Ex Parte Rummler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 11, 2013

11557357 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 2013)

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.
11/557,357 11/07/2006 Zeno RUMMLER 11884-498401 1333
53000 7590 09/12/2013
KENYON & KENYON LLP
1500 K STREET N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
BECKER, SHASHI KAMALA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2142
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/12/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte ZENO RUMMLER, FRANK MILPETZ, and SONG-JO CHUNG1
__________

Appeal 2011-006541
Application 11/557,357
Technology Center 2100
__________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, MELANIE L. McCOLLUM, and
ERICA A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

McCOLLUM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to
computer-implemented methods and computer readable mediums. The
Examiner has rejected the claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as SAP Aktiengesellschaft
(App. Br. 1).
Appeal 2011-006541
Application 11/557,357

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9-14, and 17-20 are rejected (App. Br. 1).2
Claim 1 is representative and reads as follows:
1. A computer-implemented method of operating a browser,
comprising:
receiving via a processor a browser page that includes a hierarchical
content node that is linked to a first information content and a second
information content to be displayed alternatively;
displaying via the processor a first displayed browser page at the
browser that includes the first information content and associated controls,
the second information content not being displayed,
transmitting via the processor a request to a server in response to user
interaction with a selected control,
upon transmitting the request, displaying via the processor a second
displayed browser page that includes the second information content, the
second displayed page rendering the selected control inoperative by
replacing the selected control during the transmission of the request to the
server.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Li (US 7,089,500 B2, Aug. 8, 2006) in view of Eisenhart et
al. (US 2006/0285749 A1, Dec. 21, 2006) (Ans. 4).
Claims 7, 9-14, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Li in view of Eisenhart and Pullara et al. (US 2003/0014526
A1, Jan. 16, 2003) (Ans. 8).
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Li
in view of Eisenhart and Brunner et al. (US 7,650,296 B1, Jan. 19, 2010)
(Ans. 16).

2 Claim 21 is also pending but has been withdrawn from consideration (App.
Br. 1; Ans. 3).
Appeal 2011-006541
Application 11/557,357

3
I
The Examiner relies on Li for teaching many of the features of
claim 1 (Ans. 4-5). The Examiner finds, however, that “Li does not
specifically teach second information content not being displayed, and
renders the selected control inoperative by replacing the selected control”
(id. at 5).
The Examiner relies on Eisenhart for teaching a “browser page
including second information content (Figure 12) not being displayed . . .
that includes a progress indicator (Figure 12, ref. 1202) and renders the
selected control inoperative by replacing the selected control” (id. at 6). The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to modify the method
and apparatus of Li to include the teachings of Eisenhart in order to have a
first content replaced by a second content . . . in order to indicate the
progress of the transmission and if there was an error or not” (id.).
Analysis
Appellants argue that Li’s Figures 2A-2C “do not disclose a browser
page including a hierarchical content node that is linked to a first
information content and a second information content to be displayed
alternatively as recited in claim 1” (App. Br. 8). In response, the Examiner
finds:
The wizard pages are each a “browser page” that allows the
user to browse/navigate through a hierarchical node system. In
Column 10 lines 34-55 Li clearly states that, []the second
instance of the “letter.doc” (the second wizard page) contains
formatting instructions and text which cumulatively implement
the user’s selections from the first and second wizard pages 210
and 240 (Figures 2B)[, m]eaning that the second wizard page is
DEPENDENT on the user’s selections (“content nodes” on a
Appeal 2011-006541
Application 11/557,357

4
wizard page) from the first wizard page. . . . The “hierarchical
content node” is the user’s selection on each wizard page, for
example in Figure 2A, the first wizard page, the user chose the
selection of the “letter document” and therefore representing the
next wizard page (Figure 2B) dependent on that choice;
therefore being a “hierarchical content node.” Li further
teaches “linked to a first information content and a second
information content to be displayed alternatively,” wherein
the user’s selection on the wizard page (“hierarchical content
node”) links the “first information content” (Figure 2A, the first
information shown on the first wizard page) to a “second
information content” (Figure 2B, the second information shown
on the second wizard page), to be displayed alternatively
(Column 10 lines 34-55, wherein only one wizard page can be
displayed at a time so, they are shown alternatively. )
(Ans. 18.) We conclude that Appellants have not adequately explained why
the Examiner’s position is incorrect. We understand that Li refers to its
wizard as having three pages (Li, col. 5, ll. 9-11). However, Appellants have
not adequately explained why these three pages cannot also be considered
alternate views of a single browser page.
Appellants also argue:
The cited portions of Eisenhart are merely related to a “progress
page” that appears when a user selects a “Send Report” button
on a different “ report page” as shown on FIG. 9 of Eisenhart.
. . . [T]here is no indication in Eisenhart that the “progress
page” is a second information content linked to a node in the
“report page.” In fact, it is most likely that the “progress page”
is a page whose content is independent of the “report page.” As
discussed above, Li does not disclose a browser page including
a node linked to a first information content and a second
information content. Therefore, the combination of Li and
Eisenhart does not disclose displaying a second displayed page

Appeal 2011-006541
Application 11/557,357

5
including the second information content which is linked to a
node in a first displayed page.
(App. Br. 9.) We are not persuaded.
As discussed above, Appellants have not adequately explained why Li
fails to disclose a browser page including a hierarchical content node that is
linked to a first information content and a second information content. Thus,
even if we assume that Eisenhart does not teach this, Appellants have not
adequately explained why the combination of Li and Eisenhart fails to
suggest displaying a second displayed page including the second information
content which is linked to a node in a first displayed page.
In addition, Appellants argue that “Eisenhart does not disclose the
second displayed page rendering the selected control inoperative by
replacing the selected control as recited in claim 1” (id.). We are not
persuaded.
We agree with the Examiner that Eisenhart’s Figure 12 depicts a
“progress page” that replaces that “report page” rendering the control that
initiates the report inoperative (Ans. 19). Appellants note that “it is all
possible that the ‘progress page’ can be minimized so as to expose the
‘report page’ on which controls are still operative” (App. Br. 9 (emphasis
added)). In support of this position, Appellants note that “FIG. 12 of
Eisenhart . . . plainly shows on its upper right corner a button to minimize
. . . the ‘progress page’” (Reply Br. 4). However, given that this button is in
the same title bar of both of Eisenhart’s Figures 9 and 12, we do not agree
with Appellants that the presence of this button indicates that minimizing the
“progress page” (Fig. 12) would expose the “report page” (Fig. 9).
Appeal 2011-006541
Application 11/557,357

6
Appellants also argue:
[T]he combination of Li and Eisenhart does not disclose the
second displayed page rendering the selected control
inoperative by replacing the selected control as recited in
claim 1. As discussed above, Li places its control buttons on a
wizard frame section that is independent of the current page
section for displaying wizard pages. Had the “progress page”
of Eisenhart been combined with Li’s wizard UI (not conceded
in anyway), the “progress page” of Eisenhart would have been
placed in the current page section 230 rather than in the wizard
frame section 232 on which control buttons are displayed.
Therefore, had Li and Eisenhart been combined together, the
control buttons in the wizard frame section 232 would have
been still on display and operative because these control buttons
of Li are independently-operated from the current page section
for displaying wizard pages.
(App. Br. 10.) We are not persuaded.
Eisenhart’s Figure 12 replaces all of Figure 9 except for the title bar
(compare Eisenhart Figs. 9 & 12). Appellants’ have not adequately
explained why the Examiner’s combination would replace only Li’s current
page section 230, rather than the entire page, other than the title bar, as
described in Eisenhart.
In addition, Appellants argue that “there is no motivation for a person
of ordinary skill in the art to combine Li and Eisenhart” (Reply Br. 4). We
are not persuaded.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to modify
the method and apparatus of Li to include the teachings of Eisenhart in order
to have a first content replaced by a second content . . . in order to indicate
the progress of the transmission and if there was an error or not” (Ans. 6).
Even if we assume that “saving a local file is usually instantaneous” (Reply
Appeal 2011-006541
Application 11/557,357

7
Br. 4 (emphasis added)), Appellants have not adequately explained why Li is
limited to embodiments involving the instantaneous saving of a file locally.
In fact, Li discloses that the computing device 30 may be a server (Li, col. 3,
l. 37). Particularly in this context, Appellants have not adequately explained
why the Examiner’s reasoning is incorrect.
Conclusion
The evidence supports the Examiner’s conclusion that Li and
Eisenhart suggest the method of claim 1. We therefore affirm the
obviousness rejection of claim 1. Claims 3, 4, 6, 19, and 20 have not been
argued separately and therefore fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
II
In rejecting claims 7, 9-14, and 17, the Examiner relies on Li and
Eisenhart as discussed above and additionally relies on Pullara (Ans. 8-16).
Appellants argue that “[i]ndependent claims 7, 12, and 14 include features
substantially similar to claim 1 and are therefore allowable for substantially
the same reasons as claim 1 since the tertiary Pullara reference does not cure
the critical deficiencies of the combination of Li and Eisenhart as to claim 1”
(App. Br. 10-11). Appellants also argue that “claims 9-11, 13, and 17
depend from claims 7, 12, and 14 respectively and are therefore allowable
for the same reasons as claims 7, 12, and 14” (id. at 11). We are not
persuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed above with regard to
claim 1. We therefore affirm the obviousness rejection of claims 7, 9-14,
and 17.
Appeal 2011-006541
Application 11/557,357

8
III
In rejecting claim 18, which depends from claim 1, the Examiner
relies on Li and Eisenhart as discussed above and additionally relies on
Brunner (Ans. 16-17). Appellants do not separately traverse this rejection.
We therefore affirm it for the reasons discussed above with regard to
claim 1.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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

cdc