null

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 14, 2019

14107153 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 2019)

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.
14/107,153 12/16/2013 Damien Antipa 3496US01/209450 5776
121363 7590 11/14/2019
Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.
(Adobe Inc.)
Intellectual Property Department
2555 Grand Blvd
Kansas City, MO 64108
EXAMINER
CAMPBELL, JR., WARREN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/14/2019 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):
IPRCDKT@SHB.COM
docketing.shb@clarivate.com
seaton@shb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAMIEN ANTIPA, GILLES KNOBLOCH, and ARTUR
KUDLACZ
Appeal 2019-000931
Application 14/107,153
Technology Center 2100
BEFORE ERIC B. CHEN, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3, 5−8, 12−15, and 17−23, which
constitute all the claims pending in this application. See Final Act. 1. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Adobe Systems
Incorporated. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-000931
Application 14/107,153

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to manipulating a web page without
interfering with the web page’s layout. Spec. ¶ 12. Claims 1, 8, and 13 are
independent claims, and all other pending claims depend directly or
indirectly from one of claims 1, 8, and 13. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of providing an editable version of a
first web page, comprising:
forming a second web page and loading a representative
structure of the first web page within an inline frame of the
second web page, the first web page having at least one
component, each of the at least one component being loaded in
the inline frame;
inserting a configuration node for each of the at least one
component into the representative structure, wherein each
configuration node is associated with a data attribute that
represents a configuration of its corresponding component;
adding to an outer frame of the second web page, for
each of the at least one component loaded in the inline frame, a
corresponding configuration object;
adding to each configuration object in the outer frame a
reference to a corresponding one of the configuration nodes in
the inner frame;
providing on the outer frame, for each added
configuration object, a component element with identical
dimensions as, and placed over, its corresponding component
loaded in the inline frame, each component element configured
to prevent direct interaction with its corresponding component
in the inline frame;
responsive to a user interaction with one of the
component elements in the outer frame to perform a
modification to a corresponding one of the at least one
Appeal 2019-000931
Application 14/107,153

3
component of the first web page, performing the modification
to the first web page; and
responsive to performing the modification to the first
web page, utilizing the reference in the configuration object in
the outer frame to modify the corresponding one of the
configuration nodes in the inner frame.
Appeal Br. 27−28 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Zetlen US 8,522,134 B1 Aug. 27, 2013
Matti
Arokiaswamy
Hicks
US 2005/0216856 A1
US 2006/0212803 A1
US 2009/0055755 A1
Sept. 29, 2005
Sept. 21, 2006
Feb. 26, 2009

Non-Patent Literature relied upon consists of the following:
- Granite Reference, Adobe.com, accessed from the Internet Archive,
Wayback Machine (web.archive.org); search for
http://docs.adobe.com/docs/en/cq/5-6-1/touch-ui/granite-reference.html,
Sept. 14, 2015 (hereinafter “Adobe”).
- DialogPreference, Android Developers, accessed from the Internet
Archive, Wayback Machine (web.archive.org); search
developer.android.com/reference/android/preference/DialogPreference.html,
and select Jan. 4, 2012 (hereinafter “Android”).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 7, 13−15, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Zetlen, Matti, and Hicks (Final Act. 3–18);
Appeal 2019-000931
Application 14/107,153

4
Claims 8 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zetlen and Matti (id. at 18–23);
Claims 5 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zetlen, Matti, Hicks, and Adobe (id. at 23–24);
Claims 6 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zetlen, Matti, Hicks, and Android (id. at 25–26); and
Claims 21−23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zetlen, Matti, Hicks, and Arokiaswamy (id. at 26–30).

OPINION
This appeal presents one dispositive issue: whether the Examiner
erred in determining that Zetlen teaches “inserting a configuration node for
each of the at least one components into the representative structure” of the
first web page, which is loaded “within an inline frame of the second web
page,” as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claim 8 (“corresponding
configuration node created in the inline frame”) and claim 13 (“insert a
configuration node for each component in the representative structure of the
inline frame”).
Having reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments, as presented in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, we are
persuaded that the Examiner has erred as Appellant alleges.
The claim language requires that the configuration node is inserted
into the representative structure of a first web page. That representative
structure is loaded in an inline frame of the second web page. The claims
and the Specification describe the configuration node as having associated
data attributes that represent the configuration of each component of the first
Appeal 2019-000931
Application 14/107,153

