Ex Parte Willumeit et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 4, 2010

10275395 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 4, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte HEINZ WILLUMEIT and JORG BISCHOF
____________________

Appeal 2009-004754
Application 10/275,3951
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Decided: June 7, 2010
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, THU A. DANG, and STEPHEN C. SIU,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING

1 Filed on May 9, 2003. The real party in interest is SAP Ag. (App. Br. 2.)
Appeal 2009-004754
Application 10/275,395

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
In a paper filed January 27, 2010, Appellants request a rehearing
under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 from the Opinion of the Board of Patent Appeals
and Interferences (hereinafter Board) dated December 9, 2009. In the
Opinion, we affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 27 through 37.
Appellants allege that the Board erred by misapprehending or overlooking
Hill’s disclosure to sustain the Examiner’s rejection. Appellants primarily
allege that the Board erred in finding that Hill’s disclosure of embedding
newly generated style definitions in an HTML document teaches updating
an existing embedded style sheet, as recited in independent claim 27. (Req.
Reh’g 2.)
In particular, Appellants argue that Hill’s disclosure of embedding
newly generated style definitions in the HTML document teaches including
or adding the newly generated style definitions to the HTML document to
thereby create a new style sheet to be embedded therein. However, it does
not teach (and it is not intended to teach) using the newly generated style
definitions to modify, update or replace an existing embedded style sheet.
(Req. Reh’g 2-7.) Further, Appellants argue that the claimed updated layout
file is separate from the content page file to be formatted, whereas the
embedded style sheet in Hill is not distinct from the document content page.
(Id. at 7-8.) Consequently, Appellants request a rehearing of the Board’s
Decision affirming the rejection of claims 27 through 37. (Id. at 9.)
We have carefully reviewed the Opinion in light of Appellants’
remarks. We address those remarks in the order in which they are presented
in the Request.

Appeal 2009-004754
Application 10/275,395

3
First, we do not agree with Appellants that we overlooked or
misapprehended Hill’s disclosure in the Opinion to affirm the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 27 through 37. At pages 6 and 8 the Opinion, we referred
to certain portions of Hill’s disclosure, which we reproduce in part
hereinbelow:
A variation of the server-controlled embodiment illustrates in
FIG. 5 is shown in FIG. 6. In the variation illustrated by FIG.
6, the layout generator includes a style generator. The style
generator creates a style sheet using a plurality of style
definitions, rather than selecting a style sheet from a plurality of
style sheets.
Col. 11, ll. 59-64.
Alternatively, the style generator may generate an embedded
style sheet. If the style sheet is embedded in an HTML
document, then the style generator modifies the HTML
document to include style definitions in a style tag or in STYLE
attributes.
Col. 12, ll. 33-37.
In our original analysis, we found that the cited disclosure of Hill
teaches modifying style sheets embedded within an existing HTML
document to include style definitions in a style tag thereby creating new
style sheets. (Op. 8.) We maintain our original position since we find no
error or misapprehension in our original finding. In the afore-cited text, Hill
clearly discloses an existing HTML document having embedded therein one
or more style sheets into which a style generator adds style definitions in
order to modify the HTML document. We reiterate that, by including or
adding the style definitions to the existing style sheet of the HTML
document, Hill teaches modifying or updating the existing style sheet is
Appeal 2009-004754
Application 10/275,395

4
being to thereby create a new style sheet (i.e. existing style sheet + style
definitions). Subsequently, by embedding the newly created style sheet into
the HTML document (i.e. replacing the existing style sheet with the newly
created one), it is in turn updated or modified. Consequently, we find no
error in our previous holding that Hill’s disclosure of a newly created style
sheet replaces the existing style sheet in the HTML document.
Next, we find unpersuasive Appellants’ argument that Hill does not
teach that the newly created style sheet is separate from the content page.
As acknowledged by Appellants, Hill discloses a style generator for
generating an external style sheet, which is a separate entity from the
document content page. (Req. Reh’g 8.) Then, Hill discloses a layout
generator for embedding the generated style sheet into the HTML document,
and for subsequently modifying the style sheet by including the style
definitions therein before re-embedding the updated style sheet in the HTML
document to replace the previously embedded style sheet, as discussed
above.

Appeal 2009-004754
Application 10/275,395

5
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing discussion, we deny Appellants’ Request for
Rehearing. We have modified the original Opinion to the extent that we
respond to Appellants’ arguments presented in the request for rehearing. We
have maintained our decision to affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 27
through 37.

REQUEST FOR REHEARING-DENIED

Erc

FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER
LLP
901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON DC 20001-4413