Ex Parte Porter

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 16, 2010

10900889 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 16, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte KEVIN L. PORTER
__________

Appeal 2009-006057
Application 10/900,889
Technology Center 2100
__________

Decided: April 16, 2010
__________

Before LEE E. BARRETT, STEPHEN C. SIU, and
DEBRA K. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2009-006057
Application 10/900,889

2
Invention
The invention relates to displaying network properties in a graphical
user interface (Spec. 1, ¶ [0001]).
Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for displaying network information,
comprising:
displaying in a first portion of a graphical user interface
one or more graphical components representing network
entities;
providing in a second portion of the graphical user
interface an embedded Web browser;
detecting a selection of one of the graphical components;
communicating a reference to a network entity
corresponding to the selected graphical component from
the first portion of the graphical user interface to the
embedded Web browser in response to the selection;
in response to the reference to the network entity,
connecting, by the embedded Web browser, to the
network entity corresponding to the selected
graphical component; and
retrieving, by the embedded Web browser,
browser-compatible data from the network entity
corresponding to the selected graphical
component; and
rendering the browser-compatible data in the Web
embedded browser.
Appeal 2009-006057
Application 10/900,889

3
References
The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence in
support of the rejections:
Ludovici US 6,567,849 B2 May 20, 2003
Beaudoin US 2003/0112958 A1 Jun. 19, 2003
Goldschmidt US 2006/0181531 A1 Aug. 17, 2006
(continuation of application 09/905,306, filed on Jul. 13, 2001)
Rejection
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ludovici, Beaudoin, and Goldschmidt.
ISSUES
Issue 1
The Examiner finds that “Goldschmidt teaches . . . displaying in a
second embedded browser window . . . and overview window” (Ans. 3).
Appellant argues that “[t]here is no apparent indication or suggestion
in Goldschmidt’s description of the overview window 502 being an
embedded web browser” (App. Br. 7).
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Goldschmidt would have
taught or suggested an embedded web browser in a second portion of a
graphical user interface?
Issue 2
The Examiner finds that “Ludovici teaches developing a connection
between a network entity selection window and a browser window”
(Ans. 5).
Appeal 2009-006057
Application 10/900,889

4
Appellant argues that “Ludovici appears to teach a single web browser
GUI [graphical user interface], with no apparent suggestion of any first
portion of a GUI that would communicate to the single web browser GUI a
reference to a network entity that was selected in that first portion” (App.
Br. 8).
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Goldschmidt, Beaudoin,
and Ludovici would have taught or suggested, in response to selection of a
network entity in a first portion of a graphical user interface, communicating
a network entity reference corresponding to a selected graphical component
in a first portion of a graphical user interface to an embedded web browser
in a second portion of the graphical user interface?
Issue 3
The Examiner finds Goldschmidt “teaches the steps of connecting to
. . . network entities and retrieving network data . . . and . . . retrieving data
specific to graphical components” (Ans. 26). The Examiner relies on
Beaudoin and Ludovici to teach use of a reference for display limited to a
single network entity and “establishing a connection with the actual
‘network entity’” (id.).
Appellant argues that their claimed “‘connecting’ and ‘retrieving’ . . .
steps . . . should not be considered separately” (App. Br. 9). Appellant
further argues that “there is no apparent suggestion by Beaudoin of
connecting an embedded Web browser to a network entity and retrieving the
Appeal 2009-006057
Application 10/900,889

5
browser-compatible data from the network entity by the embedded Web
browser” (App. Br. 10).
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Goldschmidt, Beaudoin,
and Ludovici would have taught or suggested, in response to a reference
corresponding to a network entity selected in a first portion of a graphical
user interface, connecting, by an embedded web browser in a second portion
of a graphical user interface, to the corresponding network entity and
retrieving browser-compatible data from the network entity?
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
1. Goldschmidt teaches “an application window 106A . . . wherein [a]
requested graphic display is plotted” (¶ [0031]), where the graphic
display is a rendering of a network topology (¶ [0030]).
2. Goldschmidt’s depicted “overview window 502 presents a view of
a circular arrangement for the entire network topology” (¶ [0054]),
where network topology information is transmitted in a markup
language from a server (fig. 2A) to a client (fig. 2B) for plotting
(fig. 3).
3. Goldschmidt teaches that a “request can be in the form of a HTTP
(Hypertext Transfer Protocol) request generated based on a URL
(Uniform Resource Locator)” (¶ [0030]), where “[t]he URL is used
Appeal 2009-006057
Application 10/900,889

6
to access a CGI (Common Gateway Interface) application stored
and executing on a server” (id.).
4. Goldschmidt teaches a “[p]opup menu 504 [that] depicts functions
that facilitate the retrieval of data from a data source, such as
database 110 (FIG. 1); opening a separate window, such as
window 506; returning the data in a suitable format, such as
HTML or XML [extensible markup language]; and displaying the
information in the window 506” (¶ [0051]).
5. Goldschmidt teaches “chang[ing] the display, upon a user double-
clicking the left button of a computer mouse or similar pointer
device on the graphical image, such that the focus entity of the
plotted display is the graphical image which was double-clicked”
(¶ [0050]).
6. Beaudoin teaches that “selected groups 52 can be displayed as the
target information subset 40 in a resource browser window (not
shown) on the GUI 12. The network manager can then select the
node 20 of interest, indicated as MGG001, from the resource
browser window for corresponding display in a management view
window 48” (¶ [0042]).
7. Ludovici teaches a “[t]asks page 334 [that] is the home page for
*ADMIN server 310, and provides links to first page 336 of ICS
[internet connection server] configuration and administration, first
page 338 of DCM [digital certificate manager] configuration and
Appeal 2009-006057
Application 10/900,889

7
administration, and first page 340 of firewall configuration and
administration” (col. 22, ll. 47-51).
8. Ludovici teaches that “first page 360 of ICS configuration and
administration 336 . . . . is brought up at a browser 304 by selecting
the Internet Connection Server for AS/400 link 352 on tasks page
350” (col. 27, ll. 11-14), which is a specific example of task page
334 (col. 22, ll. 53-54).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claim interpretation
“In the patentability context, claims are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretations. . . . [L]imitations are not to be read into the
claims from the specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed.
Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). A claim meaning is reasonable if one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim, read in light of the
specification, to encompass the meaning. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Obviousness
The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and
(3) the level of skill in the art. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-
18 (1966). One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
Appeal 2009-006057
Application 10/900,889

8
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
“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), especially if the
combination would not be “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of
ordinary skill in the art,” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485
F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
ANALYSIS
Issue 1
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claim 1 alone with respect to this issue. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellant challenges the Examiner’s finding that Goldschmidt
includes an embedded web browser in a second portion of a graphical user
interface. We find Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive.
Appellant defines a browser view (embedded browser) broadly as “a
rendering area 230 for rendering Web-based content such as HTML
documents” (Spec. 10, ¶ [0037]) (emphasis added). Appellant further
specifies that a “browser view 210 may include its own specialized controls,
such as a navigation toolbar 232 and a text box 234 for viewing and/or
entering a Universal Resource Locator (URL)” (Spec. 10-11, ¶ [0037])
(emphasis added). In light of these disclosures, we do not adopt Appellant’s
Appeal 2009-006057
Application 10/900,889

9
positions that a “plug-in is not an embedded Web browser” (Reply Br. 2) or
that it is relevant that in Goldschmidt “[n]one of the Web browser functions
that are shown for window 104 are present in window 502” (id.). Instead,
we find that any graphical user interface portion for rendering any web-
based content is an embedded web browser.
Goldschmidt’s overview window presents a view of a circular
arrangement for an entire network topology (FF 2). This network topology
is rendered based on markup language sent from a server to a client (id.).
Therefore, Goldschmidt would have taught or suggested an embedded web
browser (rendering of network topology based on data received from server)
in a second portion of a graphical user interface (in an overview window).
Goldschmidt also teaches retrieving HTML data from a data source,
such as a database, and rendering the data in a separate window (FF 4).
Thus, Goldschmidt would have provided an additional teaching or
suggestion of an embedded web browser (rendering of HTML data from a
data source) in a second portion of a graphical user interface (in a separate
window).
For at least these reasons, we find no evidence persuasive of error in
the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1-23 with respect to
this issue.
Issue 2
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claim 1 alone with respect to this issue. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2009-006057
Application 10/900,889

10
Appellant challenges the Examiner’s conclusion that Goldschmidt,
Beaudoin, and Ludovici would have taught or suggested the claimed
communication of a network entity reference. We find Appellant’s
arguments unpersuasive.
Goldschmidt teaches a graphic display plot of a network topology
(FF 1). As previously discussed, Goldschmidt also teaches an embedded
web browser in a second portion of a graphical user interface (FF 2, 4).
Goldschmidt further teaches responding to a selection (double-click on) of a
network entity (represented by network topology graphical image) (FF 5).
Thus, Goldschmidt would have taught or suggested selection of a network
entity (double-click) in a first portion of a graphical user interface (network
topology) and an embedded web browser in a second portion of the
graphical user interface.
Beaudoin teaches selecting a node of interest from a resource browser
window for corresponding display in a management view window (FF 6).
Thus, Goldschmidt and Beaudoin would have taught or suggested
communicating information from a first portion of a graphical user interface
(network topology as resource browser) to a second portion of a graphical
user interface (embedded web browser as management view window).
Ludovici teaches a tasks page, which lists network entities such as an
internet connection server and firewall (FF 7). Ludovici further teaches that
when one of these network entities is selected, the page for that entity is
brought up (FF 8). Thus, Beaudoin and Ludovici would have taught or
Appeal 2009-006057
Application 10/900,889

11
suggested communicating a network entity reference (network entity on a
tasks page).
Based on these findings, we conclude that Goldschmidt, Beaudoin,
and Ludovici would have taught or suggested, in response to selection
(double-click) of a network entity in a first portion of a graphical user
interface (network topology), communicating a network entity (network
entity page information) corresponding to a selected graphical component in
a first portion of a graphical user interface to an embedded web browser.
For at least these reasons, we find no evidence persuasive of error in
the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1-23 with respect to
this issue.
Issue 3
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claim 1 alone with respect to this issue. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellant argues that the Examiner erroneously considered the steps
of connecting and retrieving browser-compatible data separately. We find
Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive.
As discussed, Goldschmidt, Beaudoin, and Ludovici would have
taught or suggested communicating a reference corresponding to a network
entity in a first portion of a graphical user interface to an embedded web
browser in a second portion of a graphical user interface. Goldschmidt
further teaches use of an HTTP request, based on a URL, to access a CGI
application stored and executing on a server (FF 3). It follows that
Appeal 2009-006057
Application 10/900,889

12
Goldschmidt, Beaudoin, and Ludovici would have taught or suggested, in
response to a reference corresponding to a network entity selected in a first
portion of a graphical user interface, connecting (sending a request to a
server), by an embedded web browser in a second portion of a graphical user
interface, to the corresponding network entity and retrieving (to access)
browser-compatible data (data renderable in a web browser) from the
network entity.
For at least these reasons, we find no evidence persuasive of error in
the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1-23 with respect to
this issue.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude:
1. that the Examiner did not err in finding that Goldschmidt would
have taught or suggested an embedded web browser in a second portion of a
graphical user interface (Issue 1);
2. that the Examiner did not err in finding that Goldschmidt,
Beaudoin, and Ludovici would have taught or suggested, in response to
selection of a network entity in a first portion of a graphical user interface,
communicating a network entity reference corresponding to a selected
graphical component in a first portion of a graphical user interface to an
embedded web browser in a second portion of the graphical user interface
(Issue 2); and
Appeal 2009-006057
Application 10/900,889

13
3. that the Examiner did not err in finding that Goldschmidt,
Beaudoin, and Ludovici would have taught or suggested, in response to a
reference corresponding to a network entity selected in a first portion of a
graphical user interface, connecting, by an embedded web browser in a
second portion of a graphical user interface, to the corresponding network
entity and retrieving browser-compatible data from the network entity
(Issue 3).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-23 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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

msc

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Intellectual Property Administration
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS CO 80528