Ex Parte Green et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 11, 2016

11326202 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111326,202 0110412006 106095 7590 02/16/2016 Baker Botts LLP 2001 Ross Avenue, 6th Floor Dallas, TX 75201 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Bruce William Green 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. 063170.2711 1156 EXAMINER NAZAR, AHAMED I ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2178 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/16/2016 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): PTOmaill@bakerbotts.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BRUCE WILLIAM GREEN and JASON S. SHAPIRO Appeal2014-002607 1 Application 11/326,202 Technology Center 2100 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-32. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. Appellants' Invention Appellants' invention is directed to a web portal layout manager system for rendering a web portal according to a user's specifications. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Computer Associates Think, Inc. App. Br. 2. Appeal2014-002607 Application 11/326,202 Spec. 3 :2-3, Fig. 1. In particular, upon receiving from the user terminal (112) a request to produce the web portal (200) including a selected layout, a number of portlets (202), and the formatting properties thereof, a layout manager (104) utilizes a rendering engine (114) to render the web portal as specified by the user. Id. at 3:3-12. Illustrative Claim Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows: 1. A method for rendering a web portal, comprising: receiving, through a network, a request from a user to produce a web portal, the request including an indication of a particular number of portlets to be included in the web portal and an indication selecting one of multiple predetermined layout types, each layout type comprising a specified arrangement of the particular number of portlets within the web portal, each layout type specified by a distinct executable component of a plurality of executable components, the portlets managed by a portlet container of the web portal, the portlets operable to display content of a plurality of information systems; receiving a set of portlets; receiving formatting properties for the set of portlets; calling the executable component of the plurality of executable components that specifies the selected predetermined layout type to produce a code fragment specifying at least a portion of a web portal containing the set of portlets having the selected predetermined layout type and formatting properties; receiving an indication of content to populate the portlets of the web portal specified by the code fragment; and rendering the at least a portion of the web portal specified by the code fragment containing the indicated content. 2 Appeal2014-002607 Application 11/326,202 Ritchy Bales Flores Boehme Kim Prior Art Relied Upon US 2004/0183831 Al US 2004/0230947 Al US 2005/0021765 Al US 2005/0120288 Al US 2005/0283524 Al Rejections on Appeal Sept. 23, 2004 Nov. 18, 2004 Jan.27,2005 June 2, 2005 Dec. 22, 2005 Appellants request review of the following Examiner's rejections: Claims 1--4, 8-12, 16, 17-22, 26, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Boehme and Flores.2 Claims 5-7, 13-15, 23-25, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Boehme, Flores, and Bales. Claims 28 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Boehme, Flores, and Ritchy. Claims 30 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Boehme, Flores, and Kim. 2 Although claim 20 is omitted from this statement of the rejection, the Examiner nonetheless discusses claim 20 as part of this rejection. Final Act 13. 3 Appeal2014-002607 Application 11/326,202 ANALYSIS We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 12-19.3 Dispositive Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103, did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Boehme and Flores teaches or suggests receiving from a user a request to produce a web portal including a number of specified portlets, as required by independent claim 1? Appellants argue the combination of Boehme and Flores does not teach or suggest the disputed limitations emphasized above. App. Br. 12- 16. In particular, Appellants argue Boehme discloses a system for allowing a user to view and edit the number of portlets in an existing web portal layout, as opposed to receiving a request to produce a web portlet including a specified number of portlets. Id. at 14 (citing Boehme i-f 31 ). Further, Appellants argue Flores' disclosure of an interface in a portal application for allowing a user to specify context attributes thereby identifying portlets to be displayed in a web portal does not cure the noted deficiencies of Boehme. Id. at 14--16 (citing Flores i-fi-120-21, 30-31). According to Appellants, Flores' disclosure of a portal refers to "anchor Web pages used as entry points or gateways to network accessible information" or "an access portal 3 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed June 11, 2013), and the Answer (mailed August 19, 2013) for their respective details. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Brief. Any other arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Brief are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013). 4 Appeal2014-002607 Application 11/326,202 for a website." Id. at 14--15 (citing Flores i-fi-14, 7, 18, 22, 29). Likewise, Appellants argue that Flores' disclosure of portlets refers to "a context specific view of that website." Id. at 15. Additionally, Appellants submit even if Flores discloses a system for allowing an administrator to specify which portlets will be displayed in a web portal being generated, Flores does not teach that the administrator may submit such specifications in a request. Id. at 16. These arguments are not persuasive because they are tantamount to an individual attack against Boehme and Flores. One cannot show non- obviousness by attacking the references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981 ). As correctly noted by the Examiner, Flores discloses receiving from a portal administrator a request including parameters specifying portlets to be displayed in a web portal to be generated. Ans. 4 (citing Flores i-fi-1 42- 43). Although Appellants accurately characterize Flores' disclosure of portals and portlets, as noted above, Appellants have not provided in the Specification a definition for the cited terms that distinguishes them from Flores. In fact, Appellants' own Specification indicates that web portals are known in the art to provide a common interface for content (portlets) aggregated from a variety of disparate sources. Spec. 2: 1-9. We further note Appellants' failure to challenge the Examiner's finding of Boehme's disclosure of a web portal containing portlets. Instead, Appellants merely challenge Boehme' s disclosure for its alleged failure to create a web portal. 5 Appeal2014-002607 Application 11/326,202 Nonetheless, we note Boehme indicates web portals are known to be created pursuant to a user's Specification. Boehme ,-r 1. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Boehme and Flores teaches or suggests the disputed limitations. It follows Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Regarding the rejection of claim 32, Appellants argue that the combination of Boehme and Flores does not teach or suggest a plurality of layout types, each comprising a specified arrangement of a predetermined number of portlets within the web portal. App. Br. 17-18. This argument is not persuasive. As discussed above, Flores' disclosure of a web portal administrator specifying in a request which portlets should be included in a web portal teaches or suggests to the ordinarily skilled artisan to render a different web portal with a different number of portlets based on the device communicating with the portal. Flores, Fig. 1. Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 32. Regarding the rejection of claims 2-31, because Appellants have either not presented separate patentability arguments or have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for patentability of claim 1 above (App. Br. 16, 18-19), claims 2-31 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013). DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) of claims 1-32. 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). 6 Appeal2014-002607 Application 11/326,202 AFFIRMED 7