Ex Parte DeHamer et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 30, 2010

10677000 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 30, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte BRIAN JAMES DEHAMER
and SANKAR RAM SUNDAROSAN
____________

Appeal 2009-005197
Application 10/677,000
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, JAY P. LUCAS, and
THU A. DANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-005197
Application 10/677,000

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, and 20-24, which are all the claims
remaining in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Representative Claim
1. A system, comprising:
a controller generator that is adapted to provide an
application with a controller that receives a request for
data from a user and responds to the request by sending
information to the user in a predetermined format; and
a layout manager generator that is adapted to
provide a layout manager that formats a c-frame2 based
on configuration information and renders the c-frame as
part of the information sent to the user in response to the
request, wherein the configuration information
corresponds to a plurality of portals, and wherein the
layout manager is adapted to produce a different c-frame
in response to requests received via each of the plurality
of portals.

2 A “c-frame” is so named because the combination of the header, footer,
and left side bar that frames Web page content resembles the letter “C.” See
Spec. ¶ [0003]; Fig. 3.
Appeal 2009-005197
Application 10/677,000

3
Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 22-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, and 20-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a) as being anticipated by Dan (US 6,560,639 B1).
The Examiner has withdrawn a rejection of claims 22-24 under 35
U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter (and/or for
lacking utility) that was set forth in the Final Rejection.

DISCUSSION
Written Description Rejection
Independent claim 22 recites a “tangible machine readable medium,
comprising . . . .” The Examiner’s rejection of claims 22-24 for lacking
written description support is based on the finding that the Specification
does not disclose any “medium.”
Somewhat belatedly, Appellants point out in the Reply Brief that
original claim 22, which forms part of the Specification,3 recites a “machine
readable medium.” Appellants also note, in the Appeal Brief, that the
written description at paragraph [0018] states that the WPA (web
presentation architecture) may be adapted to execute on a “processor-based
device” such as a computer system.
The original claims thus provide express support for a “machine
readable medium,” and the written description provides at least inherent

3 See 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph (“The specification shall conclude
with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the
subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.”) (emphasis
added).
Appeal 2009-005197
Application 10/677,000

4
support for a “tangible machine readable medium,” since that is where
programming normally resides in computer systems.
We therefore are not persuaded that the Specification does not
disclose any “medium.” We do not sustain the § 112, first paragraph
rejection of claims 22-24.

Anticipation Rejection
Instant claim 1 recites a layout manager that formats a c-frame based
on configuration information, wherein the configuration information
corresponds to a plurality of portals, and wherein the layout manager is
adapted to produce a different c-frame in response to requests received via
each of a plurality of portals.
Appellants and the Examiner debate the meaning of “portal.”
However, the Specification indicates that a “portal” may be interpreted as an
“access point.” See Spec. ¶ [0002] (“allow different groups of individuals to
access information using different portals or access points.”). For the
purposes of this appeal we can assume that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of a “plurality of portals” includes within its meaning a Web
page (containing hyperlinks) resident in a browser. Such an interpretation
appears to be as broad as, or broader than, the Examiner’s reading of
“portals.”
However, we agree with Appellants to the extent that the rejection
fails to show that Dan discloses producing a different c-frame in response to
requests received via each of the plurality of portals, as claimed.
The statement of rejection in the Answer is more specific than that set
out in the Final Rejection, and relies on Figure 3 and text at column 20, lines
Appeal 2009-005197
Application 10/677,000

5
35 through 42 of Dan for disclosure of producing “different” c-frames.
Users (i.e., Web page developers) can use the Dan system to create or
modify the “look and feel” of Web pages, which would include the ability to
create or modify c-frames. Further, as the Examiner seems to indicate,
different users can access a Web server using different types of browsers.
However, it does not follow that a different c-frame is produced in response
to requests received via each of the plurality of portals, as claimed. In
particular, we have not been directed to any disclosure of different c-frames
being produced based on the type of browser used to access the Web server.
In short, there is not sufficient support in the reference for the Examiner’s
conclusion (Ans. 12) that “the c-frame in Figure 13 [of Dan] is different
based on tag attributes browsed in the user’ [sic] computer A or the user’s
computer B.” In the Dan reference, it is the individual user (Web page
developer) that determines the look, feel, and function of a Web page. See
col. 20, l. 55 et seq.
“[A]bsence from the reference of any claimed element negates
anticipation.” Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible, Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1571
(Fed. Cir. 1986) (citation omitted), overruled on other grounds by Knorr-
Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GmbH v. Dana Corp., 383 F.3d 1337
(Fed. Cir. 2004). We therefore cannot sustain the § 102 rejection of claim 1.
Because each of the other independent claims on appeal (8, 15, and 22)
contains the same “different c-frame” language for which the rejection of
claim 1 fails, we cannot sustain the rejection of any claim on appeal.

Appeal 2009-005197
Application 10/677,000

6
DECISION
The rejection of claims 22-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
as failing to comply with the written description requirement is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, and 20-24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a) as being anticipated by Dan is reversed.

REVERSED

msc

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Intellectual Property Administration
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS CO 80528