Ex Parte Joret et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 6, 2014

11421872 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 6, 2014)

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.
11/421,872 06/02/2006 Jean-Baptiste Joret DE920050009US1 3245
75949 7590 01/06/2014
IBM CORPORATION
C/O: VanCott Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy
36 South State Street
Suite 1900
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
EXAMINER
PHAM, LINH K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/06/2014 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 JEAN-BAPTISTE JORET,
TIMO KUSSMAUL, and
JAN ENGEHAUSEN
__________

Appeal 2011-011864
Application 11/421,872
Technology Center 2100
__________

Before LORA M. GREEN, JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, and
ULRIKE W. JENKS, Administrative Patent Judges.

FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a method
for preserving the content of a target portlet aggregated with other portlets
on a web page presented on a web portal. The Examiner rejected the claims
as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part.

1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as International
Business Machines Corporation (see App. Br. 1).
Appeal 2011-011864
Application 11/421,872

2
Statement of the Case
Background
A “portal server . . . implements an aggregation of portlets . . . based
on the underlying portal model and portal information such as security
settings, user roles, customization settings, and device capabilities” (Spec.
2). The Specification teaches that “[p]ortlets are pluggable components that
can be added to portals and are designed to run inside a portal’s portlet
container. Portlets may provide different functions ranging from simple
rendering of static or dynamic content to application functions such as
e-mail, calendar, etc.” (Spec. 3).
The Claims
Claims 13, 16-19, 22-25, and 28-30 are on appeal. Claim 13 is
representative and reads as follows:
13. A method for preserving the content of a target portlet
aggregated with other portlets on a web page presented on a
web portal, comprising:
receiving a command from a user of the web page to
preserve the contents of said target portlet;
in response to receipt of said command,
storing said contents in a storage resource
location;
accessing URL-generating code in said target
portlet to generate a URL for the storage location at
which said contents are stored;
receiving the URL generated by the URL-
generating code in said target portlet; and
making the generated URL available for use by
one or more users, including said user.

Appeal 2011-011864
Application 11/421,872

3
The issue
The Examiner rejected claims 13, 16-19, 22-25, and 28-30 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Hesmer,2 Porter,3 and Abdelnur4 (Ans. 4-6).
The Examiner finds that Hesmer teaches “a method for preserving the
content of a target portlet aggregated with other portlets on a web page
presented on a web portal, comprising: receiving a command from a web
page to preserve the contents of said target portlet . . . [and] storing said
contents in a storage resource location” (Ans. 4). The Examiner finds that
“Porter teaches user commands in order to save the state of web-pages”
(Ans. 4). The Examiner finds that “Hesmer and Porter do not specifically
teach generating a URL for the storage resource location at which said
contents are stored; and making the generated URL available for use by one
or more users” (Ans. 4).
The Examiner finds that:
Abdelnur teaches generating a URL for the storage resource
location at which information is stored (See Page 34, Lines
15-37); and making the generated URL available for use by
one or more users, including said user (See Page 34, Lines
15-37, the user will be using the URL when using the
portlet), wherein generating a URL for the storage resource
location further comprises accessing URL-generating code
in said target portlet . . . and receiving a URL generated by
the URL-generating code in said target portlet

(Ans. 4-5).

2 Hesmer et al., US 2004/0243928 A1, published Dec. 2, 2004.
3 Porter, S., US 6,476,827 B1, issued Nov. 5, 2002.
4 Abdelnur et al., Portlet Specification, Version 1.0, 1-135 (July 9,
2003).
Appeal 2011-011864
Application 11/421,872

4
The Examiner finds it obvious to “modify Hesmer-Porter with the
teachings of Abdelnur and include a URL where information is stored with
the motivation to provide the user a simpler method of retrieving
information after it has been stored” (Ans. 5).
The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence of record
support the Examiner’s conclusion that the combination of Hesmer, Porter,
and Abdelnur renders the claims obvious?
Findings of Fact
1. Hesmer teaches a method
for maintaining the form and application state of a portlet
application and corresponding portlet user interface. In
accordance with the inventive arrangements, in association
with one or more submit requests received from one or more
corresponding portlets disposed in a portal page, the state for
each other portlet in the portal page can be stored while the
corresponding portlets can be refreshed by associated portlet
applications. Once the corresponding portlets have been
refreshed, the resulting data can be applied to the portal page
as can the stored state for each other portlet in the portal
page. In this way, the state of every portlet in the portal
page can be maintained without risk of loss of data,
regardless of the focus of the portal page.

