Ex Parte Backhouse

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 4, 2014

11828884 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 4, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE __________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD __________ Ex parte RICHARD A. BACKHOUSE __________ Appeal 2012-004068 Application 11/828,884 Technology Center 2100 __________ Before DONALD E. ADAMS, JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, and ULRIKE W. JENKS, Administrative Patent Judges. FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a method for optimized downloading of scripts. The Examiner rejected the claims as anticipated and as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellant identifies the Real Party in Interest as International Business Machines Corporation (see App. Br. 2). Appeal 2012-004068 Application 11/828,884 2 Statement of the Case Background The “Asynchronous Javascript and Extensible Markup Language (XML) technology, referred to by its acronym ‘Ajax’, provides a ready way for the browser and server to exchange data without requiring page refreshing at every turn” (Spec. 3 ¶ 6). The Specification teaches that in “a high latency environment, the repeated issuance of . . . calls to load a hierarchy of dependencies can result in tremendous delays in loading a Web page in the browser” (Spec. 3-4 ¶ 7). The Specification teaches “a method for optimized downloading of scripts in a component-based architecture can be provided” (Spec. 4 ¶ 8). The Claims Claims 1-15 are on appeal. Claim 1 is representative and reads as follows: 1. A method for optimized downloading of scripts in a component-based architecture, the method comprising: identifying a set of module dependencies for a script embedded in a page received for rendering; locating the module dependencies in a dependency graph for the script; determining from the dependency graph a subset of the module dependencies that have yet to be loaded for the page; requesting each module in the subset in a single request; and, loading each requested module in conjunction with rendering the page. Appeal 2012-004068 Application 11/828,884 3 The issues A. The Examiner rejected claims 1-7, 9, and 11-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Calvert2 (Ans. 4-7). B. The Examiner rejected claims 8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Calvert (Ans. 7-8). A. 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Calvert The Examiner finds that: Calvert et al. substantially discloses a method for optimized downloading of scripts in a component-based architecture, the method comprising: identifying a set of module dependencies for a script embedded in a page received for rendering (Calvert col2 ln61-65, identifies which tier modules are dependent on); locating the module dependencies in a dependency graph for the script (Calvert et al. fig. 3A col12 ln50-54, locates modules dependent to page object); determining from the dependency graph a subset of the module dependencies that have yet to be loaded for the page (Calvert et al. col12 ln55-58, determines which modules are dependent on page object and need to re loaded); requesting each module in the subset in a single request (Calvert et al. col7 ln65 to col8 ln2, requests all modules related to the higher-priority theme); and loading each requested module in conjunction with rendering the page (Calvert et al. col14 ln40-45, loads requested modules while rendering page on client). (Ans. 4-5). The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence of record support the Examiner’s conclusion that Calvert anticipates the claims? 2 Calvert et al., US 7,228,500 B2, issued Jun. 5, 2007. Appeal 2012-004068 Application 11/828,884 4 Findings of Fact 1. The Specification teaches “a process for optimized page script downloads in a component-based architecture. . . . one or more script module references 120 can be incorporated in a script within a page 110. A dependency graph 130 can be constructed for the script module references 120” (Spec. 7 ¶ 18; emphasis added). 2. The Specification teaches that the “host server 205 can include a content server 235 configured to serve pages 225 in data store 220 over the computer communications network 210 to client 215 for rendering in content browser 250. The pages 225 can include embedded script requiring logic embodied by modules 230” (Spec. 8-9 ¶ 20). 3. Calvert teaches that a “web page rendering mechanism for generating a web page based on a rendering priority of three or more tiers of rendering instructions is herein described. The rendering mechanism generates a web page based on a rendering priority of three or more tiers of rendering instructions” (Calvert, col. 2, ll. 60-65). 4. Calvert teaches that “referring to FIG. 3A [reproduced at FF6 below], the web page text document 301 may be subjected to the class generation and instantiation processes of acts 221 and 222 as represented by arrow 318 to generate a page control collection 302 that includes the page object 320 as its root node” (Calvert, col. 12, ll. 50-54). 