Ex Parte Fu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 6, 2012

12131590 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte SAMUEL FU, JOSHUA GUNNAR, ANDREW JASON LAVERY, and DAVID LEE SKEEN ____________________ Appeal 2010-006693 Application 12/131,590 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-006693 Application 12/131,590 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 5-11, 15-18, and 21-28 (Br. 4), all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appellants’ Disclosed Invention Appellants disclose a computer implemented method for presenting monitoring information for a web site (Spec. ¶ [0001]). Exemplary Claims An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claims 1, 5, and 21, which are reproduced below with emphases added: 1. A method for presenting monitoring reports, the method comprising: determining, by a processing unit, whether a user at a client data processing system is permitted access to monitoring information for a Web site; responsive to a request for a Web page from the Web site, retrieving the Web page to form a retrieved Web page and formatting the retrieved Web page for display in a first frame in a window for a browser to form first formatted information; responsive to a determination that the user is permitted access to the monitoring information for the Web site, associating the monitoring information with the retrieved Web page to form associated monitoring information and formatting the associated monitoring information for display in a second frame in the window for the browser to form second formatted information collocated content; and sending the first formatted information and the second Appeal 2010-006693 Application 12/131,590 3 formatted information to the client data processing system for display in the window for the browser, wherein the window for the browser can simultaneously display both the retrieved Web page and the associated monitoring information. 5. The method of claim 1, wherein associating the monitoring information with the retrieved Web page to form the associated monitoring information comprises: monitoring the first frame for a change to display a new Web page; and responsive to detecting the change, retrieving new monitoring information associated with the new Web page. 21. The method of claim 1, wherein the associated monitoring information comprises the monitoring information for a currently displayed Web page, and wherein the user is enabled to view the monitoring information without the use of a separate application monitoring information system. The Examiner’s Rejection The Examiner rejected claims 1, 5-11, 15-18, and 21-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Tung Loo (US 2002/0143865 A1) and Broda (US 2008/0046506 A1). Ans. 3-23. Appellants’ Contentions Appellants contend (Br. 11-25) that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 5-11, 15-18, and 21-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Tung Loo and Broda for numerous reasons, including:1 1 Appellants present arguments on the merits with regard to independent claim 1, dependent claim 5, and dependent claim 21 (see Br. 22, 24, and 25). Independent claims 11 and 18 are argued as patentable for the same reasons as independent claim 1 (Br. 22). Dependent claims 15 and 24 are argued as Appeal 2010-006693 Application 12/131,590 4 (1) Tung Loo does not teach “determining, by a processing unit, whether a user at a client data processing system is permitted access to monitoring information for a Web site,” as recited in claim 1 (Br. 18); (2) Tung Loo does not teach “associating the monitoring information with the retrieved Web page,” as recited in claim 1 (Br. 19); (3) Broda does not teach “formatting the associated monitoring information for display in a second frame in the window for the browser to form second formatted information,” as recited in claim 1 (Br. 21); (4) Broda does not teach “sending the first formatted information and the second formatted information to the client data processing system for display in the window for the browser, wherein the window for the browser can simultaneously display both the retrieved Web page and the associated monitoring information,” as recited in claim 1 (Br. 22); (5) Tung Loo does not teach new monitoring information is retrieved in response to a change to display a new Web page, as required by claim 5 (Br. 24); and (6) Broda does not teach “the user is enabled to view the monitoring information without the use of a separate application monitoring information system,” as recited in claim 21 (Br. 25). patentable for the same reasons as dependent claim 5 (Br. 24). Separate patentability arguments are not presented for dependent claims 6-10, 15-17, and 22-28. Therefore, we select the following claim groups for purposes of this appeal: claim 1 as representative of the group of claims 1, 7-11, 17, 18, 22, 23, and 26-28; claim 5 as representative of the group of claims 5, 6, 15, 16, 24, and 25; and claim 21. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2010-006693 Application 12/131,590 5 Issues on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 5-11, 15-18, and 21-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Tung Loo and Broda because Tung Loo and Broda, as combined, do not teach or suggest: (1) “determining, by a processing unit, whether a user at a client data processing system is permitted access to monitoring information for a Web site,” as recited in claim 1; (2) “associating the monitoring information with the retrieved Web page,” as recited in claim 1; (3) “formatting the associated monitoring information for display in a second frame in the window for the browser to form second formatted information,” as recited in claim 1; (4) “sending the first formatted information and the second formatted information to the client data processing system for display in the window for the browser, wherein the window for the browser can simultaneously display both the retrieved Web page and the associated monitoring information,” as recited in claim 1; (5) new monitoring information is retrieved in response to a change to display a new Web page, as required by claim 5; and (6) “the user is enabled to view the monitoring information without the use of a separate application monitoring information system,” as recited in claim 21? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’ Appeal 2010-006693 Application 12/131,590 6 contention in the Appeal Brief (Br. 11-25) that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with the Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 3- 25). We highlight and amplify certain teachings and suggestions of the reference as follows. (1) “monitoring information” Appellants contend (Br. 18) that Tung Loo does not teach “determining, by a processing unit, whether a user at a client data processing system is permitted access to monitoring information for a Web site,” as recited in claim 1. To support this conclusion, Appellants rely upon their Specification for describing “monitoring information” and argue that authentication and privilege determinations, as taught by Tung Loo, are not the same as the types of “monitoring information” disclosed (see Spec. ¶ [0044]). This particular contention is not convincing, however, because claim 1 does not further limit or require the “monitoring information” to be hits, common page loads, number of visitors, etc., as exemplarily disclosed in the Specification (see Spec. ¶ [0044]). “Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim.” SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In other words, Appellants seek to import, into claim 1, one or more of the disclosed examples of monitoring information, for which Appeal 2010-006693 Application 12/131,590 7 none of the disclosed examples are part of claim 1. Nevertheless, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 3-5 and 24) that Tung Loo, as combined with Broda, teaches “determining, by a processing unit, whether a user at a client data processing system is permitted access to monitoring information for a Web site,” as recited in claim 1, because Tung Loo teaches determining whether to provide the user access to monitor workflows that are in progress or recently completed for the website (Ans. 24; see e.g., Tung Loo ¶ [0157]). (2) “associating the monitoring information with the retrieved Web page,” as recited in claim 1 Appellants contend (Br. 19) that Tung Loo does not teach “associating the monitoring information with the retrieved Web page,” as recited in claim 1. To support this conclusion, Appellants argue that Tung Loo, in paragraph [0106], discloses only “functions of an access server with respect to providing authentication, authorization, and auditing” (Br. 19). We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 5-6 and 24) that Tung Loo, as combined with Broda, teaches “associating the monitoring information with the retrieved Web page,” as recited in claim 1, because Tung Loo teaches that the user is provided web-access to the requested resources, or the workflows, that are hosted on the web server (see Tung Loo ¶ [0106]). In other words, the workflow information, requested by the user, is associated with a web page retrieved from the web server (id.). (3) “formatting the associated monitoring information for display in a second frame in the window for the browser to form second formatted information,” as recited in claim 1 Appeal 2010-006693 Application 12/131,590 8 Appellants contend (Br. 21) that Broda does not teach “formatting the associated monitoring information for display in a second frame in the window for the browser to form second formatted information,” as recited in claim 1. To support this conclusion, Appellants argue that while Broda may teach displaying multiple frames, the reference does not relate to “displaying a Web page and associated monitoring information” (Br. 21). We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 7-8 and 24-25) that Tung Loo, as combined with Broda, teaches “formatting the associated monitoring information for display in a second frame in the window for the browser to form second formatted information,” as recited in claim 1, because we are not persuaded that Broda is not related to displaying a Web page and associated monitoring information. From the record, Broda relates to displaying a Web page and associated monitoring information because Broda teaches formatting and displaying a Web page having tabs that display information from reports (see Ans. 24-25; Broda, Fig. 7C). (4) “simultaneously display,” as recited in claim 1 Appellants contend (Br. 22) that Broda does not teach “the window for the browser can simultaneously display both the retrieved Web page and the associated monitoring information,” as recited in claim 1. To support this conclusion, Appellants argue that Broda merely describes displaying multiple frames (id.). The contention is not convincing, however, because claim 1 is not limited to actually simultaneously displaying both the retrieved Web page and the associated monitoring information. Instead, claim 1 recites “can simultaneously display . . .” (emphasis added). In other words, instead of Appeal 2010-006693 Application 12/131,590 9 reciting actual performance of the function of simultaneous display, claim 1 recites a mere possibility of performing the function. See In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847 (CCPA 1959) (distinguishing, as unpatentable, a claim--in which performance of a function was recited as merely possible--to a tie rod in which “alternating electric current may be passed through” from other claims that recited actually applying alternating current to the tie rod) (emphasis added). In this regard, the contentions are not commensurate in scope with the claim because the claim does not require actual simultaneous display. Nevertheless, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 9 and 24-25) that Broda, in combination with Tung Loo, teaches “the window for the browser can simultaneously display both the retrieved Web page and the associated monitoring information,” as recited in claim 1, because Broda displays the Web page having tabs that, simultaneous with the Web page, display the reports (see Ans. 25; Broda, Fig. 7C). Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1, 7-11, 17, 18, 22, 23, and 26-28. (5) new monitoring information is retrieved in response to a change to display a new Web page, as required by claim 5 Appellants contend (Br. 24) that Tung Loo does not teach new monitoring information is retrieved in response to a change to display a new Web page, as required by claim 5. To support this conclusion, Appellants argue that the cited paragraphs 0166] and 0184] of Tung Loo merely describe how users configure the information on the page (id.). We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 11-12) that Tung Loo, as modified Appeal 2010-006693 Application 12/131,590 10 by Broda, teaches new monitoring information is retrieved in response to a change to display a new Web page, as required by claim 5, because Tung Loo, when granting the user access to configure information, pursuant to the initiate command, a new page is created having the fields for the user to enter the new information (see Ans. 11-12; Tung Loo, ¶¶ [0166] and [0184]). Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 5, 6, 15, 16, 24, and 25. (6) “without the use of a separate application monitoring information system,” as recited in claim 21 Appellants contend (Br. 25) that Broda does not teach “the user is enabled to view the monitoring information without the use of a separate application monitoring information system,” as recited in claim 21. To support this conclusion, Appellants argue that paragraph 0096] of Broda merely describes functions of various tabs that are displayed (id.). We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 17) that Tung Loo, as modified by Broda, teaches “the user is enabled to view the monitoring information without the use of a separate application monitoring information system,” as recited in claim 21 because displaying the information from the tabs does not require a separate application monitoring information system (see Ans. 17; Broda ¶ [0096] and Fig. 7C). Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 21. CONCLUSIONS (1) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 5-11, 15-18, and Appeal 2010-006693 Application 12/131,590 11 21-28 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Tung Loo and Broda because Tung Loo and Broda, as combined, teach or suggest: (a) “determining, by a processing unit, whether a user at a client data processing system is permitted access to monitoring information for a Web site,” as recited in claim 1; (b) “associating the monitoring information with the retrieved Web page,” as recited in claim 1; (c) “formatting the associated monitoring information for display in a second frame in the window for the browser to form second formatted information,” as recited in claim 1; (d) “sending the first formatted information and the second formatted information to the client data processing system for display in the window for the browser, wherein the window for the browser can simultaneously display both the retrieved Web page and the associated monitoring information,” as recited in claim 1; (e) new monitoring information is retrieved in response to a change to display a new Web page, as required by claim 5; and (f) “the user is enabled to view the monitoring information without the use of a separate application monitoring information system,” as recited in claim 21. (2) Claims 1, 5-11, 15-18, and 21-28 are not patentable. Appeal 2010-006693 Application 12/131,590 12 DECISION2 The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 5-11, 15-18, and 21-28 is affirmed. 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). AFFIRMED llw 2 We have decided the appeal before us. However, should there be further prosecution of claims 11, 15-17, 22, and 23, the Examiner’s attention is directed to the holding of In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding that transitory, propagating signals are not within any of the four statutory categories). Notably, Appellants’ Specification describes a computer-readable storage medium “can be . . . infrared . . . or a propagation medium” (Spec. ¶ [0062]), which encompasses transitory, propagating signals.