Ex Parte Raja et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 25, 2012

10376302 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 25, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte NAGENDRA KUMAR RAJA, THOMAS R. MUELLER,
and SANJIB GHOSH
____________________

Appeal 2009-013131
Application 10/376,302
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and GREGORY J.
GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-013131
Application 10/376,302

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-18 and 28-40. Claims 19-27 have been canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal reads as follows
(emphases added):
Claim 1: A method of enabling a user to identify a plurality of
statements potentially requiring modification when received contained in a
web page description, said method comprising:
displaying a language grammar of a statement type on a display,
wherein said language grammar and said statement type are defined by a
language used to specify said web page description, and wherein said
language grammar contains a field name and wherein said field name is
also displayed on said display;
enabling said user to provide a field value associated with said field
name on said display;
generating a rule instance by incorporating said field value
associated with said field name into said language grammar, whereby said
rule instance contains both said field value and said field name,
wherein said rule instance identifies at least some of said plurality of
statements and wherein said rule instance is compared with a statement
later received in said web page description to determine whether the
statement requires modification.

Appeal 2009-013131
Application 10/376,302

3
Rejections1
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 10-15, 17, 28-33, 35,
and 37-40 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) by Ballard (US
7,111,243 B1). Ans. 3-7.
(2) The Examiner rejected dependent claims 3, 7, 9, 16, 18, 34, and 36
as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Ballard alone. Ans. 7-
10.
Appellants’ Contentions2
Appellants contend (Br. 7-16) that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-18 and 28-40 as being anticipated or obvious over Ballard for
numerous reasons, including:
(1) Ballard fails to teach the step of generating a rule instance, where
the rule instance includes both a field value and a field name, as recited in
claim 1 (Br. 9);
(2) Ballard fails to teach that the rule instance identifies at least some
of the statements, and is compared with a statement received later in web
page description to determine whether the statement requires modification,
as recited in claim 1 (Br. 9);
(3) Ballard fails to teach the step of displaying a field name and a
language grammar of a statement type used to specify a web page
description, the language grammar containing the field name, on a display,
as recited in claim 1 (Br. 11); and

1 We refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed May 15, 2009.

2 We refer to Appellants’ Brief dated July 18, 2007.
Appeal 2009-013131
Application 10/376,302

4
(4) Ballard only teaches a date format in Figure 10B which is not
equivalent to a field name, because a date format is a user/application
defined field on top of the web page description languages, and not
something defined by a language used to specify a web page description, as
recited in claim 1 (Br. 11).
Issue on Appeal
Has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-18 and 28-40 as being
anticipated or obvious because Ballard fails to teach or suggest the language
grammar, statement type, and rule instance including field name and field
value limitations at issue?3

ANALYSIS
We agree with the Appellants’ contentions specifically enumerated
above. Ballard (see Figs. 10B, 12, and 13E; col. 9, ll. 37-58; col. 12, ll. 21-
56; col. 13, ll. 22-52; col. 16, ll. 1-20; col. 24, ll. 28-33 and 65-67; col. 25, ll.
30-32) fails to disclose or suggest (i) displaying a field name and a language
grammar of a statement type used to specify a web page description, the
language grammar containing the field name, on a display; and (ii)
generating a rule instance identifying at least some statements and having
both a field name and field value for comparison with a statement later
received in a web page description to determine if the statement requires
modification, as set forth in independent claims 1, 10, 28, and 37. The
Examiner’s reliance (Ans. 3-8, 11, and 12) on Figure 10B and paragraphs

3 We recognize that Appellants’ arguments present additional issues. Many
of the arguments presented by the additional issues are not persuasive;
nonetheless we were persuaded of error by this issue and as such we do not
reach the additional issues as this issue is dispositive of the appeal.

Appeal 2009-013131
Application 10/376,302

5
[0033], [0045], [0064], [0117] fails to particularly point out where the
recited elements of the claims at issue can be found in Ballard. The
Examiner has failed to provide a rational basis and articulated reasoning as
to how/why the cited disclosures of Ballard meet the limitations at issue in
claims 1, 10, 28, and 37. Appellants’ arguments as to the dependent claims
are persuasive for similar reasons as their corresponding independent claims.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s §§ 102(e) and 103(a)
rejections based on Ballard.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 10-15, 17,
28-33, 35, and 37-40 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is reversed. The decision of
the Examiner rejecting claims 3, 7, 9, 16, 18, 34, and 36 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed.

CONCLUSIONS
Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-18 and 28-40 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(e) and
103(a).

DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-18 and 28-40 are reversed.

REVERSED

msc