Ex Parte Jaspers et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2013

10749421 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte JOS JASPERS and FRED KEULTJES
__________

Appeal 2011-007588
Application 10/749,421
Technology Center 2100
__________

Before ERIC GRIMES, FRANCISCO C. PRATS, and
MELANIE L. McCOLLUM, Administrative Patent Judges.

PRATS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involves claims to methods and
computer programs for generating web pages. The Examiner entered
rejections for obviousness.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Appellants identify Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP, a
wholly-owned affiliate of Hewlett-Packard Company, as the Real Party in
Interest (App. Br. 3).
Appeal 2011-007588
Application 10/749,421

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 10-17, 20, and 22-27 stand rejected and appealed
(App. Br. 3). Claim 1 illustrates the appealed subject matter and reads as
follows:
1. A method comprising:
presenting a list of different selectable components used to
generate Web pages and associated configurable parameters for each
of the components;
receiving a selection of a plurality of the different selectable
components and values for associated configurable parameters for
each of the plurality of the different selectable components;
automatically generating a Web page in a Web environment
based, at least in part, on the received selection of the plurality of the
different selectable components and the received parameter values,
wherein the Web page presents the plurality of the different selectable
components in accordance with the received parameter values;
receiving a request to publish content in the Web page;
presenting, in response to the request to publish content, a
content definition user interface adapted to receive an identification of
content;
publishing the identified content in accordance with a
predefined presentation format;
receiving data corresponding to a request to navigate through
links in the Web page to a particular location within the Web page
wherein the received data corresponding to the request to navigate
does not include data identifying a navigational structure of the Web
environment, wherein the request to publish content is received in
connection with a display of the particular location on a user interface
and the identified content is published at the particular location; and
allowing access to the Web page to a site administrator and
allowing defined permissions to a content publisher to access selected
particular location within the Web page while the Web page is
published to permit updating of the contents by the content publisher.

Appeal 2011-007588
Application 10/749,421

3
The following rejections are before us for review:
(1) Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 10-17, 20 and 22-26, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Underwood2 and Giljum3 (Ans. 3-8); and
(2) Claim 27, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Underwood,
Giljum, and Maeno4 (Ans. 8-9).
DISCUSSION
The Examiner found that Underwood described a process of
automatically generating a web page, substantially as recited in claim 1,
except that Underwood’s process did not include claim 1’s last steps of
allowing access to the web page to a site administrator, and allowing defined
permissions to a content publisher to access a selected particular location
within the web page while the web page is published to permit updating of
the contents by the content publisher (see Ans. 3-5).
To address that deficiency, the Examiner cited Giljum as evidence
that it was known in the art to allow a site administrator to define publishing
permissions to users of a web page (see id. at 5).
Based on the references’ combined teachings, the Examiner reasoned
that an ordinary artisan would have considered it obvious to modify
Underwood’s web site development interface “to include distributed control
and centralized management of a website taught by Giljum with the
motivation being to generate a web site creation and maint[en]ance tool that
apportions responsibility of web site creation and maintenance task to the
most appropriate individuals” (id.).

2 Underwood et al., U.S. Patent No. 7,152,207 B1 (filed Aug. 30, 2000).
3 Giljum et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,745,238 B1 (filed Mar. 31, 2000).
4 Maeno et al., U.S. Patent No. 7,299,414 B2 (filed Sep. 5, 2002).
Appeal 2011-007588
Application 10/749,421

4
As stated in In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992):
[T]he examiner bears the initial burden . . . of presenting a
prima facie case of unpatentability. . . .
After evidence or argument is submitted by the applicant
in response, patentability is determined on the totality of the
record, by a preponderance of evidence with due consideration
to persuasiveness of argument.

Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us that a preponderance of the
evidence fails to support the Examiner’s prima case as to claim 1.
Appellants initially argue that the Examiner erred in finding that
Underwood’s process includes claim 1’s step of receiving data
corresponding to a request to navigate through links in the Web page to a
particular location within the Web page (see App. Br. 8). In particular,
Appellants argue, “the user of the tool of the Underwood Patent does not
‘navigate through links in the Web page’ as set forth in the independent
claims; the user navigates through a site template used to create a web page”
(App. Br. 9).
The Examiner responds that, in Underwood, the user selects an “icon
link” in the web page to insert text at a desired location within the web page
(see Ans. 9).
Appellants argue, however, that the icons in Underwood “cannot,
under a reasonable interpretation of the claims correspond to both the
claimed ‘particular location on a user interface’ and ‘links in the Web page
to a particular location within the Web page.’” (App. Br. 9). Thus,
Appellants urge, Underwood “does not teach or make obvious both of the
features of ‘particular location on a user interface’ and ‘links in the Web
page to a particular location within the Web page’ as set forth in the
Appeal 2011-007588
Application 10/749,421

5
independent claims. At least one of these features is missing from the
Underwood” (id.; see also Reply Br. 2-3).
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us that the Examiner erred in
finding that Underwood teaches or suggests the disputed features of claim 1.
The disputed step of claim 1 initially requires a practitioner to receive
data corresponding to a request to navigate through links in the web page to
a particular location within the web page (see App. Br. 13 (claim 1)).
Appellants point to no clear or specific definition in the Specification, or
elsewhere in the record, explaining what actions a practitioner must perform
to navigate through links in a web page, other than simply view a series of
links in the page, and select a desired link.
Underwood describes a process in which users interact with an
interface, termed a “Definer . . .[,] which acts as an assembly line for an end
user to generate a customized web site” (Underwood, col. 4, l. 67, through
col. 5, l. 1). Underwood explains:
The Web Definer allows the owners of a web site to choose
both the image, including look and feel, and the content
information that their web site will present even though in most
cases the owners of the business do not have the technical skills
required to achieve this objective from scratch.

(Id. at col. 5, ll. 39-44.) When a user wishes to change content in the site,
which undisputedly reads on publishing content in the site, the user selects
from different icons positioned in various locations in the site template, and
the icons in turn activate menus that allow editing of the content (see id. at
col 16, ll. 36-46).
It may be true that Underwood describes the interface used for editing
as a “site template” (see id. at col. 16, l. 38). Underwood explains, however,
Appeal 2011-007588
Application 10/749,421

6
that “[a]s illustrated in FIG. 18, and icons are positioned in various
locations throughout the page for activating pop-menus for a variety of
commands for adding and changing the content of the selected page” (id. at
col. 16, ll. 43-46).
Thus, given that a user of Underwood’s system seeking to edit or
publish content in a site must view a series of icons in the page and select a
particular icon which corresponds to, that is, links to, a particular location in
the web site, and its underlying content, Appellants’ arguments do not
persuade us that the Examiner erred in finding that Underwood teaches or
suggests the step of receiving data corresponding to a request to navigate
through links in the web page to a particular location within the web page.
Moreover, as required by claim 1, it is not evident that navigating through
the links in Underwood’s web site requires or includes data identifying the
navigational structure of the web site.
As to the disputed step, claim 1 further requires the request to publish
content to be received in connection with a display of the particular location
on a user interface, with the identified content being published at the
particular location. As seen in Underwood, editing, in other words a request
to publish content on the web site, is performed by selecting the appropriate
icon in an interface that allows modifying the text that appears at a specific
location in the web page (see, e.g., Underwood, col. 17, ll. 29-32 (“A new
text component may be added to any location on a template page by clicking
an icon next to the area where the text component is to be inserted, and
selecting the insert text command in pop-up menu 2105.”)).
Thus, because editing content in a web site in Underwood’s system
involves both navigation through a set of icons linked to underlying textual
Appeal 2011-007588
Application 10/749,421

7
content, as well as entry of textual content at a particular location in the site
through a user interface, Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us that the
Examiner erred in finding that Underwood teaches or suggests claim 1’s
“receiving data” step.
Appellants also argue that an ordinary artisan would not have
combined Giljum with Underwood because Underwood is directed to
unsophisticated users, whereas Giljum is directed to very sophisticated web
developers (see App. Br. 10-11).
We are not persuaded. We note that column 6 of Giljum discloses
that a database administrator must allocate space in a database for a web site
created according to Giljum’s teachings (see Giljum, col. 6, ll. 45-52).
Appellants do not, however, point to any clear or specific evidence of record
suggesting that allocation of space in a database according to Giljum’s
teachings requires sophisticated web development skills.
Indeed, contrary to Appellants’ argument that Giljum’s teachings
would only be applied by sophisticated web developers, Giljum expressly
states that “it is desirable to generate a web site creation and maintenance
tool that permits non-technical people to publish content on a web site” (id.
at col. 1, ll. 58-60). Moreover, Giljum describes its invention as a “self
service web site system [which] permits content contributors to publish
content without knowledge of HTML” (id. at col. 1, ll. 66-67).
Thus, because we are not persuaded that the teachings of Giljum and
Underwood are directed to significantly different sets of practitioners,
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us that an ordinary artisan would
have failed to combine the references in the manner posited by the
Examiner. As Appellants’ arguments also fail to persuade us, for the
Appeal 2011-007588
Application 10/749,421

8
reasons discussed above, that the Examiner erred in finding that the cited
references teach or suggest all of the features of claim 1, we affirm the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of that claim over Giljum and Underwood.
As they were not argued separately, claims 3, 4, 8, 10-17, 20 and 22-
26 fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
In rejecting claim 27, which ultimately depends from claim 1, over
Underwood, Giljum, and Maeno, the Examiner cited Maeno as evidence that
features recited in claim 27, but not described in Underwood or Giljum,
would have been obvious to include in Underwood’s process (see Ans. 8-9).
Regarding this rejection, Appellants argue only that Maeno fails to remedy
the shortcomings, discussed above, of Underwood and Giljum as to claim 1
(see App. Br. 11).
As discussed above, however, Appellants’ arguments do not persuade
us that Underwood and Giljum would have failed to render claim 1 obvious
to an ordinary artisan. Thus, as Appellants’ arguments direct us to no defect
in the Examiner’s prima facie case as to claim 27, and as we detect none, we
affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 27 as well.
SUMMARY
We affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 8,
10-17, 20 and 22-26 over Underwood and Giljum.
We also affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 27 over
Underwood, Giljum, and Maeno.

Appeal 2011-007588
Application 10/749,421

9
TIME PERIOD
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