Ex Parte Green et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 11, 2016

11326202 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111326,202 0110412006
106095 7590 02/16/2016
Baker Botts LLP
2001 Ross Avenue, 6th Floor
Dallas, TX 75201
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Bruce William Green
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.
063170.2711 1156
EXAMINER
NAZAR, AHAMED I
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2178
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/16/2016 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):
PTOmaill@bakerbotts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRUCE WILLIAM GREEN and JASON S. SHAPIRO
Appeal2014-002607 1
Application 11/326,202
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-32. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants' Invention
Appellants' invention is directed to a web portal layout manager
system for rendering a web portal according to a user's specifications.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Computer Associates Think,
Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-002607
Application 11/326,202
Spec. 3 :2-3, Fig. 1. In particular, upon receiving from the user terminal
(112) a request to produce the web portal (200) including a selected layout, a
number of portlets (202), and the formatting properties thereof, a layout
manager (104) utilizes a rendering engine (114) to render the web portal as
specified by the user. Id. at 3:3-12.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows:
1. A method for rendering a web portal, comprising:
receiving, through a network, a request from a user to produce a web
portal, the request including an indication of a particular number of
portlets to be included in the web portal and an indication selecting
one of multiple predetermined layout types, each layout type
comprising a specified arrangement of the particular number of
portlets within the web portal, each layout type specified by a distinct
executable component of a plurality of executable components, the
portlets managed by a portlet container of the web portal, the portlets
operable to display content of a plurality of information systems;
receiving a set of portlets;
receiving formatting properties for the set of portlets;
calling the executable component of the plurality of executable
components that specifies the selected predetermined layout type to
produce a code fragment specifying at least a portion of a web portal
containing the set of portlets having the selected predetermined layout
type and formatting properties;
receiving an indication of content to populate the portlets of the
web portal specified by the code fragment; and
rendering the at least a portion of the web portal specified by
the code fragment containing the indicated content.
2
Appeal2014-002607
Application 11/326,202
Ritchy
Bales
Flores
Boehme
Kim
Prior Art Relied Upon
US 2004/0183831 Al
US 2004/0230947 Al
US 2005/0021765 Al
US 2005/0120288 Al
US 2005/0283524 Al
Rejections on Appeal
Sept. 23, 2004
Nov. 18, 2004
Jan.27,2005
June 2, 2005
Dec. 22, 2005
Appellants request review of the following Examiner's rejections:
Claims 1--4, 8-12, 16, 17-22, 26, and 32 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Boehme and
Flores.2
Claims 5-7, 13-15, 23-25, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Boehme, Flores, and
Bales.
Claims 28 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Boehme, Flores, and Ritchy.
Claims 30 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Boehme, Flores, and Kim.
2 Although claim 20 is omitted from this statement of the rejection, the
Examiner nonetheless discusses claim 20 as part of this rejection. Final Act
13.
3
Appeal2014-002607
Application 11/326,202
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 12-19.3
Dispositive Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, did the Examiner err in
finding the combination of Boehme and Flores teaches or suggests receiving
from a user a request to produce a web portal including a number of
specified portlets, as required by independent claim 1?
Appellants argue the combination of Boehme and Flores does not
teach or suggest the disputed limitations emphasized above. App. Br. 12-
16. In particular, Appellants argue Boehme discloses a system for allowing
a user to view and edit the number of portlets in an existing web portal
layout, as opposed to receiving a request to produce a web portlet including
a specified number of portlets. Id. at 14 (citing Boehme i-f 31 ). Further,
Appellants argue Flores' disclosure of an interface in a portal application for
allowing a user to specify context attributes thereby identifying portlets to be
displayed in a web portal does not cure the noted deficiencies of Boehme.
Id. at 14--16 (citing Flores i-fi-120-21, 30-31). According to Appellants,
Flores' disclosure of a portal refers to "anchor Web pages used as entry
points or gateways to network accessible information" or "an access portal
3 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed June 11, 2013), and the Answer (mailed
August 19, 2013) for their respective details. We have considered in this
Decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Brief. Any
other arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the
Brief are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
4
Appeal2014-002607
Application 11/326,202
for a website." Id. at 14--15 (citing Flores i-fi-14, 7, 18, 22, 29). Likewise,
Appellants argue that Flores' disclosure of portlets refers to "a context
specific view of that website." Id. at 15. Additionally, Appellants submit
even if Flores discloses a system for allowing an administrator to specify
which portlets will be displayed in a web portal being generated, Flores does
not teach that the administrator may submit such specifications in a request.
Id. at 16.
These arguments are not persuasive because they are tantamount to an
individual attack against Boehme and Flores. One cannot show non-
obviousness by attacking the references individually where the rejections are
based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981 ). As correctly noted by the Examiner, Flores discloses receiving from
a portal administrator a request including parameters specifying portlets to
be displayed in a web portal to be generated. Ans. 4 (citing Flores i-fi-1 42-
43). Although Appellants accurately characterize Flores' disclosure of
portals and portlets, as noted above, Appellants have not provided in the
Specification a definition for the cited terms that distinguishes them from
Flores. In fact, Appellants' own Specification indicates that web portals are
known in the art to provide a common interface for content (portlets)
aggregated from a variety of disparate sources. Spec. 2: 1-9. We further
note Appellants' failure to challenge the Examiner's finding of Boehme's
disclosure of a web portal containing portlets. Instead, Appellants merely
challenge Boehme' s disclosure for its alleged failure to create a web portal.
5
Appeal2014-002607
Application 11/326,202
Nonetheless, we note Boehme indicates web portals are known to be created
pursuant to a user's Specification. Boehme ,-r 1. Therefore, we agree with
the Examiner that the combination of Boehme and Flores teaches or suggests
the disputed limitations. It follows Appellants have not shown error in the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Regarding the rejection of claim 32, Appellants argue that the
combination of Boehme and Flores does not teach or suggest a plurality of
layout types, each comprising a specified arrangement of a predetermined
number of portlets within the web portal. App. Br. 17-18. This argument is
not persuasive. As discussed above, Flores' disclosure of a web portal
administrator specifying in a request which portlets should be included in a
web portal teaches or suggests to the ordinarily skilled artisan to render a
different web portal with a different number of portlets based on the device
communicating with the portal. Flores, Fig. 1. Accordingly, we find no error
in the Examiner's rejection of claim 32.
Regarding the rejection of claims 2-31, because Appellants have
either not presented separate patentability arguments or have reiterated
substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for
patentability of claim 1 above (App. Br. 16, 18-19), claims 2-31 fall
therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
claims 1-32. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection
with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
6
Appeal2014-002607
Application 11/326,202
AFFIRMED
7