Ex Parte Taragin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2016

12883992 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/883,992 09/16/2010 Jonathan TARAGIN
56436 7590 10/03/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
82262822 5916
EXAMINER
CHEN, SEN THONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2197
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JONATHAN TARAGIN, JECKY TOLEDO, and
HARELOSHRI
Appeal2015-004675
Application 12/883,992 1
Technology Center 2100
Before LARRY J. HUME, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Non-
Final Rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-20. Appellants have canceled claim 4.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, LP. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2015-004675
Application 12/883,992
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The Invention
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention relates to methods,
devices, and storage media useful for integrating user interface components.
Title; claims 1, 8, and 15.
Exemplary Claims
Claims 1 and 2, reproduced below, are representative of the subject
matter on appeal (emphases added to contested limitations):
1. A non-transitory machine-readable storage
medium compnsmg executable instructions that, when
executed, cause one or more processors to:
receive selection of a source component m a user
interface mashup;
receive selection of a target component in the user
interface mashup, the target component associated with a
plurality of event types;
receive a first event from the source component, the first
event associated with a first event type;
compare the first event type with the plurality of event
types;
pass the first event to the target component if the
plurality of event types comprises the first event type; and
update the target component only if the first event type is
passed to the target component.
2 Our decision relies upon Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
Oct. 7, 2014); Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Mar. 16, 2015); Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.," mailed Jan. 15, 2015); Non-Final Office Action ("Non-
Final Act.," mailed May 7, 2014); and the original Specification ("Spec.,"
filed Sept. 16, 2010).
2
Appeal2015-004675
Application 12/883,992
2. The non-transitory storage medium of claim 1,
wherein the one or more processors are further caused to
automatically take a snapshot of the target component upon
update of the target component, the snapshot presented as a
thumbnail for use in selecting the target component.
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Swartz US 2008/0201307 Al Aug. 21, 2008
Nathan et al. ("Nathan") US 2008/0222599 Al Sept. 11, 2008
Zhu et al. ("Zhu") US 2009/0265760 Al Oct. 22, 2009
Baird et al. ("Baird") US 2009/0313601 A 1 Dec. 17, 2009
Rejections on Appeal
RI. Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-13, 15, and 17-19 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Nathan and Zhu.
Non-Final Act. 4.
R2. Claims 2, 9 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over the combination of Nathan, Zhu, and Swartz. Non-Final
Act. 13.
R3. Claims 14 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over the combination of Nathan, Zhu, and Baird. Non-Final
Act. 16.
3
Appeal2015-004675
Application 12/883,992
CLAIM GROUPING
Based on Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 10-13), we decide the
appeal of obviousness Rejection RI of claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-13, 15,
and 17-19 on the basis of representative claim 1; and we decide the appeal
of obviousness Rejection R2 of claims 2, 9, and 16 on the basis of
representative claim 2.
Remaining claims 14 and 20 in Rejection R3, not argued separately,
stand or fall with the respective independent claim from which they depend. 3
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellants. We do not consider arguments that
Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs, and we
deem any such arguments waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
We disagree with Appellants' arguments with respect to claims 1-3
and 5-20, and we incorporate herein and adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken, and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner's Answer in
response to Appellants' arguments. We incorporate such findings, reasons,
and rebuttals herein by reference unless otherwise noted. However, we
highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claims 1
and 2 for emphasis as follows.
3 "Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the failure of
appellant to separately argue claims which appellant has grouped together
shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the Board must consider the
patentability of any grouped claim separately." 3 7 C.F .R. § 41.3 7 ( c )( 1 )(iv).
4
Appeal2015-004675
Application 12/883,992
1. § 103 Rejection RI of Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-13, 15, and 17-19
Issue 1
Appellants argue (App. Br. 10-12; Reply Br. 1--4) the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the
combination of Nathan and Zhu is in error. These contentions present us
with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches
or suggests a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium containing
executable instructions which, when executed, cause a processor to, inter
alia, "update the target component only if the first event type is passed to the
target component," as recited in claim 1? (Emphasis added).
Analysis
Appellants contend:
Zhu only describes a system in which multiple handlers respond
to a single event if that event is fired. In other words, Zhu
discloses updating a target component if an event is passed to
the target component. However, Zhu does not teach or suggest
updating the target component only if the first event is passed
to the target component as required by the independent claims.
Thus, in Zhu, the target component may be updated under
conditions other than a first event being passed to it.
App. Br. 11. 4 Appellants further allege neither Swartz nor Baird cure the
purported deficiencies of Nathan and Zhu. Id.
4 In various sections of the Briefs, Appellants allege the Examiner has
"argued" or set forth "new arguments." We note the Board, as well as
Examiners, make findings of fact, reach conclusions of law, and make
decisions regarding the exercise of discretion, but do not make "arguments,"
5
Appeal2015-004675
Application 12/883,992
In response to Appellants' allegations, the Examiner broadly but
reasonably interprets the claimed target component as reading on the gadget
taught by Zhu. The Examiner further finds that the gadget's registration of
an event handler for a single event is particularly relevant to the contested
limitation. Ans. 4--5 (citing Zhu i-fi-1 81-82). In particular,
When an event is fired, the associated handlers are called. The
handler registered to handle a specific event is a method of the
registering gadget (i.e. target component) ("a Compo Web
gadget can register private member method as a handler to
respond to an event of another Compo Web gadget"; paragraph
[0083] of Zhu). When an event is fired, the browser executes all
the handlers registered to respond to the event (i.e. the browser
pass the first event to the handler of the gadget if the gadget
registered for the event). The handler updates the gadget (i.e.
handles the event) only if the first event type (i.e. registered
event, 'CalcCompleted') is passed to handler of the gadget.
Ans. 5 (emphasis added). The Examiner reiterates:
Id.
[a Jn event can only trigger the handler that registered to it ...
[meaning] the browsers only passes the event to a registered
handler. An event cannot trigger to a handler that did not
register to it ... [therefore,] the handler updates the gadget only
if the browser passed the event to the registered handler.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue:
the cited material of Zhu at best describes some examples in
which a "handler" can possibly be used to pass an event to
multiple "gadgets." For example, Zhu states that "[i]t is
possible that multiple Compo Web gadgets respond to a single
event. This is done easily by registering their handlers to the
event."
"contentions," "admissions," or "concessions," because neither the Examiner
nor the Board are parties in any ex parte proceeding.
6
Appeal2015-004675
Application 12/883,992
Reply Br. 2-3 (citing Zhu il 83). Appellants allege this teaching does not
establish that Zhu's gadget, i.e., the "asserted target component," is updated
only if the first event type is passed to the target component, nor is such
subject matter inherent in Zhu. Reply Br. 3.
Appellants make various assertions as to how a person with skill in
the art would interpret the contested limitation, and the related teachings of
Zhu. Id. Appellants specifically contend:
Id. 5
[A] person of ordinary skill in the art will readily appreciate
that "gadgets" such as described in Zhu can also be updated by
techniques other than using a "handler" to register "multiple
Compo Web gadgets respond to a single event." For example, it
is submitted that a "weather gadget" would typically be
refreshed automatically according to a repeating schedule (e.g.,
every minute), when updated data is received by the "weather
gadget," and so forth.
In another example, if a user selects manually the
"weather gadget," the "weather gadget" can be updated
individually, without using a "handler" registered to multiple
"gadgets." It is noted that Zhu describes that binding of multiple
gadgets "does not require any modification" of the individual
gadgets. See Zhu, par. [O 106]. As such, because Zhu teaches
that each individual gadget is not modified, it follows logically
that each gadget can still be updated individually (i.e., without
using a "handler" registered to multiple "gadgets").
We agree with the Examiner's finding that Zhu teaches or suggests the
contested limitation of claim 1. We agree with the Examiner because, based
5 We note Appellants citation to Zhu i-f 106 relates to a different
embodiment than relied upon by the Examiner in setting forth the rejection,
such that we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in relying upon the
teachings and suggestions of Zhu. Compare Zhu i-fi-180-86 with i-fi-1101-106.
7
Appeal2015-004675
Application 12/883,992
upon our review of the record before us, we find Appellants have failed to
present substantive arguments supported with specific factual evidence of
sufficient character and weight to persuade us of error regarding the
Examiner's findings of facts and ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness.
In particular, Appellants have not pointed to any evidence of record in
support of their arguments that would explain how a person of ordinary skill
in the art would appreciate that the update of Zhu's gadget's can be
accomplished by techniques other than registration of an event handler for a
single event. Mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements that are
unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. In re
Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re De Blauwe,
736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the combined teachings and
suggestions of the cited prior art combination to teach or suggest the
disputed limitation of claim 1, nor do we find error in the Examiner's
resulting legal conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, and grouped
claims 3, 5-8, 10-13, 15, and 17-19 which fall therewith. See Claim
Grouping, supra.
2. § 103 Rejection R2 of Claims 2, 9, and 16
Issue 2
Appellants argue (App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 4---6) the Examiner's
rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the
8
Appeal2015-004675
Application 12/883,992
combination of Nathan, Zhu, and Swartz is in error. These contentions
present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches
or suggests the non-transitory storage medium of claim 1, "wherein the one
or more processors are further caused to automatically take a snapshot of the
target component upon update of the target component, the snapshot
presented as a thumbnail for use in selecting the target component," as
recited in claim 2?
Analysis
With respect to the separate argument for claim 2, Appellants
contend:
Swartz teaches updating a list of snapshots in a snapshot menu
if the snapshot menu does not contain the application handle
and filename already. Swartz does not teach or suggest actually
taking a snapshot automatically of a target component upon
update of the target component as required by claims 2, 9, and
16. In fact, in Swartz, a target component is not updated at all,
only the list of snapshots in the snapshot menu is updated.
App. Br. 13.
The Examiner relies upon the teachings and suggestions of Swartz
(i-f 3 5) in which a file snapshot is "used as a thumbnail on the snapshot
navigator menu ... [and in which t ]he file in Swartz corresponds to the
claimed target component." Ans. 7. The Examiner specifically cites
paragraph 1086 of Swartz as teaching "creating a snapshot upon update of a
target component." Ans. 8. The Examiner provides a detailed mapping and
6 "A graphical thumbnail icon 1604 is created (step 1506) and displayed
(step 1508) in a graphical window 1606 on the GUI 1608." Swartz i-f 108.
9
Appeal2015-004675
Application 12/883,992
analysis on page 8 of the Answer, which we adopt as our own and
incorporate herein by reference.
Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the combined teachings and
suggestions of the cited prior art combination to teach or suggest the
disputed limitation of claim 2, nor do we find error in the Examiner's
resulting legal conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of dependent claim 2, and grouped claims
9 and 16 which fall therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra.
3. Rejection R3 of Claims 14 and 20
In view of the lack of any substantive or separate arguments directed
to obviousness rejection R3 of claims 14 and 20 under § 103 (see App.
Br. 13), we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims. Arguments not
made are waived.
REPLY BRIEF
To the extent Appellants may advance new arguments in the Reply
Brief (Reply Br. 1---6) not in response to a shift in the Examiner's position in
the Answer, we note arguments raised in a Reply Briefthat were not raised
in the Appeal Brief or are not responsive to arguments raised in the
Examiner's Answer will not be considered except for good cause (see 37
C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2)), which Appellants have not shown.
10
Appeal2015-004675
Application 12/883,992
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err with respect to obviousness Rejections RI
through R3 of claims 1-3 and 5-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the cited
prior art combinations of record, and we sustain the rejections.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3 and 5-20.
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
11