5. Calvert teaches that: The page object 320 includes several descendent objects including a literal object 321 that, when executed, renders the static markup language portions of the rendered page 303. That literal object is generated by subjecting static portions 312A through 312F of the web page text Appeal 2012-004068 Application 11/828,884 5 document 301 to the class generation and instantiation processes of acts 221 and 222. (Calvert, col. 12, ll. 55-61). 6. Figure 3A of Calvert is reproduced below: FIG. 3A “illustrates a data structure process flow” (Calvert, col. 4, l. 44). Appeal 2012-004068 Application 11/828,884 6 7. Calvert teaches that “the computing system accesses one or more higher-priority theme-oriented text documents that correspond to the higher-priority theme and that collectively describe at least one property to be applied to a control object of the web page text document (act 211)” (Calvert, col. 7, l. 65 to col. 8, l. 2). 8. Calvert teaches that: The rendered web page 303 may include properties from the higher-priority theme, the webpage text document, and the lower-priority theme as illustrated by the arrows 380A and 380B of FIGS. 3A and 3B. If the web page rendering is in response to a client request as in act 301, then the rendered web page may then be downloaded to the client (act 250). (Calvert, col. 14, ll. 40-45). Principles of Law “A single prior art reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Claim terms are interpreted using the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification. See, e.g., In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.”). Analysis Claim interpretation is at the heart of patent examination because before a claim is properly interpreted, its scope cannot be compared to the Appeal 2012-004068 Application 11/828,884 7 prior art. In this case, the two phrases which require interpretation are “module” and “set of module dependencies”. During prosecution, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable interpretation as they would be understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art in the light of the Specification. Therefore, we first turn to the Specification to determine whether the meaning of these phrases may be discerned. “module” The term “module” is not defined by the Specification. However, the Specification teaches that pages may include “embedded script requiring logic embodied by modules 230” (Spec. 9 ¶ 20; FF 2). We, therefore, interpret the term “module” as encompassing any discrete logic or software code. “set of module dependencies” The phrase “set of module dependencies” is not defined by the Specification. However, the Specification teaches that “one or more script module references 120 can be incorporated in a script within a page 110. A dependency graph 130 can be constructed for the script module references 120” (Spec. 7 ¶ 18; FF 1). Consistent with the Specification, we interpret the phrase “set of module dependencies” as reasonably encompassing “one or more” modules (FF 1). Therefore, the “set of module dependencies”, interpreted in light of the Specification, may encompass a single module and a single dependency. See, e.g., CEATS, Inc. v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 526 Fed. Appx. 966, 972 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“Based on this evidence, the jury Appeal 2012-004068 Application 11/828,884 8 could reasonably find that a “set” could be comprised entirely of a single individual seat.”) We adopt the Examiner’s findings concerning the scope and content of the prior art as our own (Ans. 4-10; FF 3-8). We address Appellant’s arguments below. Appellant contends that “it is noted that the tiers of rendering instructions are used to generate multiple related web pages. In contrast, the Appellant’s claimed invention concerns module dependencies in a script for one page” (App. Br. 8). Appellant also contends that the “‘tiers’ according to Calvert are not ‘modules’ . . . A ‘tier’ refers to a set of rendering instructions for rendering one of several related web pages, whereas a Javascript ‘module’ refers to a logical component of a script which is imported from another file and loaded at runtime” (App. Br. 8-9). We are not persuaded. As we discussed in our claim interpretation, the term “module” is reasonably understood as logic or software code, and the “tiers of rendering instructions” taught by Calvert (FF 3) are also reasonably interpreted as logic or software code. Appellant provides no evidence or reason establishing that the tiers of Calvert cannot be reasonably identified as the “modules” required by claim 1. We, therefore, agree with the Examiner that claim 1 “does not specify a ‘Javascript module’. Each ‘tier’ refers to a set of rendering instructions used to generate the page. Therefore the modules shown by Calvert clearly meet the