Ex Parte King et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 26, 2010

10120035 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 26, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte JULIE H. KING,
SUSAN D. KIRKMAN, and STEVEN W. POGUE
____________
Appeal 2008-002716
Application 10/120,0351
Technology Center 2100
____________
Decided: April 26, 2010
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JEAN R. HOMERE, and JAY P. LUCAS,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Filed on April 10, 2002. The real party in interest is International Business
Machines Corp. (App. Br. 1.)
Appeal 2008-002716
Application 10/120,035

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, and 7 through 15. (App. Br. 1.)2
Claims 2, 4, and 6 have been cancelled. (Claims App’x.) We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2008).
We affirm.
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants invented a method, system, and computer program product
for programmatically generating a style sheet document for use when
rendering a collection of legacy host data values. (Spec. 1, ll. 5-8.)
According to Appellants, the claimed invention provides an improved user
interface technique, which allows users to interact with legacy host
applications. (Id. at 7, ll. 19-20; Id. at 8, ll. 1-2.)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention as follows:
1. A method for programmatically generating a presentation style
for legacy host data, comprising steps of:
identifying a mapping associated with a particular legacy host
screen, where the identified mapping stores presentation style
information for the particular legacy host screen;
programmatically extracting the stored presentation style
information from the identified mapping;
programmatically formatting the extracted presentation style
information as style information for the particular legacy host screen;
storing the style information for the particular legacy host
screen in a repository;

2 All references to the Appeal Brief are to the Appeal Brief filed on June 14,
2007, which replaced the prior Appeal Brief filed on March 26, 2007.

Appeal 2008-002716
Application 10/120,035

3
obtaining a set of data values for the particular legacy host
screen, along with an identification of the mapping associated with the
particular legacy host screen;
retrieving the stored style information from the repository using
the identification of the mapping; and
programmatically creating a rendering of the particular legacy
host screen by applying the retrieved style to the obtained set of data
values;
wherein the style information is programmatically formatted as
elements of a style sheet;
wherein the style sheet is a default style sheet, the method
further comprising the step of modifying one or more of the format
elements of the default style sheet, wherein the modifying step is
performed by a user of the created rendering of the particular legacy
host screen.

Prior Art Relied Upon
The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of
unpatentability:
Foulkes 6,519,643 B1 Feb. 11, 2003
Walsh 6,810,429 B1 Oct. 26, 2004

Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 7 through 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Foulkes and Walsh.
Appellants’ Contentions
Appellants contend that Walsh’s disclosure of modifying information
presented in Extensible Markup Language (“XML”) documents does not
teach “modifying one or more of the format elements of the default style
sheet, wherein the modifying step is performed by a user of the created
rendering of the particular legacy host screen,” as recited in independent
Appeal 2008-002716
Application 10/120,035

4
claim 1. (App. Br. 5-6.) Further, Appellants argue that Walsh teaches away
from a user modifying the format elements of an Extensible Style Sheet
Language (“XSL”) style sheet because Walsh discloses uniformity among
user interfaces. (Id. at 6.) Additionally, Appellants allege that modifying
one or more elements of an XSL style sheet cannot be an obvious variation
yielding predictable results since modifying the elements of an XSL style
sheet would render Walsh inoperable for its intended purpose. (Reply Br.
3-4.)
Examiner’s Findings and Conclusions
The Examiner finds that Walsh discloses a user interface for
modifying XML documents, whereby the user interface employs an XSL
style sheet. (Ans. 9-10.) In particular, the Examiner finds that an ordinarily
skilled artisan would recognize that Walsh’s user interface is capable of
modifying the XSL style sheet. (Id. at 10.) Further, the Examiner finds that
Walsh’s disclosure of uniformity among user interfaces is immaterial since
an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand that utilizing Walsh’s user
interface to modify the XSL style sheet is an obvious variation that yields
predictable results. (Id. at 10-11.)

II. ISSUE
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that the
combination of Foulkes and Walsh renders independent claim 1
unpatentable? In particular, the issue turns on whether:
(a) the proffered combination teaches “modifying one or more of
the format elements of the default style sheet, wherein the modifying step is
Appeal 2008-002716
Application 10/120,035

5
performed by a user of the created rendering of the particular legacy host
screen,” as recited in independent claim 1; and
(b) Walsh’s disclosure of uniformity among user interfaces teaches
away from “modifying one or more of the format elements of the default
style sheet,” as recited in independent claim 1.

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (“FF”) are shown by a preponderance
of the evidence.
Walsh
1. Walsh generally relates to computer applications, databases,
and interfaces and, in particular, “to integrating applications, databases, and
interfaces having different formats, contexts, and designs.” (Col. 1, ll. 6-9.)
2. Walsh’s Background of the Invention section discloses that
“[u]ser interfaces to the databases need to be uniform.” (Col. 2, ll. 60-61.)
However, Walsh proceeds to disclose that “[t]he ideal enterprise integration
system should be capable of adapting to any number of computerized
functions in a modern complex enterprise.” (Id. at ll. 64-67.)
3. Walsh’s Figure 1b depicts an integrated enterprise system that
includes a back-end interface (110), a front-end interface (120), a middle tier
(130), and design tools (140). (Col. 4, ll. 6-9.) In particular, Walsh
discloses that the front-end interface presents information to users (103)
utilizing standard presentation methodologies. (Id. at ll. 22-23.) Further,
Walsh discloses that the front-end interface (120) allows potential users to
modify information. (Id. at ll. 24-26.) Additionally, Walsh discloses that
Appeal 2008-002716
Application 10/120,035

6
the front-end interface (120) is capable of being modified in order to meet
the changing requirements of an enterprise. (Id. at ll. 26-27.)
4. Walsh discloses that the front-end interface (120) utilizes
Hypertext Markup Language (“HTML”), web pages, and web forms to
display information to users. (Col. 7, ll. 35-36.) In order to format the XML
documents retrieved by mobile agents from various data sources, the front-
end servlet (123) converts the XML documents to an HTML page using a
style sheet (126). (Id. at ll. 36-41.) Walsh discloses that an example of the
style sheet (126) is an XSL style sheet. (Id. at 41-42.) Further, Walsh
discloses that the front-end servlet (123) applies the style sheet (126) by
recognizing and replacing certain data from the XML document and
converting the data to HTML form. (Id. at ll. 44-46.)

IV. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Obviousness
“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection [under
§ 103] by showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by
rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of
nonobviousness.” In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
(citation omitted).
Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when “the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are
such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at
the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in
the art to which said subject matter pertains.”

KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007).
Appeal 2008-002716
Application 10/120,035

7
In KSR, the Supreme Court emphasized “the need for caution in
granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior
art,” and discussed circumstances in which a patent might be determined to
be obvious. Id. at 415 (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 12
(1966)). The Court reaffirmed principles based on its precedent that “[t]he
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” Id. at 416.
The operative question in this “functional approach” is thus “whether the
improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according
to their established functions.” Id. at 415, 417.
Teaching Away
“What the prior art teaches and whether it teaches toward or away
from the claimed invention … is a determination of fact.” Para-Ordnance
Mfg., Inc. v. SGS Importers Int'l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
“A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill,
upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path
set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the
path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed.
Cir. 1994). Teaching an alternative or equivalent method, however, does not
teach away from the use of a claimed method. In re Dunn, 349 F.2d 433,
438 (CCPA 1965).

V. ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “modifying one or more
of the format elements of the default style sheet, wherein the modifying step
Appeal 2008-002716
Application 10/120,035

8
is performed by a user of the created rendering of the particular legacy host
screen.”
As detailed in the Findings of Fact section, Walsh discloses
integrating applications, databases, and interfaces having different formats,
contexts, and designs. (FF 1.) In particular, Walsh discloses an integrated
enterprise system that utilizes a front-end interface to present information to
users. (FF 3.) Walsh discloses that the front-end interface is capable of
being modified in order to meet the changing requirements of each user.
(Id.) Further, Walsh discloses that the front-end interface displays
information to users by utilizing mobile agents to retrieve requested XML
documents from various data sources. (FF 4.) The front-end servlet utilizes
an XSL style sheet to convert the requested XML documents into HTML
pages. (Id.)
We find that Walsh’s disclosure teaches an interface that displays
information to prospective users utilizing an XSL style sheet that converts
XML documents into HTML pages. We also find that the interface is
capable of being modified in order to meet the changing requirements of
prospective users. In summary, we find that an ordinarily skilled artisan
would appreciate that prospective users may utilize Walsh’s interface to
modify one or more format elements of an XSL style sheet. Thus, we find
that Walsh’s cited disclosure teaches “modifying one or more of the format
elements of the default style sheet, wherein the modifying step is performed
by a user of the created rendering of the particular legacy host screen,” as
recited in independent claim 1.
Further, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Walsh’s
disclosure of uniformity among user interfaces teaches away from
Appeal 2008-002716
Application 10/120,035

9
“modifying one or more of the format elements of the default style sheet,” as
recited in independent claim 1. (App. Br. 6.) As set forth above, we find
that Walsh’s disclosure teaches utilizing an interface to modify one or more
formats elements of an XSL style sheet. Appellants’ reference to Walsh’s
Background of the Invention section, whereby Walsh discloses uniformity
among user interfaces (FF 2), does not indicate that Walsh’s interface is
incapable of modifying one or more format elements of an XSL style sheet.
Further, Appellants have not pointed to an explicit disclosure within Walsh
stating that the interface cannot modify one or more format elements of an
XSL style sheet. Instead, Walsh’s disclosure of utilizing an interface to
modify one or more format elements of an XSL style sheet is an alternative
or equivalent teaching to modifying one or more of the format elements of a
default style sheet. Therefore, Appellants have not shown that Walsh’s
disclosure of an interface that is capable of modifying one or more format
elements of an XSL style sheet teaches away from “modifying one or more
of the format elements of the default style sheet,” as recited in independent
claim 1. It follows that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred
in concluding that the combination of Foulkes and Walsh renders
independent claim 1 unpatentable.
Claims 3, 5, 7 through 9, and 12 through 15
Appellants do not provide separate arguments for patentability with
respect to independent claims 14 and 15, and dependent claims 3, 5, 7
through 9, 12, and 13. Therefore, we select independent claim 1 as
representative of the cited claims. Consequently, Appellants have not shown
error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 14 and 15, and
dependent claims 3, 5, 7 through 9, 12, and 13, for the reasons set forth in
Appeal 2008-002716
Application 10/120,035

10
our discussion of independent claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)
(2009).
Claims 10 and 11
Appellants contend that Walsh’s disclosure of modifying the front-end
interface to meet the changing requirements of an enterprise amounts to
allowing a user to modify the presented information and, therefore, does not
teach modifying a style sheet for a particular recipient. (App. Br. 7-8.)
Further, Appellants argue that Walsh disclosure of uniformity among user
interfaces teaches away from modifying or adding an element to a style
sheet in order to tailor the style sheet for a particular recipient. (Id.) Thus,
Appellants allege that Walsh does not teach “the modified elements tailor
the style sheet for a particular recipient,” and “added elements tailor the style
sheet for a particular recipient,” as recited in dependent claims 10 and 11.
(Id.) We do not agree.
As set forth above, we find that Walsh’s disclosure teaches that
prospective users may utilize the front-end interface to modify one or more
format elements of an XSL style sheet. Consequently, we find that Walsh’s
disclosure teaches modifying or tailoring the XSL style sheet for a particular
recipient. Thus, we find that Walsh’s disclosure teaches “the modified
elements tailor the style sheet for a particular recipient,” and “added
elements tailor the style sheet for a particular recipient,” as recited in
dependent claims 10 and 11.
Further, as set forth above, we are not persuaded by Appellants’
argument that Walsh’s disclosure of uniformity among user interfaces
teaches away from modifying or tailoring one or more elements of a style
sheet, let alone modifying or tailoring one or more elements of a style sheet
Appeal 2008-002716
Application 10/120,035

11
for a particular recipient. See supra disc. at 8-9. It follows that Appellants
have not shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that the combination
of Foulkes and Walsh renders dependent claims 10 and 11 unpatentable.

VI. CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1, 3, 5, and 7 through 15 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

VII. DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3, 5, and 7
through 15.
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

Vsh

IBM CORPORATION
3039 CORNWALL RD.
DEPT. T81 / B503, PO BOX 12195
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27709