Ex Parte Evanchik et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 16, 2018

11530487 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2018)

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.
11/530,487 09/11/2006 Stephen A Evanchik POU920060119US1 9778
47486 7590 02/21/2018
FLEIT, GIBBONS, GUTMAN, BONGINI & BIANCO PL
4800 N. Federal Highway, Suite B306
BOCA RATON, EL 33431
EXAMINER
GARMON, BRIAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/21/2018 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):
ptoboc a @ fggbb .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEPHEN A. EVANCHIK, ALISTER LEWIS-BOWEN,
and LOUIS M. WEITZMAN
Appeal 2017-008564
Application 11/530,487
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-008564
Application 11/530,487
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Non-Final
Rejection of claims 1—10, 12—32, 34, and 35. Claims 11 and 33 have been
cancelled. App. Br. 26, 32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Representative Claim
Representative claim 13 (in-part) under appeal reads as follows
(emphasis and formatting added):
13. A method for editing an electronic document, the
method comprising:
[A.] concurrently displaying
[i.] all or a section of a first document and
[ii.] one or more widgets
at a computer screen,
the first document comprising a visual representation
derived at least one of statically or dynamically
from one or more associated source components;
[B.] based on a user’s input,
[i.] selecting a snippet of the first document,
[ii.] extracting snippet link information and snippet
position information associated with the snippet
from the first document and
[iii.] moving the
[a.] snippet,
[b.] snippet link information, and
[c.] snippet position information
from a first displayed item of a pair of displayed
items to a second displayed item of the pair
of displayed items,
2
Appeal 2017-008564
Application 11/530,487
wherein the snippet position information indicates a
location of the snippet within the first displayed
item,
wherein the first displayed item is the first document and
the second displayed item is a first widget of the
one or more widgets,
wherein the first widget is associated with a function to
be performed on a set of content within the first
document selected as the snippet;
[C.] directly, based on the moving, performing the function
associated with the first widget on the set of content,
wherein the function is one function in a plurality of
functions associated with the one or more widgets
comprising at least a delete function;
[H.] automatically determining that a current set of source
components associated with the snippet and
corresponding to the snippet position information have
changed to a new set of source components at the hosting
location,
wherein the current set of source components resides at
the hosting location; and
[I.] dynamically and automatically updating the snippet at the
second displayed item to include the new set of source
components.
3
Appeal 2017-008564
Application 11/530,487
Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 12—14, 18, 19, 23, 24, 28, 29,
34, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
combination of Maslov (US 6,538,673 Bl, iss. Mar. 25, 2003) and Gvily
(US 7,085,994 B2, iss. Aug. 1, 2006).1
The Examiner rejected claims 3, 4, 5, 8—10, 15—17, 20-22, 25—27, and
30-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Maslov and
Gvily in various combinations with other references.2
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 13 as being obvious?
DEFINITIONS3
A “widget” is a module on a website, in an application, or in the
interface of a device that allows users to access information or perform a
function. Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc.
A “widget” is a small computer program that can be installed on and
executed from the desktop of a personal computer. Dictionary.com. Collins
1 We select claim 13 as representative. Separate patentability is not argued
for claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 12—14, 18, 19, 23, 24, 28, 29, 34 and 35. Therefore, our
decision as to claim 13 is determinative as to the rejection of these claims.
Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further
herein.
2 Our decision as to claim 13 is determinative as to the rejections of these
claims. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed
further herein.
3 http://www.dictionary.com/browse/widget (accessed: February 12, 2018).
4
Appeal 2017-008564
Application 11/530,487
English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition. HarperCollins
Publishers.
A “widget” is an element of a graphical user interface such as a button
or scroll bar; also, a module of software for a personalized Web page.
Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com’s 21st Century Lexicon. Dictionary.com,
LLC.
ANALYSIS4
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred.
Claim 13
The Examiner finds as to claim 13:
Maslov discloses a method for editing an electronic
document, the method comprising:
concurrently displaying all or a section of a first document
and one or more widgets at a computer screen . . . (Maslov,
Column 7, Lines 10-25; Maslov discloses displaying a source
webpage and a target page [widget].);
. . . wherein the first widget is associated with a function
to be performed on a set of content within the first document
selected as the snippet (Maslov, Column 9, Lines 25-49; The
script saves the location or node of the selected content.)
Gvily discloses:
directly, based on the moving, performing the function
associated with the first widget on the set of content, wherein
the function is one function in a plurality of functions associated
with the one or more widgets comprising at least a delete
4 The contentions we discuss are determinative as to the rejections on appeal.
Therefore, Appellants’ other contentions are not discussed in detail herein.
5
Appeal 2017-008564
Application 11/530,487
function (Gvily, Col. 6, Lines 13-26; Gvily discloses a function
that removes or deletes parts of the page.)[,]
dynamically re-displaying, directly based on performing the
function, the first document with the set of content having the
function performed thereon (Gvily, Col. 6, Lines 13-26; Gvily
discloses updating the document displaying the modified
document.).
Non-Final Act. 7—10 (emphasis omitted; emphasis added).
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
Gvily fails to teach or suggest “directly, based on the moving,
performing the function associated with the first widget on the
set of content, wherein the function is one function in a plurality
of functions associated with the one or more widgets comprising
at least a delete function”.
App. Br. 17 (emphasis omitted, emphasis added).
[Bjecause Maslov only discloses functions associated with its
script, and Gvily only discloses functions are performed on a
proxy-copy of the HTML page prior to any snippets being
selected, the combination of Maslov and Gvily fails to teach or
suggest directly performing the function associated with the
claimed first widget on the set of content (corresponding to
the snippet) within the first document (compared by the
Examiner to Maslov’s source document) based on moving the
snippet, snippet link information, and snippet position
information from the first document to the first widget.
Reply Br. 6 (emphasis added).
As articulated by the Federal Circuit, the Examiner’s burden of
proving non-patentability is by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re
Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“preponderance of the
evidence is the standard that must be met by the PTO in making rejections”).
6
Appeal 2017-008564
Application 11/530,487
“A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis.” In re
Warner, 379 F.2d 1011,1017 (CCPA 1967). “The Patent Office has the
initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not. . .
resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to
supply deficiencies in its factual basis.” Id.
Here, the Examiner’s analysis fails to meet this standard because it
does not adequately explain why the Examiner’s finding of fact that “Maslov
discloses ... a target page” by itself supports the Examiner’s further finding
that the target page is a widget. Non-Final Act. 4. Consistent with the
definitions in the art and Appellants’ claim, we conclude that a widget is a
particular module of software for performing a function.
We conclude, for the reasons discussed above, as to claim 13 and
consistent with Appellants’ argument, there is insufficient articulated
reasoning to support the Examiner’s findings. Therefore, we conclude that
there is insufficient articulated reasoning to support the Examiner’s final
conclusion that claim 13 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of Appellants’ invention.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1—10, 12—32, 34, and 35 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
(2) On this record, claims 1—10, 12—32, 34, and 35 have not been
shown to be unpatentable.
7
Appeal 2017-008564
Application 11/530,487
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—10, 12—32, 34, and 35 are
reversed.
REVERSED
8