Ex Parte Narayan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 2, 2013

11462577 (P.T.A.B. May. 2, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte PRAMODH NARAYAN; MATTHEW A. TERRY; LEROY W. TILT, VI; and MATTHEW B. TREVATHAN ____________________ Appeal 2010-005952 Application 11/462,577 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges. DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-005952 Application 11/462,577 2 STATEMENT OF CASE1 The Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection of claims 1 and 4-50, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. The Appellants invented a system and method of receiving a request for web content associated with a portlet from end user applications and retrieving all pieces of relevant content, associated with the request, from repositories. Specification [09]. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some paragraphing added]: 1. A method, comprising: [1] receiving a request for web content associated with a portlet from one or more end user applications, wherein the portlet is a content area within a web page that occupies a window within the web page and is arranged to display different types of information; [2] receiving user information from the one or more end user applications; [3] receiving additional user information from an LDAP [Lightweight Directory Access Protocol]; [4] calling an xml file associated with the portlet, wherein the xml file describes all available content for the portlet by defining plural pieces of content that are available for the portlet; 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed September 29, 2009) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed February 12, 2010), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed March 1, 2010), and Final Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed May 29, 2009). Appeal 2010-005952 Application 11/462,577 3 [5] determining, based on the user information and the additional user information, which of the plural pieces of content of the portlet the user is qualified to view, wherein the determining is performed by a central service oriented content framework independent of the one or more end user applications; and [6] returning to the one or more end user applications a content descriptor that points to where the qualified content may be obtained. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art: Bales US 2004/0010598 A1 Jan. 15, 2004 Neil US 2006/0036941 A1 Feb. 16, 2006 Grandcolas US 2006/0195816 A1 Aug. 31, 2006 (filed on Oct. 3, 2005) Timmons US 2008/0086736 A1 Apr. 10, 2008 (filed on Feb. 13, 2004) Patel US 2008/0086402 A1 Apr. 10, 2008 (filed on May 4, 2000) Moore US 2008/0071912 A1 Mar. 20, 2008 (filed on Jul. 30, 2004) REJECTIONS Claims 1, 4-13, 15-24, 29-31, 33-44, 49, and 50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Neil, Grandcolas, and Timmons. Ans. 5-15. Claims 14, 32, 45, and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Neil, Grandcolas, Timmons, and Patel. Ans. 15-17. Appeal 2010-005952 Application 11/462,577 4 Claims 25-28, 47, and 48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Neil, Grandcolas, Timmons, and Moore. Ans. 17-19. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Neil, Grandcolas, Timmons, and Bales. Ans. 19. ISSUE The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 4- 50 turns on whether the combination of Neil, Grandcolas, and Timmons teaches or suggests “calling an xml file associated with the portlet, wherein the xml file describes all available content for the portlet by defining plural pieces of content that are available for the portlet,” as per claims 1, 34, 49, and 50. ANALYSIS The Appellants contend that neither Neil, Grandcolas, nor Timmons, describe the step of calling an xml file associated with a portlet where the xml file describes all available content for the portlet by defining plural pieces of content that are available for the portlet, as required by limitation [4] of claim 1. App. Br. 14-15; Reply Br. 9-11. The Appellants specifically argue that while Grandcolas might disclose an xml file with the word “portlet” in it, Grandcolas’ teachings do not describe calling an xml file that describes all available content for the portlet by defining several pieces of content available for the portlet. App. Br. 14-15 (citing Grandcolas [310] and [311]); Reply Br. 9-11. The Examiner finds that Grandcolas refers to “portlet, and portlet name” (citing [310]) and “xml file, sub apps, coexist- group elements, tag, tag attributes” (citing [311]) and concludes that “[t]he Appeal 2010-005952 Application 11/462,577 5 xml.file illustrated defines the content that will be available for the portlet window.” Ans. 32-33. Additionally, the Examiner finds that Timmons discloses “portlets, portlets on web pages, information captured by portlet” (citing [46]) and that the user can map content to portlets based on the various definitions referred to in Timmons. Ans. 36 (citing Timmons [79], [88], and [131]). We agree with the Appellants that the portions of the references referred to by the Examiner do not teach the calling of an xml file associated with a portlet that describes all available content for the portlet by defining plural pieces of content that are available for the portlet.The portion of Grandcolas relied upon by the Examiner generally describes an xml file containing the word “portlet” and other definitions relating to portlets. Ans. 6-8 (citing Grandcolas ¶¶ 0310-0311). However, a person with ordinary skill in the art would not glean from this disclosure that the XML file describes all available content for the portlet by defining plural pieces of content that are available for the portlet. As such, the Examiner’s conclusory statement that Grandcolas’ xml file describes all content available to the portlet lacks a sufficient factual basis and the Examiner has not explained why one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the xml file describes the claimed limitation. Accordingly, we do not find any evidence on record that Neil, Grandcolas, or Timmons teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. As such, for the reasons stated supra, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 4-50. Appeal 2010-005952 Application 11/462,577 6 CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 4-50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION To summarize, our decision is as follows:  The rejection of claims 1, 4-13, 15-24, 29-31, 33-44, 49, and 50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Neil, Grandcolas, and Timmons is reversed.  The rejection of claims 14, 32, 45, and 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Neil, Grandcolas, Timmons, and Patel is reversed.  The rejection of claims 25-28, 47, and 48 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Neil, Grandcolas, Timmons, and Moore is reversed.  The rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Neil, Grandcolas, Timmons, and Bales is reversed. REVERSED tj