5
web page represented in the inline frame. See Claim 1 (“each configuration
node is associated with a data attribute that represents a configuration of its
corresponding component”); Spec. ¶ 35 (“the creation of the corresponding
component objects utilizes the information about configuration of the
corresponding components in the attached data attributes of the
configuration nodes in the inline frame”). The role of the recited
configuration nodes in the inline frame is evident when a user modifies a
component of the first web page. In that situation, claim 1 recites “utilizing
the reference in the configuration object in the outer frame to modify the
corresponding one of the configuration nodes in the inner frame.” Thus
there is no doubt that the claim requires the configuration node to be located
in the inline frame that has loaded therein the representative structure of the
first web page.
The Examiner points to “structural tags” of Zetlen as the recited
configuration node. Final Act. 4 (stating “where the structural tags modified
with attribute data are configuration nodes”). The Examiner asserts that it is
“well know[n] that HTML tags and attributes are nodes in the HTML
[Document Object Model] representative structure.” Id. The Examiner
further states that, in the cited portion, Zetlen teaches inserting attributes into
structural tags which configures elements for editing. Ans. 34. We look for
the Examiner’s identification of Zetlen’s web page document that is alleged
to include the structural tags and corresponding attribute data. The
Examiner attempts such an explanation with this sentence: “Also because
the configured document in the inline frame would also have a DOM tree
associated with it[,] there would also be nodes associated with the inline
frame.” Id. We take the Examiner’s reference to the “configured document
Appeal 2019-000931
Application 14/107,153

6
in the inline frame” as identifying rendered electronic web page 128 of
Zetlen, as the web page in which the structural tags and attribute data would
be found. We find that Zetlen does not teach that the rendered electronic
web page includes the structural tags and attribute data.
Zetlen discloses, at column 6, lines 24−30 that “[i]n some
embodiments, the hosting module may insert into structural tags of the web
page document attribute data, as described herein.” Appellant argues that
the “web page document” that Zetlen modifies with attribute data into
structural tags is not the first web page loaded in the inline frame. Appeal
Br. 11 (arguing that “Zetlen’s discussion of ‘insert[ing attribute data] into
structural tags of the electronic commerce web page document’ should be
understood to refer to manipulations made to structural tags of the original
stored web page” and citing Zetlen, 12:56−60 (emphases omitted)). We
agree with Appellant that Zetlen’s attribute data is inserted in structural tags
of a web page that is not loaded in the inline frame as required. The
structural tags Zetlen modifies with attribute data are those of the stored web
page. And Zetlen confirms this by referring to two different web page
documents: a stored electronic commerce web page document and a
rendering of the stored web page document. See Zetlen, 22:59−61
(“presenting to an administrator a rendering of a stored electronic commerce
web page in a what-you-see-is-what-you-get editing environment”); 23:7−9
(“the presenting further comprises inserting into structural tags of the stored
electronic commerce web page document attribute data”).
Zetlen “adjusts” the web page content for editability using structural
tags. Id. at 16:6−7. But this content is in the stored web page document, not
the web page loaded in the inline frame of the “what-you-see-is-what-you-
Appeal 2019-000931
Application 14/107,153

7
get editing environment,” because the stored web page document contains
the attribute data that the editing environment needs to perform the desired
modifications. Id. at 23:10−15 (“the attribute data identifies editing
functions available from the what-you-see-is-what-you-get editing
environment for elements of editable content of the stored electronic
commerce web page document”); 23:35−38 (“executing code for
performance on the stored electronic commerce web page document of an
editing function associated with the respective element of editable content
by the attribute data”). Thus, unlike the recited configuration node, the
structural tags and associated data exist in a web page document that is not
loaded in the inline frame. Therefore, Zetlen’s structural tags do not teach
the recited configuration node.
Accordingly, we determine that the Examiner erred in finding that
Zetlen teaches the configuration nodes as recited in claims 1, 8, and 13.
CONCLUSION
We find that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 8,
and 13. Because of their dependence, we do not sustain the rejection of the
remaining pending claims: 3, 5−7, 12, 14, 15, and 17−23.
Appeal 2019-000931
Application 14/107,153

8
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 7,
13−15, 19,
20
103(a) Zetlen, Matti, Hicks 1, 3, 7,
13−15, 19,
20
8, 12 103(a) Zetlen, Matti 8, 12
5, 17 103(a) Zetlen, Matti, Hicks,
Adobe
5, 17
6, 18 103(a) Zetlen, Matti, Hicks,
Android
6, 18
21−23 103(a) Zetlen, Matti, Hick,
Arokiaswamy
21−23
Overall Outcome: 1, 3, 5−8,
12−15,
17−23

REVERSED