claimed invention” (Ans. 9). Appeal 2012-004068 Application 11/828,884 9 Appellant contends that “that a control object (such as a label, a textbox, a calendar, or the like) is not a module in the sense of the Appellant's claimed invention” (App. Br. 9). We are not persuaded. As we have already discussed, the term “module” is reasonably interpreted as broadly encompassing any logic or software code, and the control objects of Calvert such as labels, textboxes, and calendars reasonably represent logic and software codes. Appellant contends that the “the page control collection 302 is not a dependency graph of module dependencies in the sense of the Appellant's claimed invention” (App. Br. 9). We are not persuaded. Appellant provides no limiting definition or specific structure which is required for a “dependency graph” as required by claim 1. The Examiner therefore, reasonably interprets the graph shown in Figure 3A of Calvert, which discloses the relationship of the page control tree, as satisfying the requirement for a “dependency graph”. Appellant provides no rebuttal identifying an error in the Examiner’s interpretation. Appellant contends that “the page control collection 302 is generated while rendering the web page text document 301, whereas in the Appellant’s invention the dependency graph is attached to the script before rendering” (App. Br. 9). We are not persuaded. Figure 3A of Calvert shows that the page control tree is generated prior to completion of the rendered page (FF 6). Further, there is no claim step of attaching the dependency graph to the script in claim 1. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) Appeal 2012-004068 Application 11/828,884 10 (“[A]ppellant’s arguments fail from the outset because . . . they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims.”). Appellant contends that “Calvert does not teach determining from the dependency graph a subset of the module dependencies that have yet to be loaded for the page” (App. Br. 9-10). We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds that “Calvert discloses using the dependency graph shown in Fig. 3A to determine which modules need to be loaded in order to render the page” (Ans. 10). This is consistent with the Examiner’s reliance on Calvert’s teaching that the “page object 320 includes several descendent objects including a literal object 321 that, when executed, renders the static markup language portions of the rendered page 303” (Calvert, col. 12, ll. 55-58; FF 4; Ans. 4). Appellant contends that Calvert’s process “is completely different from requesting all modules in the subset in a single request as in the Appellant's claimed invention” (App. Br. 10). We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds that “Calvert discloses a single request for a theme loads each module for that subset” (Ans. 10). We discussed the interpretation of the phrase “set of module dependencies” above, and the language in Calvert is consistent with the language used in the Specification regarding loading of “modules”. That is, the Specification teaches that “one or more script module references 120 can be incorporated in a script” (Spec. 7 ¶ 18; emphasis added; FF 1). Calvert similarly teaches that “one or more higher-priority theme-oriented text documents . . . that collectively describe at least one Appeal 2012-004068 Application 11/828,884 11 property to be applied to a control object of the web page text document (act 211)” (Calvert, col. 7, l. 65 to col. 8, l. 2; FF 7). Thus, both the Specification and Calvert indicate that a single request may include “one or more” logic/software code components, where such components are referred to as “modules” by the Specification and theme- oriented text documents by Calvert (FF 1, 7). Further, Appellant’s claim 1, read in light of the Specification, clearly encompasses the situation where a set of modules encompasses a single module (based on the “one or more” language), which single module is incorporated into the “single request” that would also be anticipated by Calvert (see FF 7-8, Ans. 5). Conclusion of Law The evidence of record supports the Examiner’s conclusion that Calvert anticipates the claims. B. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Calvert Appellant does not argue separately the claims in the obviousness rejection over Calvert. Having affirmed the anticipation rejection over Calvert for the reasons given above, we also find that claims 8 and 10 are obvious over Calvert for the reasons given by the Examiner (see Ans. 7-8). SUMMARY In summary, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Calvert. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii), we also affirm the rejection of claims 2-7, 9, and 11-15 as these claims were not argued separately. Appeal 2012-004068 Application 11/828,884 12 We affirm the rejection of claims 8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Calvert. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED lp