Ex Parte Carrier et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 14, 2014

11733829 (P.T.A.B. May. 14, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte SCOTT R. CARRIER and JOHN R. HIND ____________________ Appeal 2011-008908 Application 11/733,829 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and THOMAS F. SMEGAL, Administrative Patent Judges. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING Appeal 2011-008908 Application 11/733,829 2 The Appellants have filed a request for rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52 (hereinafter “Request”), dated March 31, 2014. The Request seeks reconsideration of a decision, mailed January 29, 2014, affirming the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Padmanabhuni (US 2007/0209011 A1, pub. Sep. 6, 2007) and Carr (US 2005/0273503 A1, pub. Dec. 8, 2005). We have jurisdiction over the Request under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Appellants contend that the Board has misapprehended or overlooked certain arguments presented by the Appellants in the Appeal Brief, dated December 13, 2010. Request 2. In the Appeal Brief the Appellants contend that Examiner’s finding that Padmanabhuni discloses “responsive to a user of the computerized client manipulating interactive fields in the XForm, a fourth instruction to package the manipulated XForm in a return RSS/ATOM feed item,” (emphasis added) as recited in claim 16, is incorrect. See Br. 9-13. More specifically, the Appellants contend “the Board did not consider the inappropriate comparison of a ‘portlet’ to an ‘interactive field of an XForm’” because “while a portlet is widely understood to be an application executing within a portal page, a field is a user interface control of a form.” Request 5. The Examiner finds that Padmanabhuni inherently discloses manipulating interactive fields “since any interaction between a user and the individual portlets require interaction of some type of fields.” Ans. 8. As support, the Examiner quotes paragraphs [0053]-[0054], which states that a “[c]onsumer . . . might be selectively allowed to access the portals.” Id. at 7 (emphasis omitted). However, Padmanabhuni does not specify, and the Examiner does not explain, how access to the portals corresponds to Appeal 2011-008908 Application 11/733,829 3 “manipulating interactive fields.” The Examiner further quotes paragraph [0063], which states that the portlet “can be customized . . . depending on the requesting consumer.” Id. at 8 (emphasis omitted). However, this statement is not evidence that the consumer, i.e., a user, interacts with a portal. Notably, the Specification lacks a definition of the term “field,” however one skilled in the art would understand the plain and ordinary meaning to be “[a] space in an on-screen form where the user can enter a specific item of information.” Microsoft Computer Dictionary 183 (4th ed. 1999) (def. 2). Using this interpretation, we find that there is inadequate evidence to support the Examiner’s finding that Padmanabhuni’s portlet includes a field. While Padmanabhuni discloses allowing the consumer to “access” the portals and that the portlets may be customized “depending on the requesting consumer,” there is no disclosure that the consumer manipulates a space in the XFORM to enter a specific item of information. Additionally, the Examiner’s findings with regard to Carr do not remedy the deficiency of the inadequately supported finding with regard to Padmanabhuni. Thus, in view of the Appellants’ contention, we grant the request and reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Padmanabhuni and Carr. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 16-21. GRANTED Klh