ‘Show’ method and the syntactic requirements
dictated by the language support code. The resulting invocation
string for VBScript is
call Button.Show()
while the JavaScript support code would generate
Button.Show();
The introduction of "call", the period and the parentheses are
the implemented by the language support code.
If there had been parameters on the method, then the names of
the parameter would have been taken from the description of
the ‘Show’ method, and the syntax needed to incorporate those
names into the method invocation would have been supplied by
the language support code. As a brief example, if the `Show`
method included two parameters ‘x’ and ‘y’, the resulting
invocation strings would have been:
Appeal 2009-001205
Application 09/810,716

8
call Button.Show(x, y) VBScript or
Button.Show(x, y); JavaScript
(col. 20, ll. 9-28, Fig. 6, emphasis added).
5. Lindhorst also discloses that a user can select an object in the event
pane, and select an event linked to the object, and then select an action
associated to the object in the action pane. After the selections, a script to
link an event to an action is generated by the Script Wizard (col. 11, l. 66-col.
12, l. 17).
V. ANALYSIS
The Appellant has the opportunity on appeal to the Board of Patent
Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) to demonstrate error in the Examiner’s
position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing In re
Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
The Examiner sets forth a detailed explanation of a reasoned
conclusion of unpatentability in the Examiner’s Answer. Thus, we look to
the Appellant’s Brief to show error in the proffered reasoned conclusion. Id.
Grouping of Claims
The Appellant has elected to argue claims 2, 4-29, 31-50, 52-64, 66-
78, and 162-169 together as a group (App. Br. 10). Therefore, we select
independent claim 2 as the representative claim for this group, and we will
address the Appellant’s arguments with respect thereto. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37
(c)(1)(vii). See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Appeal 2009-001205
Application 09/810,716

9
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections
We begin our analysis with claim construction. Since the claims do
not expressly define the term “event handler skeleton,” we thus consult the
Summary of Claimed Subject Matter (App. Br. 3) and the corresponding
portions of the Specification for context to determine the meaning and the
scope of the disputed claim term. We find that the Specification describes
the event handler skeleton as a framework code made up of an event handler
object. (FF 1). Therefore, we broadly, yet reasonably construe the claim
limitation “event handler skeleton” as a framework or a supporting
infrastructure for an event handler script or code. We also broadly, yet
reasonably construe the claim limitation “determining . . . based on one or
more of the tag type, the attribute name and the attribute value” as any one
of tag type, the attribute name and the attribute value which has any nexus or
association with the action of recognition, formation, or generation.
With respect to claim 1, the Appellant contends that “Lindhorst does
not even mention the concept of an event handler skeleton, and certainly
does not teach ‘generating an event handler skeleton.’” (App. Br. 11).
We disagree with the Appellant’s contention. We find Lindhorst
discloses that at least one framework of the event handler scripts is
generated (FF 2) under our claim construction, i.e., the script has supporting
infrastructure or frame work that has the name of the function, function code
(sub routine), and other codes.
Appeal 2009-001205
Application 09/810,716

10
The Appellant further contends that Lindhorst only teaches a user
selects an event icon, but there is no teaching or suggestion that the user
makes the determination based on one or more of the tag type, the attribute
name and attribute value (App. Br. 11, Reply Br. 7), and neither cited
references teaches the claimed limitation “determining an event handler
method based on one or more of the tag type, the attribute name and the
attribute value,” as recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 14, Reply Br. 4).
We disagree with the Appellant’s contentions. We find Lindhorst
teaches that in the process of generating an event handling method, the type
of the tag is first determined (i.e., a scriptable HTML tag is the type of tag
that provides events and actions that can be associated with VBScript or
JavaScript programs), and then the process captures the text between the
starting tag and ending tag to generate the script of the event handling
method (FF 3). Furthermore, we find Lindhorst teaches that a two-
parameter event handler method, call Button.Show(x, y) or Button.Show(x, y),
is determined by finding the method has two parameters in the description of
the method (FF 4). Finally, we are unpersuased by Appellant’s argument
that a user determines the event handler method. We find that the user only
selects high level icon to determine whether the next process is to generate a
method, etc. (FF 5). The process of generating a method/script such as how
many parameters in the method are determined based on the parameters
found in the description of the method (FF 4), is read on the claimed
language.
Appeal 2009-001205
Application 09/810,716

11
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claim 1. Independent claims 27, 48, 64, 162, and 163-165 contain similar
limitations, and the Appellant presents similar arguments thereto.
Therefore, we also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims
27, 48, 64, 162, and 163-165. We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejections of dependent claims 4-26, 28-29, 31-47, 49-50, 52-63, 66-78,
and 167-169 which have not been separately argued, and they fall with
their base claims. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). See In re Nielson, 816
F.2d at 1572.
VI. CONCLUSION
Based on our consideration of the totality of the record before us, we
have weighed the evidence of obviousness found in the combined teachings
of the applied references, with Appellant’s countervailing evidence and
arguments for nonobviousness and conclude that the claimed invention
encompassed by appealed claims 2, 4-29, 31-50, 52-64, 66-78, and 162-169
would have been obvious as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

VII. ORDER
We affirm the obviousness rejection of claims 2, 4-29, 31-50, 52-64,
66-78, and 162-169 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Appeal 2009-001205
Application 09/810,716

12
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136 (a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

rwk

WOODCOCK WASHBURN LLP
CIRA CENTRE, 12TH FLOOR
2929 ARCH STREET
PHILADELPHIA PA 19104-2891