10418470 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 19, 2010)

Ex Parte Distefano

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJul 19, 2010

10418470 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 19, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10/418,470 04/18/2003 Thomas L. Distefano III 1115-003U 2024 29973 7590 01/28/2011 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL LLP ATTN: STEVEN M. GREENBERG, ESQ. 950 PENINSULA CORPORATE CIRCLE SUITE 2022 BOCA RATON, FL 33487 EXAMINER RIES, LAURIE ANNE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2176 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/28/2011 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte THOMAS L. DISTEFANO III ____________________ Appeal 2008-005661 Application 10/418,4701 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, JAY P. LUCAS, AND JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges. LUCAS, Administrative Patent Judge. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR REHEARING2 1 Application filed April 18, 2003. Application No. 10/418,470 is a continuation of 09/273,991, filed March 22, 1999, now abandoned. The real party in interest is the inventor/applicant, Mr. DiStefano. 2 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 2008-005661 Application 10/418,470 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant requests a rehearing of the Board decision mailed July 19, 2010, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.52. Appellant’s invention relates to a method for creating web pages using a document authoring page. In the words of Appellant: The present invention provides a simple method for authoring, developing, and posting electronic documents, including Web pages. In one embodiment of the present invention, the method enables a document author to create, using the author's computer and a document authoring page that is provided by a separate developer system, an electronic document which includes author-specified information. The author causes that electronic document to be sent to a developer associated with that developer system who, in turn, modifies the document and sends it back to the author for display on the author's computer. After approval of the modified document, the developer system can facilitate posting the document to a server. (Spec. 3, ll. 3 to 11). Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A method for developing a network- accessible electronic document comprising the steps of: a) receiving a document authoring page in an electronic format from a developer system; b) creating, by an author computer which is separate from the developer system, a first 2 Appeal 2008-005661 Application 10/418,470 electronic document which includes author- specified information specified by an author of the first electronic document, wherein the first electronic document is created using the document authoring page; c) sending the first electronic document across a first network to a developer computer which is part of the developer system; d) receiving, over the first network from the developer computer, a modified document, wherein the modified document is based on the first electronic document and includes additional information; and e) displaying, by the author computer, a graphical display defined by the modified electronic document. The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Bernardo US 6,308,188 B1 Oct. 23, 2001 Graham US 6,343,302 B1 Jan. 29, 2002 Grawrock US 6,360,322 B1 Mar. 19, 2002 REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected the claims as follows. Both rejections were affirmed in the Decision cited above: R1: Claims 1 to 9 and 12 to 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for being obvious over Bernardo in view of Graham. R2: Claims 10 to 11 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for being obvious over Bernardo in view of Graham and Grawrock. 3 Appeal 2008-005661 Application 10/418,470 DISCUSSION In the Request for Rehearing (RR) Appellant contends that the Board misapprehended and overlooked certain arguments presented by Appellant in the Brief and Reply Brief. (RR 2, top). First Appellant contends that the Examiner and the Board did not indicate the specific teachings of the reference Bernardo to be read on the limitation of claim 1 “an author computer which is separate from the developer system.” (RR 3, bottom). We do not agree and find that the reference in the Decision, page 6, at the bottom, to the Examiner’s citation of Bernardo, column 5, lines 14 to 26 and 51 to 54, properly indicates the teaching. However, in the interest of greater clarity, we refer to Bernardo, Figure 1 reproduced below: 4 Appeal 2008-005661 Application 10/418,470 Bernardo, Figure 1, is a block diagram of his invention. Terminal 126 with Browser 128 are read by the Board and Examiner on the claimed author computer. Server 114 with databases 116 and 148 are read on the separate developer system. Next Appellant contends that the Board and Examiner have failed to properly read Bernardo on the claimed “authoring page” and the separate “first electronic document” as both have been read on Bernardo’s “template” (RR 5, ll. 7, 19). In Appellant’s system, the authoring page becomes the first electronic document when the former is populated with author specific information by the user at the author computer (Claim 1). In Bernardo, the web page is created by the user taking a stock template and populating it with specific information at the user’s terminal (Col. 3, ll. 1 to 16). Even after being populated, it is sometimes called the template. (e.g. Col. 8, l. 29). Thus the unpopulated and populated templates are read on the claimed authoring page and the first electronic document, respectively. We do not, therefore, find an error in the Decision or the Examiner’s rejection. Appellant further argues that Bernardo fails to teach the template being created by an author computer and sent to the developer system (RR 6, bottom to RR 8, top). We adopted and endorsed the Examiner’s arguments in the Decision of July 19, 2010 (Decision 7, middle) in which the Examiner pointed to the sections of Bernardo that perform the argued steps (Ans. 14). Reviewing Bernardo, column 9, bottom and column 10, lines 16 to 31, we find no error in the Examiner’s position. The template populated in the author computer is sent back to the developer system for further working and approval. Finally, Appellant contends in the Request for Rehearing that the Examiner and the Board have not shown where Bernardo and Graham 5 Appeal 2008-005661 Application 10/418,470 recited the steps of the method associated with the claimed developer system and author computer (RR 9, middle). We have reviewed the Answer, again, and do not find merit in this argument of Appellant. (See Ans. 5, 6, and 14.) The Examiner lays it out, step by step. DECISION We have reheard this appeal on the points raised by Appellant, as requested, but decline to change the decision except to supplement the analysis with the findings and conclusions discussed above. REHEARING DENIED peb CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL LLP ATTN: STEVEN M. GREENBERG, ESQ. 950 PENINSULA CORPORATE CIRCLE SUITE 2022 BOCA RATON, FL 33487 6