Ex Parte Chusing et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 21, 201611968278 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111968,278 01102/2008 57736 7590 09/23/2016 PATENTS ON DEMAND, P.A. IBM-RSW 4581 WESTON ROAD SUITE 345 WESTON, FL 33331 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR TREVETT B. CHUSING 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. CA920070135 8653 EXAMINER BLOOMQUIST, KEITH D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2178 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/23/2016 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): brian.buchheit@patentsondemand.com docketing 1@patentsondemand.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TREVETT B. CHUSING, LEI ZHANG, and JIANZHU Appeal2015-001789 Application 11/968,278 Technology Center 2100 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and JOHN F. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judges. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2015-001789 Application 11/968,278 STATE~v1ENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 3-20. Claim 2 is canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse. THE INVENTION The claims are directed to a technique that enhances the manipulation of an html tree presentation by using an array representation of the hierarchical path of a tree node. Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for manipulating the presentation of an AJAX tree using an array representing the hierarchical path of a tree node compnsmg: receiving a user-request to expand a user-selected tree node of an AJAX tree, wherein the AJAX tree is presented within a Web page; determining a presence of the tree node in an existing path array for the AJAX tree, wherein the existing path array is stored in one of a Web cookie or a Hyper Text Transfer Protocol (HTTP) session variable; when the tree node is present in the existing path array, modifying the existing path array to reflect the user-selected tree node; when the tree node is absent from the existing path array, requesting a path array for the tree node from a Web server associated with the Web page; and invoking a path array handler to expand the AJAX tree, wherein each tree node of the AJAX tree expanded by the path array handler is contained within the existing path array. 2 Appeal2015-001789 Application 11/968,278 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Lord Thomas Dharamshi US 2003/0063134 Al US 2004/0205638 Al US 2008/0104025 Al REJECTION Apr. 3, 2003 Oct. 14, 2004 May 1, 2008 The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 3-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thomas, Dharamshi, and Lord. Final Act. 2-15. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 12 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thomas, Dharamshi, and Lord. We agree with Appellants' conclusions as to this rejection of the claims. Appellants contend Thomas does not teach a path array. Br. 25. Appellants argue the Examiner fails to identify (i.e., "map") any element of Thomas to the claimed path array. Id. Appellants further argue Thomas's SQL tables are not equivalent to the disputed path array because they include a full tree structure which "is the opposite of an 'AJAX' tree that .... allows for the incremental loading of the tree data into the Web page." Br. 25-26. The Examiner responds, citing paragraph 102 of Thomas for a description of a path array comporting with Appellants' Specification, i.e., "path array 150 can be a data structure configured to define the hierarchical path of the user- selected tree node." Ans. 17 (quoting Spec. i-f 23). The Examiner finds the 3 Appeal2015-001789 Application 11/968,278 data stn.1cture ofThomas's table depicted in Figure 18 defines a hierarchical path of nodes visible in a tree structure and therefore teaches the disputed path array. We agree with Appellants. Claim 1 requires two structures, an AJAX tree and an existing path array for the AJAX tree. Because a selected node in an Ajax tree may be absent from the existing path array (in which case the missing node is requested), the existing path array is not a mere copy of the AJAX tree. Therefore, Thomas's disclosure of a displayed tree structure does not teach or suggest both the AJAX tree and existing path array of claim 1. That is, because the Examiner improperly relies on Thomas's single displayed tree structure for teaching both the AJAX tree and the existing path array, the Examiner erred in finding Thomas teaches or suggests the disputed existing path array. Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants' other arguments. Therefore, for the reasons supra, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and, for the same reason, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 12 and 19 which include substantially the same limitation, or the rejection of dependent claims 3-11, 13-18, and 20. DECISION The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1 and 3-20 is reversed. REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation