Ex Parte Chinnathambi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 26, 2018

13404327 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/404,327 02/24/2012 69316 7590 03/28/2018 MICROSOFT CORPORATION ONE MICROSOFT WAY REDMOND, WA 98052 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Kirupa Chinnathambi 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 335236.01 3576 EXAMINER DEBROW, JAMES J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2144 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/28/2018 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): usdocket@microsoft.com chriochs@microsoft.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KIRUPA CHINNATHAMBI, CHRISTIAN SCHORMANN, YEOH LIN LI LENA, UNNIKRISHNAN RA VINDRANATHAN, CHARLES YVON BISSONNETTE, and ERIK ANDREW SAL TWELL Appeal2017-010623 Application 13/404,327 Technology Center 2100 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-13, 15, and 17-20. Claims 3, 5, 14, and 16 were cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC. (App. Br. 3). Appeal2017-010623 Application 13/404,327 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants' invention relates to a Web page development environment that provides a "related files" feature that provides direct access to all of the files that make up a particular document or application (Spec. i-fi-1 4, 21 ). Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows: 1. A method comprising: providing a Web development tool for developing an application that includes a primary HTML document and a plurality of related files, wherein the primary HTML document references each of the related files; generating a user interface for controlling the Web development tool; and generating as part of the user interface a code editor panel, wherein the code editor panel includes a primary editor sub-panel for viewing and editing code of the primary HTML document and a secondary editor sub-panel for viewing and editing code of the related files referenced by the primary HTML document, wherein the code of the primary HTML document and the code of at least one of the related files referenced by the primary HTML document are displayed at the same time by the code editor panel. Drukman et al. ("Drukman") Blas et al. ("Blas") References and Rejections US 2011/0302556 Al Dec. 8, 2011 US 8,429,604 Bl Apr. 23, 2013 Adobe Dreamweaver CS5 Digital Classroom Tutorial, http://www. agiltraining. com/pages/ dwleaming.html (last visited December 28, 2011) ("Dreamweaver"). 2 Appeal2017-010623 Application 13/404,327 Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 11-13, 15, and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Dreamweaver and Drukman (see Final Act. 2-7). Claims 7-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Dreamweaver, Drukman, and Blas (see Final Act. 8-9). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments in the Briefs that the Examiner has erred. We are unpersuaded by Appellants' contentions and concur with the findings and conclusions reached by the Examiner as explained below. Independent Claims 1, 13, and 20 Appellants contend the combination of Dreamweaver and Drukman fails to teach or suggest generating as part of the user interface a code editor panel, wherein the code editor panel includes a primary editor sub-panel for viewing and editing code of the primary HTML document and a secondary editor sub-panel for viewing and editing code of the related files referenced by the primary HTML document, wherein the code of the primary HTML document and the code of at least one of the related files referenced by the primary HTML document are displayed at the same time by the code editor panel, as recited in independent claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claims 13 and 20 (see App. Br. 7-8, 10-12, 14--15). More specifically, Appellants argue Drukman does not mention "HTML" or "Hypertext Markup Language," and, thus, similar to Dreamweaver, Drukman fails to teach or suggest a primary editor sub-panel for viewing and editing code of a primary 3 Appeal2017-010623 Application 13/404,327 HTML document that references a plurality of related files, and a secondary editor sub-panel for viewing and editing code of the related files referenced by the primary HTML document (see id; see also Reply Br. 2--4). We are not persuaded by Appellants' contention. As the Examiner correctly found, Dreamweaver teaches a coding and development tool that displays a split-pane editor for viewing and editing a Hypertext Markup Language ("HTML") document, and Drukman teaches a graphical user interface editor that is split into two panels including a primary editor panel related to a primary file and a related editor panel related to one or more files related to the primary file (see Final Act. 2--4 (citing Dreamweaver at 3, 5; Drukman i-fi-f 10, 27, 30)). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Dreamweaver and Drukman teaches or suggests both a primary editor sub-panel for viewing and editing code of a primary HTML document that references a plurality of related files, and a secondary editor sub-panel for viewing and editing code of the related files referenced by the primary HTML document. Appellants essentially argue that Drukman fails to teach or suggest either of the aforementioned sub-panels because Drukman explicitly fails to identify the primary file as an HTML document (see e.g., App. Br. 7-8). However, this argument fails to address the Examiner's finding that Dreamweaver teaches an editor for viewing and editing code of an HTML document, and thus, is not persuasive. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually when the rejection is based on a combination of references (see In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). 4 Appeal2017-010623 Application 13/404,327 Appellants also contend the combination of Dreamweaver and Drukman fails to teach or suggest "automatically highlighting code in the secondary editor sub-panel based on a change made with the at least one visual design tool," as recited in claim 20. More specifically, Appellants argue the Examiner acknowledged that Dreamweaver does not teach a secondary editor sub-panel, and thus, Dreamweaver cannot possibly teach or suggest automatically highlighting code in the secondary editor sub-panel based on a change made with a visual design tool (see App. Br. 15 (citing Final Act. 6) ). Appellants further argue the cited portions of Dreamweaver do not mention anything about highlighting code (see Reply Br. 4--5). This contention is not persuasive either. The mere existence of differences between the prior art and the claim does not establish non- obviousness. See Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230 (1976). Instead, the relevant question is "whether the difference between the prior art and the subject matter in question is a [difference] sufficient to render the claimed subject matter unobvious to one skilled in the applicable art." Dann, 425 U.S. at 228 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Indeed, the Supreme Court made clear that when considering obviousness, "the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). As the Examiner correctly found, Dreamweaver teaches visually changing code associated with a HTML document based on visually changing the design of the HTML document (see Final Act. 5 (citing Dreamweaver at 3, 8)). Because highlighting is a type of visual change, we 5 Appeal2017-010623 Application 13/404,327 agree with the Examiner that Dreamweaver teaches or suggests automatically highlighting code based on a change made within a visual design tool. Further, as previously described, Drukman teaches a primary editor panel related to a primary file and a related editor panel related to one or more files related to the primary file (see Final Act. 2--4 (citing Drukman i-fi-f 10, 27, 30)). In light of these findings, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Dreamweaver and Drukman teaches or suggests automatically highlighting code in an editor panel based on a change made within a visual design tool. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of cited references teaches all the elements of claims 1, 13, and 20. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 13, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). Claims 6 and 17 Appellants contend the combination of Dreamweaver and Drukman fails to teach or suggest "providing categorized access to the related files via the secondary editor sub-panel," as recited in claim 6, and "providing categorized access to the secondary files via the secondary editor sub-panel, including access to Cascading Style Sheet (CSS) files related to the primary document, JavaScript files related to the primary document, and HTML files related to the primary document," as recited in claim 17 (see App. Br. 9, 12). More specifically, Appellants argue the Examiner has not identified any disclosure in the cited references that teaches or suggests a secondary editor sub-panel for viewing and editing code of related files referenced by a primary HTML document (see id.). According to Appellants, ifthe cited references do not teach or suggest a secondary editor sub-panel, then the 6 Appeal2017-010623 Application 13/404,327 cited references also do not teach or suggest providing categorized access to the related files via the secondary editor sub-panel (see id.). We are not persuaded by Appellants' contention. A mere difference between the prior art and the claim does not establish non-obviousness; instead, the difference must be sufficient to render the claimed subject matter unobvious to one skilled in the applicable art. See Dann, 425 U.S. at 228, 230. As previously described, Drukman teaches a primary editor panel related to a primary file and a related editor panel related to one or more files related to the primary file (see Final Act. 2--4 (citing Drukman i-fi-f 10, 27, 30)). Furthermore, the Examiner correctly found Drukman also teaches the graphical user interface editor displays a menu listing of categories of related files (see Final Act. 4 (citing Drukman i-fi-134, 36, 37)). In light of these findings, we agree with the Examiner that Drukman teaches or suggests providing categorized access to related files via an editor panel. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of cited references teaches all the elements of claims 6 and 17. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 6 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). Claims 12 and 19 Appellants contend the combination of Dreamweaver and Drukman fails to teach or suggest "automatically highlighting code in the secondary editor sub-panel based on a change made with the at least one visual design tool," as recited in claims 12 and 19 (see App. Br. 9, 13). More specifically, Appellants argue the Examiner acknowledged that Dreamweaver does not teach a secondary editor sub-panel, and thus, Dreamweaver cannot possibly teach or suggest automatically highlighting code in the secondary editor sub- 7 Appeal2017-010623 Application 13/404,327 panel based on a change made with a visual design tool (see id. (citing Final Act. 6); see also Reply Br. 4--5). We are not persuaded by Appellants' contention for the reasons previously discussed regarding "automatically highlighting code in the secondary editor sub-panel based on a change made with the at least one visual design tool," as recited in claim 20. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of cited references teaches all the elements of claims 12 and 19. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 12 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). Claims 7-10 Appellants contend the combination of Dreamweaver, Drukman, and Blas fails to teach or suggest "displaying on the secondary editor sub-panel a first list of all Cascading Style Sheet (CSS) files related to the primary document," as recited in claim 7, "displaying on the secondary editor sub- panel a second list of all JavaScript files related to the primary document," as recited in claim 8, "displaying on the secondary editor sub-panel a third list of all HTML files related to the primary document," as recited in claim 9, and "wherein selection of one of the files in the first list, second list, or third list causes code of the selected file to be displayed in the secondary editor subpanel," as recited in claim 10 (see App. Br. 16-18; see also Reply Br. 6). More specifically, Appellants argue the Examiner has not identified any disclosure in the cited references that teaches or suggests a secondary editor sub-panel for viewing and editing code of related files referenced by a primary HTML document (see App. Br. 16-18). Appellants further argue the Examiner has not identified any disclosure in the cited references that 8 Appeal2017-010623 Application 13/404,327 teaches or suggests displaying any of the following on such a secondary editor sub-panel: (a) a list of Cascading Style Sheet ("CSS") files related to the primary HTML document; (b) a list of JavaScript files related to the primary HTML document; ( c) a list of HTML files related to the primary HTML document; or ( d) code of a related file selected from the secondary editor-sub-panel, as recited in claims 7-10 respectively (see id.). We are not persuaded by Appellants' contention. As the Examiner correctly found, Blas discloses a user interface that enables a user to select one or more identified behavioral code files from a list, where the behavioral code files include JavaScript files, CSS files, and HTML files (see Final Act. 8-9 (citing Blas 6:36-42; 6:50-59; 10:50-61)). As also previously described, Drukman teaches a primary editor panel related to a primary file and a related editor panel related to one or more files related to the primary file (see Final Act. 2--4 (citing Drukman i-fi-f l 0, 27, 30) ). In light of these findings, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Drukman and Blas teaches or suggests the aforementioned elements of claims 7-10. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of cited references teaches all the elements of claims 7-10. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 7-10 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). Remaining Claims No separate arguments are presented for the remaining dependent claims (see App. Br. 8, 12). We therefore sustain their rejections for the reasons stated with respect to independent claims 1, 13, and 20. 9 Appeal2017-010623 Application 13/404,327 DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-13, 15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 10