(Hesmer 1 ¶ 0011).
2. Hesmer teaches that the “system of the present invention can
include four components: a portal page setup component 210, a portlet state
save component 240, a portlet state restore component 230, and a portlet
refresh timing component 220” (Hesmer 3 ¶ 0027).
3. Hesmer teaches that in “response to the receipt of one or more
submit events generated in one or more respective portlets in a portal page,
Appeal 2011-011864
Application 11/421,872

5
the portlet state save component 240 can save the state of each portlet in the
portlet page which had not generated a submit event” (Hesmer 3 ¶ 0030).
4. Hesmer teaches that “when a composite submit request is
received from the client content browser, the portlet state save component
240 can save the value of any fields in any forms for all portlets except for
the portlets which had generated the submit events” (Hesmer 3 ¶ 0030).
5. Porter teaches that a “‘single click’ icon is employed to
facilitate saving a copy of the current information page being browsed for a
user. The saving is accomplished without requiring further interaction with
the user” (Porter, abstract).
6. Porter teaches that
“Single click” icon 106 enables the user to save a copy of
the current information page being browsed on client 100
with a single click of the icon. Unlike the prior art “save”
command, further interaction with the user is not required.
“Remote save” mechanism 108 automatic retrieves one or
more information pages in accordance with one or more user
specified criteria, and saves the retrieved information pages
in a remote repository. The information pages are retrieved
and saved without requiring them to be first downloaded to
the user’s system.

(Porter, col. 3, ll. 38-48).
7. Abdelnur teaches that as “part of its content, a portlet may need
to create URLs that reference the portlet itself. For example, when a user
acts on a URL that references a portlet (i.e., by clicking a link or submitting
a form) the result is a new client request to the portal targeted to the portlet.
Those URLs are called portlet URLs” (Abdelnur 33, ll. 3-6).
Appeal 2011-011864
Application 11/421,872

6
8. Abdelnur teaches that a “portlet URL can include a specific
portlet mode (see ### Portlet Modes Chapter) or window state (see ###
Window States Chapter). The PortletURL interface has the
setWindowState and setPortletMode methods for setting the portlet
mode and window state in the portlet URL” (Abdelnur 34, ll. 15-18).
9. Abdelnur teaches that “portals provide controls to change the
portlet mode and the window state of portlets. The URLs these controls use
are generated by the portal. Client requests triggered by those URLs must
be treated as render URLs and the existing render parameters must be
preserved” (Abdelnur 45, ll. 25-28).
10. Abdelnur teaches that:
The portal/portlet-container implementation may add extra
parameters to portlet URLs to help the portal/portlet-
container route and process client requests. Extra
parameters used by the portal/portlet-container must be
invisible to the portlets receiving the request. It is the
responsibility of the portal/portlet-container to properly
encode these extra parameters to avoid name collisions with
parameters the portlets define.

(Abdelnur 46, ll. 17-23).
11. Abdelnur teaches that:
The getRemoteUser method returns the user name the
client used for authentication. The isUserInRole method
determines if a remote user is in a specified security role.
The getUserPrincipal method determines the principal
name of the current user and returns a java.security.
Principal object. These APIs allow portlets to make
business logic decisions based on the information obtained.

(Abdelnur 77).
Appeal 2011-011864
Application 11/421,872

7
Principles of Law
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). “If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its
patentability.” Id. at 417. As noted by the Court in KSR, “[a] person of
ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id.at
421.
Analysis
Claim 13
Hesmer teaches “maintaining the form and application state of a
portlet application and corresponding portlet user interface” (Hesmer 1 ¶
0011; FF 1) where in “response to receipt of one or more submit events . . .
the portlet save component 240 can save the state of each portlet in the
portlet page which had not generated a submit event” (Hesmer 3 ¶ 0030; FF
3). Hesmer does not teach saving the portlet generating the “submit request”
itself, nor does Hesmer teach the use of URL-generating code for storage.
Porter teaches saving web information and “saves the retrieved
information pages in a remote repository” (Porter, col. 3, ll. 45-46; FF 6).
Abdelnur teaches portlets which generate URLs which reference the portlet
itself (FF 7) where the URLs are generated by the portal and made available
to a user (FF 9-10).
Applying the KSR standard of obviousness to the findings of fact, we
agree with the Examiner that an ordinary artisan would have reasonably
found it obvious to “modify Hesmer with the teachings of Porter and include
Appeal 2011-011864
Application 11/421,872

8
the ability to save the state of the portal with the motivation to allow the user
to have an easier way of retrieving information that has been entered” (Ans.
4). We further agree with the Examiner’s finding it obvious to incorporate
the “teachings of Abdelnur and include a URL where information is stored
with the motivation to provide the user a simpler method of retrieving
information after it has been stored” (Ans. 5). Such a combination is merely
a “predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
functions.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Appellants contend that “Hesmer does not teach receiving a command
to preserve the contents of a target portlet” (App. Br. 5). Appellants contend
that “Hesmer does not teach responding to the submit action by storing the
contents of a specific target portlet appearing on a web page. A target
portlet is already stored in a temporary storage location in a portal server and
is not moved to any other storage location when a submit action occurs”
(App. Br. 5).
We do not find Appellants’ argument persuasive because it is based
solely on Hesmer’s disclosure without incorporating the teachings of Porter
and the knowledge of the ordinary artisan. Appellants focus on the narrow
teaching by Hesmer of a “submit command” rather than recognizing that the
ordinary artisan, motivated by Porter to save web pages being browsed by a
user (FF 5) would have, therefore, combined this desire with Hesmer’s
portlet save system to further save the information of the target portlet on the
web page being browsed.
Appellants contend that if “a user is not aware of an action that occurs
within a portal server and has no reason to request the action, it cannot be
Appeal 2011-011864
Application 11/421,872

9
said to be obvious to modify the user’s system to make that action part of the
user interface and then require that the action be initiated by the user” (App.
Br. 6).
We are not persuaded. The ordinary artisan motivated by Porter to
save the entire web page (FF 6) would necessarily be interested in saving
significant subportions of the web page such as the target portlets to avoid
the risk of loss of data (FF 1), whether the user was specifically aware of the
target portlet or not. The ordinary artisan would have recognized that
normal web page users are unaware of many of the software components
supporting user access to specific web pages, but this would not have
negated the interest of a user in saving the entire web page and associated
software and data, including portlets, to permit the user to return to the
webpage in the desired state.
Appellants contend that “nothing can be found at the referenced
location within Abdelnur that can reasonably be interpreted as a teaching
that the generated URL identifies a storage location at which portlet contents
are preserved. For one thing, there is no discussion in Abdelnur of
preserving portlet contents” (App. Br. 6).
We are not persuaded. We agree with the Examiner that it is the
combination of Hesmer, Porter, and Abdelnur, which renders the preserving
a portlet’s contents obvious, not Abdelnur alone. Abdelnur teaches that one
way of accessing portlet information is by generating a URL for the portlet
itself, which will necessarily refer to the location of the portlet for receipt
and availability by a user (FF 7-10). In combination with Hesmer’s teaching
to store portlet data (FF 1) and Porter’s teaching to save web pages (FF 5),
Appeal 2011-011864
Application 11/421,872

10
we agree with the Examiner that “it would be obvious to implement
Abdelnur’s URL link on Hesmer’s web portel form in order to give users
access to the saved content” (Ans. 8). That is, it is the teachings of the
combination of references which renders this element obvious to the
ordinary artisan, not Abdelnur alone.
Claims 16, 22, and 25
The Examiner finds that “Hesmer-Porter-Abdelnur teaches a method
according to claim 13 wherein the contents of said target portlet that are to
be preserved include both the current contents and one or more preceding
content states. (Hesmer paragraph 30)” (Ans. 5).
Appellants contend that “[n]o language can be found in Hesmer’s
paragraph [0030] that teaches that both current contents and previously
existing contents of a target portlet are preserved” (App. Br. 7).
We find that Appellants have the better position. The Examiner does
not explain where paragraph 30 of Hesmer actually teaches preserving both
a current content state and at least one preceding content state, nor does the
Examiner explain why this would have been obvious in light of the
combination of Hesmer, Porter, and Abdelnur.
Claims 17, 23, and 29
The Examiner finds that the prior art suggests “authenticating said
requesting user before granting access to the content stored at a location
identified by the generated URL. (See Hesmer Pages 77-79)” (Ans. 5).
Appellants correctly note that the reference to pages 77-79 of Hesmer
must be in error, since Hesmer is only 6 pages in length, and address the
teachings of Abdelnur at pages 77-79 (see App. Br. 7). Appellants contend
Appeal 2011-011864
Application 11/421,872

11
that “[n]othing was found on those pages that could be construed as teaching
that a user requesting access to preserved portlet content must be
authenticated unless the user requested the preservation to begin with” (App.
Br. 7).
We find that the Examiner has the better position. Abdelnur teaches
the use of security authentication for portlets, and in particular teaches a
method which “determines if a remote user is in a specified security role”
(Abdelnur 77; FF 11). The ordinary artisan would have found it obvious to
incorporate security features such as user authentication into the portlet
storage method of Hesmer, Porter, and Abdelnur where the ordinary user
deemed such security to be desirable.
Claims 18, 24, and 30
The Examiner finds it “inherent in Abdelnur that information is first
stored in RAM and registers and then [it’s] moved to hard drive storage, the
claim does not require a specific predetermined amount of time, but any
predetermined time” (Ans. 5-6).
Appellants contend that the “problem with this position is that RAM
storage does not meet the requirements for a storage resource location as
recited in claim 13. Claim 13 clearly recites that a URL identifies the
storage resource location. A URL would not be used to identify temporary
RAM storage” (App. Br. 7).
We find that Appellants have the better position. We agree with
Appellants argument that a URL would not normally be used to identify
RAM storage and we agree that “claim 13 requires that the preserved portlet
content be available for later use by one or more users, including the user
Appeal 2011-011864
Application 11/421,872

12
who originally requested preservation of the portlet contents. Storage of
portlet contents in RAM would not allow the portlet contents to be available
to more than one user” (App. Br. 8).
Conclusion of Law
The evidence of record support the Examiner’s conclusion that the
combination of Hesmer, Porter, and Abdelnur renders claims 13, 17, 19, 23,
25 and 29 obvious.
The evidence of record does not support the Examiner’s conclusion
that the combination of Hesmer, Porter, and Abdelnur renders claims 16, 18,
22, 24, 28, and 30 obvious.
SUMMARY
In summary, we affirm the rejection of claims 13, 17, 19, 23, 25 and
29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Hesmer, Porter, and Abdelnur.
We reverse the rejection of claims 16, 18, 22, 24, 28, and 30 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Hesmer, Porter, and Abdelnur.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
lp