ENTIT SOFTWARE LLCDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 19, 20212019006783 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/543,335 07/13/2017 Elad Levi 90445996 8890 146568 7590 03/19/2021 MICRO FOCUS LLC 500 Westover Drive #12603 Sanford, NC 27330 EXAMINER TSUI, WILSON W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2178 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/19/2021 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): software.ip.mail@microfocus.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ELAD LEVI, AVIGAD MIZRAHI, and RAN BAR ZIK ____________ Appeal 2019-006783 Application 15/543,335 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, MATTHEW J. McNEILL, and JULIET MITCHELL DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–11 and 13–17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 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 EntIT Software LLC. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2019-006783 Application 15/543,335 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention uses in-line editor insertion by accessing code for an application that presents a front-end page to a user, where content on the front-end page is editable via a back-end editing page. Code is modified automatically to create a modified application that presents a modified front- end page to the user that is similar to the front-end page. Content on the modified front-end page is editable in-line via the modified front-end page. See Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method comprising: accessing, by a processor, code for an application to be executed to present a front-end page and a back-end editing page for editing the front-end page to a user, wherein the front- end page has an associated first address, and the back-end editing page has an associated second address other than the first address; automatically modifying, by the processor, the code of the application to create a modified application to be executed to present a modified front-end page to the user that is similar to the front-end page and to create an editing interface for the modified front-end page to allow a first page element of the modified front-end page to be edited in-line via the modified front-end page; and automatically modifying, by the processor, the code of the application to further cause the execution of the application to send modified information for the first page element edited using the editing interface for the modified front-end page to an editing interface for the back-end editing page to change a second page element of the back-end editing page corresponding to the first page element. Appeal 2019-006783 Application 15/543,335 3 THE REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1–4, 8–11, 13, 14, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Prabhu (US 8,370,219 B1; issued Feb. 5, 2013) and DeWitt (US 2009/0198719 A1; published Aug. 6, 2009). Ans. 4– 16.2 The Examiner rejected claims 5, 6, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Prabhu, DeWitt, and Taylor (US 2014/0304682 A1; published Oct. 9, 2014). Ans. 16–18. The Examiner rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Prabhu, DeWitt, and Matveyenko (US 2004/0148576 A1; published July 29, 2004). Ans. 18–19. The Examiner rejected claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Prabhu, DeWitt, and Grant (US 2002/0087599 A1; published July 4, 2002). Ans. 19–20. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER PRABHU AND DEWITT Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Prabhu’s processor (1) accesses code for an application to be executed to present a front-end page, namely that shown in Figure 9, and (2) automatically modifies the application’s code to create a modified application to be executed to present a modified front-end page, namely that shown in Figure 10, to the user that is similar to the front-end page and create an editing interface for the modified front-end page to allow a first page element of the 2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed April 1, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed July 23, 2019 (“Ans.”); and (3) the Reply Brief filed September 17, 2019 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2019-006783 Application 15/543,335 4 modified front-end page to be edited in-line via the modified front-end page. Ans. 4. Although the Examiner acknowledges that Prabhu’s processor does not (1) present a back-end editing page whose address differs from that of the front-end page, and (2) automatically modify the application’s code to send modified information for the first page element edited using the editing interface for the modified front-end page to an editing interface for the back- end editing page to change a second page element of the back-end editing page corresponding to the first page element, the Examiner cites DeWitt for teaching these features in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Ans. 4–6. Appellant argues that Prabhu’s Figures 8 and 10 fail to disclose a back-end editing page, much less a back-end editing page whose address differs from that of the front-end page as claimed. Appeal Br. 8–10; Reply Br. 1–2. Appellant further contends that Prabhu does not send modified information from the purported modified front-end page, namely the web page of Figure 10, to a back-end editing page as claimed. Appeal Br. 10–11. Appellant adds that the Examiner’s reliance on DeWitt is also misplaced, for not only does DeWitt fail to disclose or render obvious the three recited pages, namely the front-end page, modified front-end page, and back-end editing page, DeWitt also does not send modifications made to a modified front-end page to an editing interface for the back-end editing page as claimed. Appeal Br. 10–11; Reply Br. 3. Appeal 2019-006783 Application 15/543,335 5 ISSUES Under § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Prabhu and DeWitt collectively