Ex Parte Hefetz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 27, 2013

10628959 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte EITAN HEFETZ, AVIV LEVIN,
YOSSI PIK, and YANIV HABER
__________

Appeal 2011-004198
Application 10/628,959
Technology Center 2100
__________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, DEMETRA J. MILLS, and
ERICA A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims to
computer-implemented methods, an article comprising a machine-readable
storage medium, and a portal system, all comprising a design-time translator
and a run-time translator that both correspond to a defined page element.
The Patent Examiner rejected the claims as anticipated. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.

Appeal 2011-004198
Application 10/628,959

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention concerns systems and techniques relating to portal page
design and deployment which “involve providing a template-based page-
layout used to render a document at run-time and at design-time and to
provide a WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) presentation of the
document while editing the document at design-time.” (Spec. [0005].)
Claims 1-9, 18-20 and 26 are on appeal. Claim 1 is representative and
reads as follows:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
providing a design-time translator and a run-time translator that both
correspond to a defined page element, the run-time translator and design
time translator configured on a processor;
during design-time for a page, invoking the design-time translator for
a page template including the defined page element having content
components, said design-time invoking resulting in the defined page element
in the page template being translated into a design-time representation of the
content components in the page, the design-time representation being
rendered in accordance with a predefined layout of a container for the
content components, the page template being available to a plurality of
remote users of a portal, the content components including a first content
component and a second content component, the first content component
configured as static content with a run-time behavior determinable at design-
time, and the second component configured as dynamic content with a run-
time behavior not determinable at run-time, such that at design-time a tag is
used to represent the dynamic content on the page rendered at design-time;
and
during run-time for the page, invoking the run-time translator for the
page template, said run-time invoking resulting in the content components
being obtained and the defined page element in the page template being
translated into a run-time presentation of the obtained one or more content
components in accordance with the layout of the container, wherein the
second component configured as dynamic content is determined and
obtained in parallel, at run-time using threading, with other dynamic
content stored in blocks without ordering in a content storage medium to
Appeal 2011-004198
Application 10/628,959

3
render the dynamic content of the second component rather than the tag
used during design-time.

(Emphasis added.)

The Examiner rejected claims 1-9, 18-20 and 26 under 35 U.S.C.
§102(e) as anticipated by Dulepet.1

ANTICIPATION
The Examiner found that Dulepet disclosed each of the limitations of
the claimed invention. (Ans. 3-12.) In particular, the Examiner found that
in Dulepet’s method “the dynamic component is determined and obtained in
parallel at run-time using threading because Dulepet discloses that controller
230 may deploy web page source code/or java servlets to multiple JSP
containers.” (Id. at 5) (emphasis removed). According to the Examiner, this
disclosure “provides a suggestion that controller 230 handles 2 or more
concurrently running tasks for processing multiple JSP containers thereby
resulting in rendering of the dynamic content components.” (Id.) (emphasis
removed).
Appellants contend, among other things, that Dulepet’s disclosure
“do[es] not suggest … using threading to determine and obtain dynamic
content in parallel with other dynamic content stored in blocks without
ordering,” as required by the claimed invention. (App. Br. 15-16.)
The Examiner responds by stating that “the dynamic content [in
Dulepet] is stored in blocks without ordering because the actual underlying

1 Patent No. US 7,316,003 B1, Jan. 1, 2008.

Appeal 2011-004198
Application 10/628,959

4
dynamic content has to be retrieved from a repository and does not reside in
the underlying document to have any specific ordering.” (Ans. 16.)
However, the Examiner has not pointed to any disclosure in Dulepet
or provided evidence to support this finding. (See id.) Consequently, we
agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not established that Dulepet
disclosed each limitation of the claimed invention. See Verdegaal Bros. v.
Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Accordingly, we reverse the anticipation rejection.

REVERSED

cdc