Ex Parte Krause

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 20, 2009

10176634 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 20, 2009)

1

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte PHILIP R KRAUSE
____________________

Appeal 2009-004769
Application 10/176,6341
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Decided: November 20, 2009
____________________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, JAY P. LUCAS, and CAROLYN D.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

LUCAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals from a final rejection of claims 32 to 55 under
authority of 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Claims 1 to 31 are cancelled. The Board of

1 Application filed June 24, 2002. Appellant claims the benefit under
35 U.S.C. § 119 of provisional application 60/299,749, filed June 22, 2001.
The real party in interest is the inventor.
Appeal 2009-004769
Application 10/176,634

2
Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) has jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An Oral Hearing was held on November 17, 2009.

Appellant’s invention relates to a method and apparatus for
consolidating the content of multiple web pages from across the Internet into
images displayed on a single screen. In the words of Appellant:
Users of the Internet have only minimal control over the
contents of their start page or portal page. Unless they have
skill in the art of HTML and Javascript programming and can
develop a start/portal page that contains precisely the elements
that they desire, and have access to a web server that can make
this page available to them regardless of what computer they
choose to use to access the Internet, the start/portal page that is
available to most users does not fulfill the needs of the users.
(Spec. [0005]).
A method and apparatus for consolidating network information,
in some cases for use as a start/portal page. The invention
provides means for ''framing" Internet content, as well as
creating links on the fly, to a single start/portal page that can be
accessed by a single user, or by a set of users in a cooperative
relationship with each other.
(Abstract).

Claim 32 is exemplary:

32. A computer-implemented method of adding an indicator of network-
accessible information to a network-accessible display page, comprising:
a) storing information specifying the content of said display page on
computer readable storage media accessible to a server computer at a
first network location;
b) in response to user action at a client computer at a second network
location, said client computer having access to said computer readable
storage media of step (a) only via a computer network, and said user
action comprising navigating a network browser to a web page served
Appeal 2009-004769
Application 10/176,634

3
from a third network location:
i. obtaining via a computer network, by a server computer with
access to said computer-readable storage media of step (a),
from said client computer at said second network location,
information specifying said display page;
ii. obtaining via a computer network, by a server computer with
access to said computer-readable storage media of step (a),
from said client computer at said second network location,
information sufficient to determine the network address of said
web page;
iii. in computer-readable storage media accessible to said server
computer of step (i), storing information sufficient to associate
network address determining information for said web page
with said display page; and
iv. in computer-readable storage media accessible to said server
computer of step (i), storing information sufficient to associate
a visual indicator for display on said display page with network
address determining information for said web page;
c) using a server computer at said first network location, providing
information specifying the content of said display page, including said
visual indicator, via a computer network to a client computer at a
fourth network location; and
d) via said visual indicator on said display page, providing network
access to said third network location when said display page is
transmitted over a computer network and is displayed in a network
browser window on a computer located at said fourth network
location;
wherein said first, second, third and fourth network locations are different
from one another.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
ABDELNUR 2002/0083208 A1 June 27, 2002
(filed June 29, 1998)
FLESNER 2002/0194267 A1 Dec. 19, 2002
(filed June 22, 2001)

Appeal 2009-004769
Application 10/176,634

4
` DUPERROUZEL 6,832,355 B1 Dec. 14, 2004
(filed Jul. 28, 1998)

REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:

R1: Claims 32 to 35, 36 to 38, 40 to 45 and 47 to 55 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for being obvious over Duperrouzel in view of Abdelnur.
R2: Claims 39 and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for being
obvious over Duperrouzel in view of Abdelnur further in view of Flesner.

Groups of Claims:
Appellant has grouped the claims as follows:
Group I: Claims 32 to 38, 40 to 45, and 47 to 53.
Group II: Claim 54
Group III: Claim 55
Group IV: Claims 39 and 46
We will discuss the rejections in terms of Groups I to III (R1), and
Group IV (R2). This is consistent with Appellant’s statements about the
similarity of the arguments for claims 54 (Brief 35, middle) and 55 (Brief
47, middle) with those arguments presented for Group I.
Appellant contends that the claimed subject matter is not rendered
obvious by Duperrouzel and Abdelnur alone, or in combination with
Flesner, for failure of the combination to teach claimed limitations and for
failure of the references to be properly combined. The Examiner contends
that each of the four groups of claims is properly rejected.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for their respective details.
Appeal 2009-004769
Application 10/176,634

5
Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have been considered in
this opinion. Arguments that Appellant could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.

We affirm the rejections.
ISSUE
The issue is whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The issue turns on whether
there is a legally sufficient justification for combining the disclosures of
Duperrouzel and Abdelnur and whether the combination of teachings show a
network accessible display page to which network accessible information
may be added. Additionally, the issue for the second rejection is whether
Duperrouzel and Abdelnur can properly be combined with Flesner to teach
the multiple user multi-content display page.

FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence.
1. Appellant has invented a method and apparatus for displaying on a portal
page the contents of multiple different web pages, as selected by a user.
(Spec. ¶12, Fig. 9a). The actual locations on the screen of the different
web pages are specified by a “display page,” which also contains the
network address of the web page that will supply the content for each
window and information associating a visual indicator with the window.
(Id. at ¶¶ 55, 59, 63, Figs. 2, 4). The specifications for the display page
may be made from one location across the Internet from the server
Appeal 2009-004769
Application 10/176,634

6
hosting the display page and also across the Internet from the user
viewing the compound portal page, and the web servers supplying
content for the windows in the web page. (¶¶ 55, 76). Multiple users
from across the Internet may work on joint projects collaborating
together, with indicators distinguishing the multiple users from each
other. ( ¶¶ 28, 81).
2. The patent reference Duperrouzel teaches displaying a plurality of web
pages #212n (Fig. 2) on a single screen, fed by a plurality of web sites
across the Internet. (Fig. 1; Col. 5, ll. 8-28). The placement of the
windows on the screen is specified by the subject program, which can
size and place the windows as directed by user control. (Col. 6, ll. 62-
67). The user directs which web site from across the Internet is displayed
on his screen in each window by indicating its URL. (See Example in
Col. 12, l. 26.)
3. Patent Application Publication Abdelnur teaches, in its Example,
designing programs with portions of the program being executed on
remote servers across the Internet from the computer used by the
programmer to develop the program and the computers of the user using
the program, and the servers (remote server computer) supplying and
receiving data to and from the user authenticating his identification and
PIN number. (¶ 13). These techniques reduce the load on certain servers
so they can perform more efficiently and balance Internet loading. (¶¶ 10,
11).
4. Patent Application Publication Flesner teaches portal pages used by a
plurality of users during collaboration. (¶¶ 9, 11, 39). The contributions
Appeal 2009-004769
Application 10/176,634

7
of different groups of users are indicated on the portal pages by varying
the stylistic elements depending on the user’s group membership. (¶¶
151-155). The different windows contain the network addresses to
different documents across the Internet. (¶ 116). Various servers across
the Internet provide the functionality for the service. (¶¶ 39, 40).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Appellants have the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate
error in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86
(Fed. Cir. 2006) (“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.”) (quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355
(Fed. Cir. 1998)).
“In reviewing the [E]xaminer’s decision on appeal, the Board must
necessarily weigh all of the evidence and argument.” In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
“It is common sense that familiar items may have obvious uses
beyond their primary purposes, and a person of ordinary skill often will be
able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 402 (2007).
“A court must ask whether the improvement is more than the
predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established
functions.” Id. at 401.
In Interactive Gift we stated: “Unless the steps of a method actually
recite an order, the steps are not ordinarily construed to require one.
Appeal 2009-004769
Application 10/176,634

8
However, such a result can ensue when the method steps implicitly require
that they be performed in the order written. In this case, nothing in the claim
or the specification directly or implicitly requires such a narrow
construction.” Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d
1323, 1342-43 (Fed. Cir. 2001)(internal citations omitted).
ANALYSIS
From our review of the administrative record, we find that the
Examiner has presented a prima facie case for the rejections of Appellant’s
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) on pages 3 to 12 of the Examiner’s Answer.
In opposition, Appellant presents a number of arguments.

Arguments with respect to the rejection
of claims 32 to 35, 36 to 38, 40 to 45 and 47 to 55
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 [R1]

The Examiner has rejected the indicated claims for being obvious over
Duperrouzel in view of Abdelnur. Appellant first argues that “nothing in
Duperrouzel or Abdelnur refers to any network-accessible display page,
much less one to which network-accessible information may be added.”
(Brief 25, top). Appellant explains that Duperrouzel describes one or more
web pages accessible over a network, but that the Examiner has confused
“display page with web page.” (Id.) In the context of the Appellant’s claim
32, the display page is the “template page” at the first network location that
stores information specifying the placement of the various content items
within the screen, such content items including inter alia the network
addresses of the web pages that will be shown or accessible on the screen
and the visual indicators. (Claim 32). The Duperrouzel reference does teach
Appeal 2009-004769
Application 10/176,634

9
a template page, as can be noted in Figure 2, containing the noted allocations
of windows to the various web pages that are displayed on the screen.
Appellant argues that this is not a network-accessible display page.
The Examiner’s rejection relies on both Duperrouzel and Abdelnur.
Abdelnur teaches, in a similar Internet environment (see FF #2 and #3), the
distribution of program execution portions among various servers and
workstations connected over the Internet. (Answer 6, bottom). The
Examiner concludes that it would be obvious to access the programming in
Duperrouzel that organizes the various windows, the claimed “display
page,” from a second location across the Internet. In Abdelnur, the
programmer accesses the program in the Example from another location
across the Internet. (¶ 13). We find that the teaching of remote access is
sufficient to be applied to the basic teaching in Duperrouzel of a template
“display page” to render the claimed “network-accessible display page”
obvious over the cited prior art.
Appellant then argues that the steps in the exemplary claim 32 are not
performed by the combination of references in the correct order. (Brief 25,
middle). The claim calls for steps (i) to (iv) to be performed “after the
network browser has reached and displayed the web page served from the
third network location”. We agree with the Examiner’s reasoning that the
claim does not clearly specify the order of the occurrences. (Answer 15,
bottom.). Without that clear limitation in the claim the order will not be
given patentable significance. (See Interactive Gift Express, Inc, 256 F.3d at
1342-43.) In addition, the references teach setting up the template during
the sessions. (See Duperrouzel, col. 7, l. 45). It would have been obvious to
set up new or differently sized windows before, during and after the
Appeal 2009-004769
Application 10/176,634

10
connection, as the effect would be same on the display. We do not find error
in the Examiner’s rejection on this point.
Appellant further argues that the references do not teach the
presentation of visual indicators in each window to distinguish the windows
from each other. (Brief 25, bottom). However, Duperrouzel does teach
visual indicators associated with the display page and designed to be
displayed, the status indicators #236 that indicate when a certain page is
active. The Appellant states that this visual status indicator is different from
the indicator or the present invention (Brief 30, top), but such differences are
not distinguished in the claims over the combination of the prior art. The
status indicator is part of the “template” or display page, and thus taught in
the prior art. The Examiner has not shown error in this aspect of the
rejection.
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not properly applied the
“wherein” clause, which indicates that the first, second, third and fourth
network locations are different from one another. (Brief 30, middle). In
further explanation of his position, Appellant states that “Abdelnur does not
specify the precise distribution of tasks among network locations described
in the claims . . . .” (Brief 30, bottom). The reference Abdelnur teaches in
one example a multiple computer system linked by the Internet in which one
computer holds a program, another may be the terminal of the programmer,
a third may be supplying authentication services involving the user’s ID and
PIN number, and a fourth may be actually used by the ultimate user to
operate the system. (¶ 13). The Examiner concludes that the combined
teachings of Duperrouzel and Abdelnur would render the claims obvious
over a teaching of having one computer holding the display page, another
Appeal 2009-004769
Application 10/176,634

11
computer used by an administrator to set up the windows on the page,
another computer to supply the web content to be shown in the windows as
defined by the display page, and a fourth computer serving as a terminal for
the ultimate user or users. (See FF#3 above.) Thus the Examiner points to
Abdelur as a teaching of distributing the processing of an operation among
three or four computers, and Duperrouzel teaches the claimed operation.
The Examiner concludes that it would be obvious to distribute the
Duperrouzel operation among four computers, as Abdelur teaches such a
distribution of an analogous operation among such a group of networked
computers. On consideration, we decline to find error in that conclusion.

Arguments with respect to the rejection
of claims 39 and 46
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 [R2]

The Examiner has rejected claims 39 and 46 for being obvious over
Duperrouzel and Abdelnur further in view of Flesner. Flesner adds to the
teachings of the primary references that the visual indicator distinguishes the
windows of different users by employing visual distinguishing
characteristics. (See ¶ 151; FF#4 above). Flesner uses such appearance
elements as font and color to distinguish the different users. (¶ 86).
Appellant argues that the references should not be combined as they
are not from analogous arts: Duperrouzel and Abdelnur do not envision
multiple users, while Flesner does. Both the references Duperrouzel and
Flesner encompass a portal page using the Internet to bring together various
web pages from diverse servers. Abdelnur teaches multiple servers bringing
Appeal 2009-004769
Application 10/176,634

12
programming services and data to a user. We find that these various
references are analogous to the distributed processing portal page system of
the Appellant, and the teachings may be properly combined. As such, we
find that the combination renders the claims obvious under the rejection.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 32 to 55.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection R1 and R2 of claims 32 to 55 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

erc

PHILIP R KRAUSE
8217 Lochinver Lane
Potomac MD 20854