would have taught or suggested: (1) a processor that (a) accesses code for an application to be executed to present a front-end page and a back-end editing page for editing the front- end page to a user, where the front-end page’s address differs from that of the back-end editing page; and (b) automatically modifies the application’s code to (i) create a modified application to be executed to present a modified front-end page to the user that is similar to the front-end page and create an editing interface for the modified front-end page to allow a first page element of the modified front-end page to be edited in-line via the modified front-end page; and (ii) cause execution of the application to send modified information for the first page element editing using the editing interface for the modified front-end page to an editing interface for the back-end editing page to change a second page element of the back-end editing page corresponding to the first page element as recited in claim 1? (2) automatically modifying the code includes (a) identifying the first page element of the front-end page; and (b) inserting into the code of the application editing interface code to be executed to the editing interface for the modified front-end page on the modified front-end pageas recited in claim 2? (3) automatically modifying the code includes determining the form of the editing interface for the modified front-end page by looking up a form for the editing interface for the back-end editing page and using a similar form as recited in claim 3? Appeal 2019-006783 Application 15/543,335 6 ANALYSIS Claims 1, 11, 14, and 16 We begin by noting, as does Appellant, that claim 1 recites three different pages, namely (1) a “front-end page”; (2) a “back-end editing page”; and (3) a “modified front-end page.” Accord Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 2 (distinguishing these three recited pages). The claim further recites that the back-end editing page is for editing the front-end page, and has an address different from that of the front-end page. The claim also specifies that the modified front-end page is similar to the front-end page. According to the Specification, the term “similar” “may mean that the modified front-end page may include the same general page layout and content as the original front-end page, for example, the same page elements, the same content in the page elements, the same navigation or toolbars, etc.” Spec. ¶ 11 (emphasis added). Despite the permissive term “may” in this description, it is nonetheless a concrete definition of the term “similar” that limits the interpretation of the recited similarity to that definition. The Specification, however, lacks such a concrete definition of the three recited pages. Accord Ans. 21 (noting that the Specification does not define the recited front-end page and back-end editing page). Nevertheless, the Specification’s paragraph 9 explains that various applications can present to a user a front-end page that displays various page elements, such as a title, body, image, etc., each displaying content. This displayed content can be edited using a back-end editing page, but navigating to a different back-end editing page to edit content can be cumbersome and inefficient. Spec. ¶ 9. Appellant’s invention overcomes these drawbacks by providing in- line editor insertion capability that modifies code to create a modified Appeal 2019-006783 Application 15/543,335 7 application that presents a modified front-end page similar to the front-end page, where content is editable in-line via the modified front-end page. Spec. ¶¶ 11, 16–17, 55.3 Modified information for a page element can also be sent to a corresponding editing interface of the back-end editing page. Spec. ¶ 55. Although this description informs our understanding of the three recited pages, it does not limit their construction under the terms’ broadest reasonable interpretation. Although Appellant contends that the terms “back-end” and “front-end” ostensibly “have significance in the art when describing the editing of web pages” (Reply Br. 2), Appellant cites no authority to support this assertion. Nevertheless, we construe the terms “front end” and “back end” with their ordinary and customary meaning in the art. According to a computer dictionary, the term “front end” is defined, in pertinent part, as “[t]he portion of a program that interacts directly with the user. A front end can also be a separate program that acts as a user-friendly interface for a more difficult environment; for example, Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) has been called a front end for the Internet.” Bryan Pfaffenberger, WEBSTER’S NEW WORLD COMPUTER DICTIONARY 154 (10th ed. 1993). That same dictionary defines the term “back end,” in pertinent part, as “[t]he portion of a program 3 Although the paragraphs following paragraph 52 on pages 20 and 21 of the Specification are erroneously numbered paragraphs 1 to 3, we nonetheless refer to these paragraphs as 53 to 55, respectively, for clarity. Given our renumbering, Appellant’s reference to the Specification’s paragraph 54 on pages 5 and 6 of the Appeal Brief appears to be inconsistent with the content of that paragraph, but rather more consistent with paragraph 55. Appeal 2019-006783 Application 15/543,335 8 that handles the processing tasks that the program is designed to perform, but in such a way that is not apparent to the user.” Id. at 35. Given these definitions considered in light of the Specification, a “front-end page” is, therefore, a page that (1) interacts directly with the user, or (2) acts as a user-friendly interface for a more difficult environment, such as the Internet. A “back-end editing page” is a page that enables editing, where the associated program’s processing tasks are handled in a way that is not apparent to the user. Given this construction, we see no error in the Examiner’s mapping the recited “front-end page” and “modified