Ex Parte Dorsey et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 19, 201512113322 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2015) Copy Citation 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. 12/113,322 05/01/2008 Paul Raymond Dorsey DULC/002 1806 85174 7590 02/19/2015 WALL & TONG , LLP 25 James Way Eatontown, NJ 07724 EXAMINER SONG, DAEHO D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2141 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/19/2015 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte PAUL RAYMOND DORSEY and YALIM KEREM GERGER ____________ Appeal 2012-007502 Application 12/113,3221 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before DONALD E. ADAMS, ERIC B. GRIMES, and KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims related to implementing and updating a user interface. The Examiner rejected the claims as anticipated. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Background “The present invention generally relates to . . . web applications and, more particularly, to a method and architecture adapted to maximize 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Dulcian, Inc. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2012-007502 Application 12/113,322 2 performance by minimizing network traffic between a client computer and an application server.” Spec. 1. The Claims Claims 1–21 are on appeal. Claim 1 is representative and reads as follows. 1. A method, comprising: storing in a server memory an initial state of an application; transmitting to a client a user interface (UI) page representing the initial application state, the UI page including at least one object having associated with it an event; processing a notification of the occurrence of an event according to a set of rules; updating a state of the application in response to the processed notification; and transmitting to the client a set of actions adapted to be executed by the client to update thereby a UI page. App. Br. 18. The Rejection The Examiner maintains that claims 1–21 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Mitchell.2 DISCUSSION Appellants present arguments only with respect to the rejection of claim 1. App. Br. 8–16. Accordingly, we address only claim 1 below. 2 Mitchell et al., US 2005/0204047 A1, published on September 15, 2005. Appeal 2012-007502 Application 12/113,322 3 Principles of Law The Examiner must establish a prima facie case of anticipation under 35 U. S.C. § 102 by showing, as a matter of fact, that all elements arranged as specified in a claim are disclosed within the four corners of a reference, either expressly or inherently, in a manner enabling one skilled in the art to practice an embodiment of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. ClearValue, Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc., 668 F.3d 1340, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex Inc., 550 F.3d 1075, 1083 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Further, during prosecution, an application’s claims are given their broadest reasonable scope consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Analysis Appellants argue that Mitchell does not disclose “transmitting to a client a user interface (UI) page representing the initial application state, the UI page including at least one object having associated with it an event.” App. Br. 8. Appellants raise several issues with respect to this limitation, which are addressed separately below. The Examiner relies on the following passage of Mitchell with respect to the claim limitation at issue. In one or more embodiments of the invention, the client provides an interface having information and/or behavior supported by a server. As part of the client execution, the client provides an interface context within which server data is processed to present or “render” the interface. The server data is initially communicated to the client and loaded into the interface context as an interface container structure. Multiple interface elements may be contained within the interface container structure, and one or more of those interface elements Appeal 2012-007502 Application 12/113,322 4 may include or reference additional interface container structures having further interface elements contained therein. Each interface element may provide information and/or function associated with a particular portion of the presented interface (e.g., a particular spatial region of a display, a particular channel of audio, a particular temporal aspect of the interface and/or a particular attribute or function of the rendering process). Mitchell ¶ 31. With respect to this paragraph, the Examiner finds as follows. Mitchell expressly discloses that the server data is initially transmitted to a client interface container or page, which represents an initial state of the interface container or page structure. Mitchell further teaches that multiple interface elements or objects may be contained within the interface container or page structure, where each interface element or object may provide information and/or function associated with a particular portion of the presented or displayed user interface. Mitchell shows an example of a particular function of the rendering process, which corresponds to an event. Ans. 11. Appellants first assert that the cited portion of Mitchell “does not address the notion that the user interface page represents the initial application state and the page includes at least one object having associated with it an event as claimed.” App. Br. 9. To the extent Appellants are arguing that Mitchell does not disclose an initial application state, we note that Appellants provide no further explanation and point to no specific definition of this term in the Specification that would distinguish it from the data initially sent from the server to the client in Mitchell. Further, Appellants acknowledge that Mitchell discloses a client user interface, and only distinguish the interface shown in Mitchell based on the fact that it does not include a button. Id. at 9–11. We find that, in the context of the Appeal 2012-007502 Application 12/113,322 5 Specification and the claim, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the initial application state refers to the state of the application that is transmitted from the server to the client before an event occurs that necessitates updating the application. Under this interpretation, we find that Mitchell’s initial transmission of data from the server to a client interface container (Mitchell ¶ 31) or a web browser/web page (Mitchell ¶ 39) discloses the required “transmitting to a client a user interface (UI) page representing the initial application state.” Next, Appellants argue that Mitchell does not disclose a user interface page including at least one object having associated with it an event. App. Br. 11–15. In support, Appellants argue that the Examiner has interpreted the claim incorrectly and/or failed to consider this claim requirement. Id. More specifically, Appellants argue that this claim limitation requires the “at least one object” to be a “button” and the event is associated with selection of the button. See id.; Reply Br. 3–5. We find this argument unpersuasive. Appellants rely on the following portion of the Specification as providing a “clear context for persons skilled in the art to understand the term ‘object’ as comprising a button.” Reply Br. 4. The screen as rendered on the client machine has various components including: images, static text, data fields, selection items (list boxes, combo boxes, checkboxes, buttons etc.) and other user interactive items. When user interface events of interest (e.g., a change for updating of a field, button or other object) or other (non-UI events of interest) are detected by the Event Detector/Transmitter 146EDT, the Action Interpreter 146AI transmits to an application server (or stores for subsequent transmission) the events of interest along with any field changes that have occurred since the last event of interest transmission. Appeal 2012-007502 Application 12/113,322 6 Spec. 6. This passage merely refers to a button as an example of an object and we do not consider this passage to provide the necessary context for one of ordinary skill to limit the claimed “object” to a button. Further, we agree with the Examiner that Mitchell teaches this limitation under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim by describing multiple interface elements, which may be considered objects, and functions related thereto, which may be considered events. See Ans. 11; Mitchell ¶ 31. As further support, we also note that Mitchell discloses user interactions causing state changes on a web page, and such interactions are referred to as triggering events. Mitchell ¶ 39. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments related to this portion of the claim and find that the Examiner has neither improperly construed the claim nor failed to consider all words in the claim. Based on the foregoing, we find that Appellants have failed to establish any reversible error with respect to the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Mitchell. Accordingly, we affirm this rejection and the rejection of claims 2–21, for which Appellants have not presented separate arguments. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the rejection of claim 1. Because they are not separately argued claims 2–21 fall with claim 1. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED dm Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation