Ex Parte Malks et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 8, 2017

14301880 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 8, 2017)

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.
14/301,880 06/11/2014 Daniel Malks 109_016 8877
23400 7590 08/10/2017
POSZ LAW GROUP, PLC
12040 SOUTH LAKES DRIVE
SUITE 101
RESTON, VA 20191
EXAMINER
CASILLAS, ROLAND J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2141
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/10/2017 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):
mailbox@poszlaw.com
dposz@poszlaw.com
tvarndell @ poszlaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DANIEL MALKS, KARTHIC THOPE, and JOHN CRUPI
Appeal 2017-004754
Application 14/301,880
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 19-33. Claims 1—18 were cancelled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 19 under appeal reads as follows:
19. An apparatus, comprising:
a memory; and
a processor cooperatively operable with the memory, and
programmed to, based on instructions stored in the memory,
Appeal 2017-004754
Application 14/301,880
implement mashup dashboard creation functionality including
multiple levels of configuration functionality, preparation
functionality, and assembly and delivery functionality, wherein
implementing a first level of the multiple levels of
configuration functionality includes the processor obtaining
system configuration data specifying visualization and
functional defaults for created mashup dashboards;
implementing a second level of the multiple levels of
configuration functionality includes the processor obtaining at
least one user dashboard, and assembling bundles of visual and
functional data objects, which have been selected and grouped
by a separate dashboard configuration component;
implementing the preparation functionality includes the
processor:
obtaining selected informational data from each mashup
dashboard in a plurality of mashup dashboards that have been
previously created by a separate dashboard designing
component that is independent of the multiple levels of
configuration functionality and the separate dashboard
configuration component, and
combining the selected informational data with the at
least one user dashboard; and
implementing the assembly and delivery functionality
includes the processor:
applying results of the multiple levels of configuration
functionality and the preparation functionality with stored
styling themes to produce at least one deliverable dashboard,
and
delivering the at least one deliverable dashboard to a
user.
2
Appeal 2017-004754
Application 14/301,880
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 19-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
being anticipated by Louch (US 2008/0034314 Al, published Feb. 7, 2008).1
Appellants ’ Contentions
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) because:
[T]he behavioral and visual defaults described in independent
claim 1 act as configuration data that provides defaults for any
mashup dashboard delivered by the apparatus; not just a
particular mashup dashboard. Stated another way, the
construction engine disclosed in Louch may store parameters
related to the display of a single widget dashboard or a single
group of widget dashboards, but the reference does not disclose
storing rules and parameters as configuration data specifying
defaults that govern all created dashboards.
App. Br. 19, Appellants’ emphasis omitted, panel’s emphasis added; see
also Reply Br. 2—3.
2. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) because:
[Paragraph 169 of Louch] merely refers to a user
downloading widgets from an external source such that one or
more of the widgets can be used in an individual widget
dashboard. The [paragraph] does not at all describe 1)
assembling bundles of data objects 2) which have been selected
and grouped by a separate dashboard configuration
component. Downloading a “package of widgets” is simply not
equivalent to being “selected and grouped by a separate
1 The patentability of claims 20—33 is not separately argued from that of
claim 19. See App. Br. 13—14, 24. Thus, except for our ultimate decision,
claims 20—33 are not discussed further herein. Claims 30-33 were also
objected to because of an informality. This objection is not before us.
3
Appeal 2017-004754
Application 14/301,880
dashboard configuration component.” That is, there is no
disclosure that the packaged widgets are assembled by a
configuration component in the system. The widgets are better
characterized as being available from a remote source.
. . . [Paragraphs 172-174 merely describe that a user can
select a particular widget, during dashboard construction of a
particular dashboard, where the widget is characterized by a
particular theme, class, or digital media association. These
paragraphs do not in any way describe bundling widgets
according to any characteristic, nor do they describe that these
characteristics act as configuration data for all created
dashboards.
App. Br. 20-21, Appellants’ emphasis omitted, panel’s emphasis added; see
also Reply Br. 4—5.
3. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) because:
[T]he language in the independent claims relate to the
preparation functionality describing obtaining selected
“informational data.” [Paragraphs 186, 188, and 189 of Louch]
cited in the final action merely describe selecting a widget
dashboard itself. The independent claims further describe
selecting data from each of a plurality of mashup dashboards
that are previously created. Louch merely discloses selecting
data from only checked dashboards. Lastly, it is not clear at all
that the dashboards described in Louch at paragraphs 186, 188,
and 189 are received from a separate designing component that
is independent of the multiple levels of configuration
functionality and the separate dashboard configuration
component.
App. Br. 22, Appellants’ emphasis omitted, panel’s emphasis added; see
also Reply Br. 5—6.
4. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) because:
4
Appeal 2017-004754
Application 14/301,880
[A]t a base level, there are differences between the widgets
disclosed in Louch and the mashups described in the claimed
embodiments. A mashup is commonly known as a web page, or
web application, that uses content from more than one source to
create a single new service displayed in a single graphical
interface. Paragraph 99 of the current written description states
that a “mashup” is “defined as a software application that
combines preexisting components from one or more
information-providing services into a single tool which can
comprise a server-side and a client-side application, the
components used by the mash-up being visually presented to a
user on a display at the client side in a manner which is different
from the pre-determined presentation of the information
providing service.”. . . In contrast, a “widget” is commonly
known as a small software application, with limited
functionality, each widget presenting data from a single source,
which can be installed and executed within a web page by an end
user.
Thus, a “mashup dashboard” of the present independent
claims may be directed to a single interface, real-time graphical
summary of information in the form of a web application that
obtains content from multiple sources, and that provides visual
information and functional services obtained from the plurality
of sources. In contrast to a mashup dashboard, a widget
dashboard would simply present widget applications, each
application showing data from a single source.
App. Br. 23—24, Appellants’ emphasis omitted, panel’s emphasis added; see
also Reply Br. 6—8.
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 19 as being anticipated?
5
Appeal 2017-004754
Application 14/301,880
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. We adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which the appeal is taken (Final Act. 2—14),
and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer
(Ans. 2—9) in response to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We add the following.
As to Appellants’ above contention 4, even assuming arguendo that
the broadest reasonable interpretation of “mashup” is a web page, or web
application, that uses content from more than one source to create a single
new service displayed in a single graphical interface, Appellants fail to cite
any portion of Louch that expressly describes that a widget is limited to
presenting data from a single source, as argued by Appellants. Louch
broadly defines a “widget” as a user interface element that includes
information and one or more tools to perform tasks, including, without
limitation, communicating with a remote server to provide information to a
user. See Louch 119, emphasis added. Thus, we agree with the Examiner
that Louch’s widget dashboard teaches the claimed “mashup dashboard.”
Accordingly, we conclude the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim
19. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1).
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 19—33 as being
anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).
6
Appeal 2017-004754
Application 14/301,880
(2) Claims 19—33 are not patentable.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 19—33 as being
anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).
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).
AFFIRMED
7