front-end page” to the pages shown in Prabhu’s Figures 9 and 10, respectively. See Ans. 22. Nor do we see error in the Examiner’s mapping the recited “back-end editing page” to the page shown in DeWitt’s Figure 4B. See Ans. 24. Prabhu’s Figure 9 is a user interface that enables in-line editing of web page content stored in multiple data stores. Prabhu col. 14, ll. 31–33. To this end, a “selection gesture” is performed to delete content from item description 902 using pointer 918. Prabhu col. 14, ll. 52–54. The result of this content-deleting “selection gesture” is shown in Prabhu’s Figure 10 where an empty space appears where content was deleted from the item description. See Prabhu col. 15, ll. 10–18. Given this functionality, we see no error in the Examiner’s equating the page shown in Prabhu’s Figure 9 to a “front-end page,” and the page shown in Prabhu’s Figure 10 to a “modified front-end page.” See Ans. 22, 24. First, because the page in Prabhu’s Figure 9 acts as a user-friendly interface for a more difficult environment, namely the Internet, it is a “front- end page” under the term’s broadest reasonable interpretation. Second, Appeal 2019-006783 Application 15/543,335 9 because the page in Prabhu’s Figure 10 omits content deleted from the page in Figure 9, Prabhu’s page in Figure 10 is a “modified front-end page” that is similar to the front-end page shown in Figure 9 by including the same general page layout and content consistent with Appellant’s definition of the term “similar” noted above. Appellant’s contention that Prabhu’s Figures 9 and 10 are merely different instances of the same web page (Reply Br. 2) is unavailing. Simply put, these pages differ despite their similar content. That is, the page in Prabhu’s Figure 10 is a modified version of the front-end page in Prabhu’s Figure 9 and, therefore, is a “modified front-end page” at least in that sense. Accord Ans. 21 (interpreting the recited “modified front-end page” as any alternate instance of a front-end page that allows a user to perform administrative operations on the front-end page). In short, nothing in the claim precludes the page in Prabhu’s Figure 10 from being a “modified front-end page” given the term’s scope and breadth. Appellant’s arguments to the contrary are, therefore, unavailing and not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Nor do we see error in the Examiner’s mapping the recited “back-end editing page” to the page shown in DeWitt’s Figure 4B. See Ans. 24. As noted in the Abstract, DeWitt’s system generates web pages that enable users to search and access stored digital versions of recordings from an internet browser. Upon receiving a user request to view a particular library record, DeWitt’s system generates a web page for that record as shown in Figure 4A. DeWitt ¶ 53. Users can also add or change information to the associated library record by clicking the “Click to Edit This Page” button at the bottom of the page in Figure 4A to display the “Edit Asset Library Appeal 2019-006783 Application 15/543,335 10 Record” web page in Figure 4B. DeWitt ¶ 57. After the system reproduces the record’s current information in Figure 4B, users can then change various record fields via editable dialog boxes. See id. Given this functionality, we see no error in the Examiner’s equating the page in DeWitt’s Figure 4B to the recited “back-end editing page,” for it not only enables editing a “front-end page,” namely that shown in Figure 4A, the associated program’s processing tasks are handled in a way that is not apparent to the user, namely those tasks that the underlying program executes to, among other things, realize (1) the user-friendly editing and graphical user interface functionality shown in Figure 4B, and (2) the page resulting from the user’s edits. DeWitt’s back-end editing page in Figure 4B also has an address different from that of the front-end page in Figure 4A, namely the address associated with the “Click to Edit This Page” button. Accord Ans. 24 (noting that the pages in DeWitt’s Figures 4A and 4B are uniquely addressed and accessed via their own links and, therefore, have different addresses). Nor do we see error in the Examiner’ reliance on DeWitt and Prabhu for collectively at least suggesting sending modified information for a first page element edited using the editing interface for the modified front-end page to an editing interface for the back-end editing page to change a second element of the back-end editing page corresponding to the first page element as claimed. See Ans. 5, 25–26. Despite Appellant’s arguments to the contrary (Appeal Br. 9–11; Reply Br. 3), Appellant does not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s reliance on DeWitt’s functionality associated with Figure 4B for at least suggesting sending modified page element information to an editing interface for the back-end editing page in that figure. Appeal 2019-006783 Application 15/543,335 11 As noted in DeWitt’s paragraph 57, after reproducing a record’s current information in DeWitt’s Figure 4B, users can then change various fields via editable dialog boxes. Our emphasis underscores that the user can edit content in DeWitt’s back-end editing page in Figure 4B after the system updates the displayed information to reflect the record’s current state. See DeWitt ¶ 57. This update would reflect, among other things, page elements that were modified before the latest update—including those page elements modified previously via the editing interface in Figure 4B. Therefore, by reproducing a record’s current information in DeWitt’s Figure 4B before editing, information for the associated page elements—including modified information for page elements edited previously using an editing interface for the associated front-end page and modified front-end pages—is effectively sent to the back-end editing page of Figure 4B to update the record before editing. Notably, this update would not only send to the back-end editing page modified