Ex Parte Farn

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 9, 2016

11217057 (P.T.A.B. May. 9, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111217,057 08/3112005
46320 7590 05/11/2016
CRGOLAW
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, FL 33434
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Brian Gin Farn
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
CA920050004US1 (548) 7886
EXAMINER
KRETZMER, ERIKA A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2196
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/11/2016 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):
docketing@crgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRIAN GIN F ARN
Appeal2013-009328
Application 11/217 ,057
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, STEPHEN C. SIU, and BRETT C. MARTIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appeal2013-009328
Application 11/217 ,057
Appellant requests rehearing of our decision dated Feb. 19, 2016
("Dec."), where we affirmed the Examiner's decision to reject claims 23-25
as obvious over Lee, Rosenstein, and LeToumeau. 1 Request for Rehearing
filed Apr. 18, 2016 ("Req."). For the reasons noted below, we deny the
request to modify our decision.
In the Request, Appellant contends that we misapprehended or
overlooked Appellant's argument that Lee's text controls are not different
instances of the same user interface component in a Web page as claimed,
but are rather instances of the same object-oriented "text" control object
class, which is not shown to be in a Web page. Req. 4--5.
But as we indicated in our decision, we found no error in the
Examiner's reliance on Lee's text control for at least suggesting a user
interface component, namely an object-oriented text control that is displayed
in a web page. Dec. 4--5. In reaching this conclusion, we noted that because
Lee's text control is a unique type of control, it is a single user interface
component at least in that respect. Dec. 5.
We also referred to multiple different instances of this component,
namely text control instances 408A and 408B in Lee's Figures 4A and 4B.
Id. (finding no error in the Examiner's position that Lee assigns a different
index to each instance of Lee's single user interface component, namely text
control instances 408A and 408B) (citing Ans. 5).
Lastly, as noted above, we found no error in the Examiner's position
that Lee at least suggests an object-oriented text control that is displayed in a
web page. Dec. 4--5. Not only are Lee's text control instances 408A and
1 These references are cited in full on page 2 of our decision, and we omit
those citations here for brevity.
2
Appeal2013-009328
Application 11/217 ,057
408B themselves instantiated in a web page in browser 422 via their
corresponding definitional statements as shown in Figure 4A, Appellant did
not persuasively rebut the Examiner's findings in this regard, or with respect
to Lee's teachings of instantiating in a web page in connection with a page
design environment. See Final Act. 6 (citing Lee, Fig. 4A (part 444) and col.
7, 11. 27--49); see also Ans. 6 ("Lee further teaches adding different instances
of the 'Text control' in a web page using a drag and drop graphical editor ..
. . "); id. ("A control mechanism that may be dragged and dropped from a
palette into a Web page[] is a single user interface component that may have
multiple different instances.") (emphasis added); id. 6-7 ("Lee teaches that
Java Beans, such as 'text control' and an 'input control', are displayed in a
Web page as part of a user interface .... ") (emphases added).
So even assuming, without deciding, that Lee's text control instances
408A and 408 are not shown explicitly as part of a web page in Figure 4A,
we nevertheless see no error in the Examiner's position that instantiating
them in a web page would have been obvious. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded that we misapprehended or overlooked those points in rendering
our decision.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we have granted Appellant's request to the
extent that we have reconsidered our decision, but we deny the request with
respect to making any changes therein.
DENIED
3