ENTIT SOFTWARE LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 19, 2021

2019006783 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2021)

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