information for page elements edited using an editing interface for front-end pages, but also modified front-end pages, such as those in Prabhu. That is, if a page was previously edited using DeWitt’s editing interface of Figure 4B, the update would send the associated modified information for page elements edited using the interface for that particular front-end page to the back-end editing page in DeWitt’s Figure 4B to reproduce the page’s current information, including edits made earlier via that interface. See DeWitt ¶ 57. If further edits are made later to that modified front-end page, the associated modified information would also be sent to DeWitt’s back- end editing page in Figure 4B to reproduce the page’s current information, effectively sending modified information for a page element edited using an Appeal 2019-006783 Application 15/543,335 12 editing interface for a modified front-end page to that back-end editing page. See id. Combining this functionality with that of Prabhu as the Examiner proposes at least suggests sending modified information for a first page element edited using the editing interface for the modified front-end page to an editing interface for the back-end editing page to change a second element of the back-end editing page corresponding to the first page element as claimed. See Ans. 5, 25–26. Not only does Prabhu disclose the recited front-end page, modified front-end page, and associated editing interface as noted previously, Appellant does not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s reliance on DeWitt’s aforementioned page update functionality for at least suggesting sending modified information to an editing interface for a back- end editing page as claimed. Appellant’s arguments regarding Prabhu’s and DeWitt’s individual shortcomings in this regard (Appeal Br. 9–11; Reply Br. 3) do not show nonobviousness where, as here, the rejection is based on the cited references’ collective teachings. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and claims 11, 14, and 16 not argued separately with particularity. Claim 2 We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 reciting automatically modifying the code includes (1) identifying the first page element of the front-end page; and (2) inserting into the code of the application editing interface code to be executed to the editing interface for the modified front-end page on the modified front-end page. Ans. 6, 29–30. Appeal 2019-006783 Application 15/543,335 13 Appellant’s contention regarding the cited prior art’s alleged shortcomings with respect to the recited modified front-end page and its associated editing interface (Appeal Br. 11–12) is unavailing for the reasons noted previously and those indicated by the Examiner. See Ans. 29–30. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 2. Claims 3 and 13 We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3 reciting automatically modifying the code includes determining the form of the editing interface for the modified front-end page by looking up a form for the editing interface for the back-end editing page and using a similar form. Ans. 6–7, 30–34. Despite Appellant’s arguments to the contrary (Appeal Br. 12–13; Reply Br. 3–4), we see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on the cited prior art, including the functionality described in DeWitt’s paragraph 57, for at least suggesting the recited limitations. First, the Specification does not define the term “form,” unlike at least one other term whose concrete definition leaves no doubt as to its meaning. See Spec. ¶ 11 (defining “similar” explicitly). Accordingly, we construe the term “form” with its plain meaning, namely “the visible shape or configuration of something” or “a type or variety of something.” Form, Oxford University Press, https://www.lexico.com/definition/form (last visited Mar. 12, 2021). Given this construction, we see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Prabhu and DeWitt for collectively at least suggesting the recited form determination and usage. See Ans. 6–7, 30–34. As noted previously, the Appeal 2019-006783 Application 15/543,335 14 user can edit content in DeWitt’s back-end editing page in Figure 4B after the system updates the displayed information to reflect the record’s current state. See DeWitt ¶ 57. This update would reflect, among other things, any page elements that were modified before the current update—including those page elements modified previously via the editing interface in Figure 4B. Displaying the editing interface to reflect this update with the record’s current state effectively reproduces the editing interface in DeWitt’s Figure 4B with the most current record data. Notably, reproducing the editing interface would effectively determine the form of that interface, including its visible shape or configuration, by looking up and displaying an interface with similar form. Making this form-based determination for such an interface for a modified front-end page as claimed would have been at least an obvious variation given the ability of DeWitt’s interface in Figure 4B to edit modified front-end pages, such as those in Prabhu, as well as front-end pages as noted previously. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 3, and claim 13 not argued separately with particularity. THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 5–7, 15, and 17. Ans. 16–19. Because these rejections are not argued separately with particularity, we are not persuaded of error in these rejections for the reasons previously discussed. Appeal 2019-006783 Application 15/543,335 15 CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–4, 8–11, 13, 14, 16 103 Prabhu, DeWitt 1–4, 8–11, 13, 14, 16 5, 6, 15 103 Prabhu, DeWitt, Taylor 5, 6, 15 7 103 Prabhu, DeWitt, Matveyenko 7 17 103 Prabhu, DeWitt, Grant 17 Overall Outcome 1–11, 13–17 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)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation