Ex Parte Lection et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 17, 2017

13424882 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/424,882 03/20/2012 David B. Lection RSW920050040US2 2354 8152-0180 112978 7590 03/21/2017 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC 20283 State Road 7, Suite 300 Boca Raton, EL 33498 EXAMINER CHEN, YAHAO ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2177 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/21/2017 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): ibmptomail@iplawpro.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DAVID B. LECTION, ERIC L. MASSELLE, and MOHAMAD R. SALAHSHOOR Appeal 2016-001919 Application 13/424,8821 Technology Center 2100 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Introduction This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 20—27 and 33—39. This appeal is related to Appeal 2009-012445, App. No. 11/170,916 (parent to the pending application), decided August 10,2011, reh ’g granted December 2,2011. See App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellants identify IBM Corporation as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2016-001919 Application 13/424,882 Invention Appellants disclose: a system for refreshing portlet content in a portal view [that] can include a portal server configured to render a portal page, a portlet aggregator configured to provide portlet markup for different portlets in different refresh controllers having independently refreshable portions, and a refresh servlet coupled to the portlet aggregator that includes programming to configure the portal page with the different refresh controllers. Abstract. Exemplary Claims Claims 20 and 25, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized, are representative: 20. A method, performed within a portal server, of aggregating a portal page including a plurality of different portlets, comprising: refreshing, independently, each of the plurality of different portlets using a plurality of different refresh controllers, wherein each of the plurality of different refresh controllers is, respectively, associated with one of the plurality of different portlets, and controls a refresh rate of the one of the plurality of different portlets. 25. The method of claim 20, wherein each of the plurality of different refresh controllers includes a refresh script, and the refresh script controls the refresh rate of the portlet. Rejections The Examiner rejects claims 20, 21, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Chowdhry (US 2003/0167315 Al; Sept. 4, 2003). Final Act. 4—6. 2 Appeal 2016-001919 Application 13/424,882 The Examiner rejects claims 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chowdhry and Harris (US 7,162, 717 Bl; Jan. 9, 2007). Final Act. 6-7. The Examiner rejects claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chowdhry and Joshi (US 2004/0177147 Al; Sept. 9, 2004). Final Act. 7-8. The Examiner rejects claims 27 and 33—39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chowdhry, Harris, Joshi, and Greg Ziebold, et al., Asynchronous Rendering of Portlet Content with AJAX Technology, Sept. 5, 2006, archived version available at http://web.archive.org/web/ 20060228095214/http://developers.sun.com/prodtech/portalserver/reference/ techart/asynch_rendering.html. Final Act. 8—10. ANALYSIS Claims 20—24, 26,27, and 33—39 Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding Chowdhry discloses “refreshing, independently, each of the plurality of different portlets using a plurality of different refresh controllers,” as recited in claim 20? In rejecting claim 20, the Examiner finds that Chowdhry’s use of the JavaScript used to create a portlet to send a parsing controller a message to update a portlet when the portlet’s refresh interval expires—where the portlet can be refreshed independently of the others—discloses refreshing, independently, each of the plurality of different portlets using a plurality of different refresh controllers. Final Act. 5 (citing, e.g., Chowdhry || 243— 44); see also Ans. 9—10. That is, the Examiner finds that Chowdhry’s portlet-creation JavaScript—when supplied a portlet’s assigned refresh rate (Chowdhry 1243) and the portlet’s ID (id. 1244)—discloses a refresh controller. Thus, Chowdhry’s use of multiple portlet refresh rates and IDs to 3 Appeal 2016-001919 Application 13/424,882 enable each portlet to be refreshed independently discloses a plurality of different refresh controllers. Final Act. 5. Appellants contend the Examiner erred because “Chowdhry only relies upon a single controller (i.e., parser controller 252 in Figs. 27—28 and 37) to refresh the portlets.” App. Br. 10; see also Reply Br. 2. Appellants also argue that Chowdhry only discloses “a single Refreshportlet Module 504” (Reply Br. 4), and thus, “whether the Examiner is relying upon the ParserController 252 or the Refreshportlet Module 504 to teach a refresh controller, Chowdhry only teaches that a single refresh controller is used” {id. at 5). Appellants’ arguments are not responsive to the Examiner’s findings, and are, therefore, unpersuasive. As the Examiner notes, the rejection does not rely on Chowdhry’s ‘“refresh controller’ [being] equivalent to the ‘refresh controller’ being claimed.” Ans. 9. Moreover, the portion of Chowdhry that relates to Refreshportlet Module 504 details how a portlet is manually refreshed in response to a user request. See Chowdhry 1274, Fig. 58. The Examiner relies on the independent refreshing of portlets based on their assigned refresh rates, which are controlled by the JavaScript used to create each portlet, a refresh interval, and a portlet ID. Id. ^fl[ 243 44; Final Act. 5; Ans. 9—10. That is, the Examiner relies on an automated portlet refresh, rather than the manual portlet refresh Appellants contend differs from the claimed invention. Appellants’ arguments do not distinguish the claimed refresh controllers from Chowdhry’s portlet-creating JavaScript as employed using a refresh interval and portlet ID for each of a plurality of independently refreshed portlets. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Chowdhry discloses “refreshing, independently, each of the plurality of 4 Appeal 2016-001919 Application 13/424,882 different portlets using a plurality of different refresh controllers,” as recited in claim 20. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claim 20, and claims 21 and 26, which Appellants do not argue separately. App. Br. 9. We also sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 22—24, 27, and 33—39, which Appellants argue are patentable for similar reasons. Id. at 13—15. Claim 25 Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding Chowdhry discloses “each of the plurality of different refresh controllers includes a refresh script, and the refresh script controls the refresh rate of the portlet,” as recited in claim 25? In rejecting claim 25, the Examiner finds Chowdhry’s use of the JavaScript used to create a portlet—supplied with the portlet’s assigned refresh rate—to send a parsing controller a message to update a portlet when the portlet’s refresh interval expires discloses each of the plurality of different refresh controllers includes a refresh script, and the refresh script controls the refresh rate of the portlet. Final Act. 5 (citing Chowdhry || 243—44); Ans. 10-11. Appellants contend the Examiner erred because “the parsing controller is separate from the JavaScript, and thus, the parsing controller does not ‘include’ the JavaScript.” App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 6—7. However, as detailed above, the Examiner does not rely on Chowdhry’s parsing controller to disclose the claimed refresh controller. Rather, the Examiner relies on Chowdhry’s portlet-creating JavaScript—as employed using a refresh interval and portlet ID for each of a plurality of independently refreshed portlets—to disclose a refresh controller as claimed. Appellants’ arguments are not responsive to the Examiner’s findings, and thus are 5 Appeal 2016-001919 Application 13/424,882 unpersuasive. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Chowdhry discloses “each of the plurality of different refresh controllers includes a refresh script, and the refresh script controls the refresh rate of the portlet,” as recited in claim 25. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claim 25. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 20—27 and 33—39. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED 6