Godewyn, Charles et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 17, 2020

14693861 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2020)

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.
14/693,861 04/22/2015 Charles Godewyn 1301-061U 2653
112025 7590 03/17/2020
Shutts & Bowen LLP
Steven M. Greenberg, Esq.
525 Okeechobee Blvd
# 1100
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
EXAMINER
RODRIGUEZ, DANIEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2175
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/17/2020 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):
docketing@crgolaw.com
patents@shutts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHARLES GODEWYN and HENRY ROGERS

Appeal 2019-000277
Application 14/693,861
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., DAVID M. KOHUT, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

PUR CURIAM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–8, 10–14, and 16–18.2 See
Appeal Br. 1; Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to reference the applicant as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
“SugarCRM, Inc.” Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 3, 9, and 15 are cancelled. Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2019-000277
Application 14/693,861

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
APPELLANT’S INVENTION
Appellant’s invention identifies the Web browser windows and tabs
spawned in a browser session, records the arrangement and state of the
windows and tabs, and restores (i.e., re-spawns) the same windows and tabs
in another browser session. Spec. ¶ 7. Claim 1 is reproduced, below, with
emphasis on disputed subject matter (see infra).
1. A method for persistently tracking work space
arrangement of a customer relationship management (CRM)
application through a Web browser, the method comprising:
identifying different Web browser windows and tabs spawned
in the Web browser in connection with an end user interacting
with a CRM application through the Web browser in an initial
Web browser session;
storing a record of an arrangement of the identified Web
browser windows and tabs in connection with the end user in
connection with the CRM application;
subsequently detecting the end user establishing a new Web
browser session with the CRM application; and,
automatically spawning the different Web browser windows
and tabs stored in the arrangement specified in the record for
the end user;
wherein the record further includes a list of identified work
paths, each of the work paths referring to a node in a site map
of the CRM application and comprising a window and one or
more tabs opened in the window, and wherein different ones of
the Web browser windows and corresponding tabs specified in
the record for the end user are automatically spawned as
specified by one of the work paths selected by the end user in
the list.
Appeal Br. 15 (Claims Appendix).
Appeal 2019-000277
Application 14/693,861

3
REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, 4–8, 10–14, and 16–18 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Song (US 2005/0066037 A1; Mar. 24,
2005), Dubroy (US 2015/0200829 A1; July 16, 2015), Godley
(US 2006/0101330 A1; May 11, 2006), and Ferg (US 9,483,627 B1; Nov. 1,
2016).
OPINION
Claims 1, 2, 4–8, 10–14, and 16–18 are argued as a group. See
Appeal Br. 6–14 (the in-toto arguments address, under the same heading and
with specific reference to claim 1, only the independent claims). We select
claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(1)(iv). For the reasons
below, we are unpersuaded of error in the rejection of claim 1 and
accordingly sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–8, 10–14, and 16–18.
The disputed limitations recite a record comprising work paths, each
work path: referencing a site map node that represents a browser window
and included tab, as arranged by a CRM application’s user; and selectable by
the user to automatically spawn the same arrangement of the window and
tab. Appeal Br. 7. We agree with the Examiner that the proposed
combination of prior art suggests these claim features.
As the Examiner finds, Song teaches snapshots that capture any
changes to a browser session and are selected to restore respective changes
(i.e., each restores the captured state) in another session. Final Act. 4–5;
Ans. 5–6; Song ¶¶ 43, 78, 80. Dubroy teaches that a snapshot for capturing
a browser window can capture the included tabs. Final Act. 5; Ans. 6–7;
Dubroy ¶ 33. Godley teaches that a browser session history can be a
sitemap representation of thumbnails that are selected to restore respective
Appeal 2019-000277
Application 14/693,861

4
web pages, spread sheets, word processing documents, presentations, and so
forth. Final Act. 6; Ans. 7–8; Godley ¶¶ 21–26, 32. Ferg teaches that a
CRM application can be a web application accessed via a browser.
Final Act. 7; Ans. 8; Ferg col. 4, ll. 14–28.
The Examiner finds that these teachings collectively suggest a system
that: provides browser-session access to a CRM application (Ferg);
snapshots a session’s open window with sufficient detail to fully restore (i.e.,
fully recall and load) the window in another session (Song), e.g., to restore
included tabs (Dubroy); restores a window if/when selected by the user
(Song); and provides a sitemap representation of the restorable windows,
each window being represented and selected via a thumbnail (Godley).
Final Act. 3–7 (Examiner applied teachings of the references); Ans. 5–8
(Examiner further-explained reliance on the references). The proposed
combination of prior art, therefore, provides a record of work paths (stored
snapshots) whereby each path (snapshot) references a site map node (each
snapshot is selected via a sitemap representation of a respective thumbnail)
and is selected to spawn a browser window and included tab/s (each
snapshot is selected to restore a respective window and tab/s). See e.g.,
Final Act. 4–5 (Examiner finds claimed work paths respectively read on
snapshotted sessions (Song)), 5 (discloses snapshotting a session’s window
and tabs (Dubroy)), 6 (claimed site map node reads on a selectable stored
session (Godley)); Ans. 4–6 (claimed record reads on all stored sessions).
Appellant contends the rejection fails to read the claimed record,
work paths, windows, and tabs respectively on different elements of the
applied prior art and thereby fails to construe these claim terms/features as
being different from one another (i.e., as having respective meanings).
Appeal 2019-000277
Application 14/693,861

5
Appeal Br. 9–10, 13–14; see also Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG
Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (presumption that
different claim terms have different meanings (citing Chi. Bd. Options
Exch., Inc. v. Int’l Sec. Exch., LLC, 677 F.3d 1361, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).
We are unpersuaded of Examiner error because, per the combination, the
rejection reads: the claimed record on the combination’s stored snapshots;
each claimed work path on a snapshot; and each claimed window and its
tabs on a snapshot’s respective window and tabs. See Final Act. 4–5
(proposed combination).
Appellant also contends that Song, Dubroy, and Godley individually
fail to teach or suggest several claim limitations. Appeal Br. 9–14; see e.g.,
id. at 10 (“[T]he actual snapshot display of Song is a single tab of a
webpage, not a record of arrangement of those tabs and webpages.”). We
are unpersuaded because each of the argued limitations is read on a
combination of teachings from two or more of the applied references.
See Final Act. 4–5 (proposed combination). Where a rejection reads a
claim feature on combined teachings of two or more references, it is not
persuasive to show one reference individually fails to teach the feature. See
e.g., In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (C.C.P.A. 1981). We are, therefore,
unpersuaded as Appellant has failed to address the Examiner’s specific
findings regarding the combination of the references.

CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–8, 10–14,
and 16–18.
Appeal 2019-000277
Application 14/693,861

6
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–8, 10–14,
16–18
103 Song, Dubroy,
Godley, Ferg
1, 2, 4–8, 10–14,
16–18

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). See
37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED