Ex Parte Coulthard et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 13, 2014

11056587 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 13, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PHIL COULTHARD and BRIAN G. FARN
____________

Appeal 2011-009369
Application 11/056,587
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, ERIC B. GRIMES, and LORA M. GREEN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING1
Appellants request rehearing of the decision entered April 10, 2014
(“Decision”) affirming the rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Bhogill2 and Williamson.3
We deny the requested relief.

1 The Real Party in Interest is International Business Machines Corporation
(App. Br. 2).
2 Prithpal S. Bhogill, An introduction to Java Server Faces, Object
Computing, Inc. 1-13 (2003).
3 Murali Kaundinya, et al., JavaServer Faces A standard-based solution for
JavaWeb applications, Java Developers Journal l-11, Williamson, ed.
(2004). See also Murali Kaundinya, JavaServer Faces, http://java.syscon.
cominode/37506, Vol: 8, Iss: 5 (May 1, 2003).
Appeal 2011-009369
Application 11/056,587

2
ANALYSIS
Appellants recognize Examiner’s finding “that ‘UI components’ in
general are platform independent because they can be rendered on different
devices, and as such, they ‘can be rendered in HTML or WML and thus are
not specific to any markup language” (Req. Reh’g 4; see Decision 3-4: FF 5;
see also Decision 3-4: FF 3 and 4). Nevertheless, Appellants contend that
their “core argument . . . remains unrebutted and unaddressed by the
Honorable Board in the Decision on Appeal. To wit, Appellants specifically
observed that the UISelectBoolean tag referenced [and exemplified in
Williamson is] the HTML Checkbox Renderer and thus without question,
was HTML specific” (Req. Reh’g 5). In this regard, Appellants contend that
their claim 23 “requires a markup language non-specific JSF tag” and “the
Honorable Board has not provided a finding of fact and an analysis as to
whether or not reference of the UISelectBoolean tag of Williamson is
HTML specific since the UISelectBoolean tag refers to the HTML
Checkbox Renderer” (id. at 5). We are not persuaded.
In sum, Appellants contend that because Williamson exemplifies an
HTML specific UI component JSF tag, Williamson in combination with
Bhogill cannot make obvious their claimed invention (see Req. Reh’g 3-5).
That argument, however, dismisses the broader teaching in Williamson,
which Appellants do not dispute, that UI component JSF tags are “not
specific to any markup language” and that “[i]t is the rendering kits that take
the UI component and render them in a specific way” (Decision 3-4: FF 4-5;
see also id. at 4; Cf. Req. Reh’g 4). Appellants fail to explain why: (1)
Williamson should be limited to a single exemplified embodiment and
Appeal 2011-009369
Application 11/056,587

3
(2) the combination of Bhogill and Williamson fails to suggest the subject
matter of Appellants’ claim 23. For the foregoing reasons, we are not
persuaded by Appellants’ contentions.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

REHEARING DENIED

cdc