Ex Parte Vink

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 22, 2017

14173814 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 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.
14/173,814 02/06/2014 Jelle Vink 1301-027U 5337
112025 7590
CRGO LAW
7900 Glades Road
Suite 520
Boca Raton, EL 33434
EXAMINER
BLOOMQUIST, KEITH D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2178
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/24/2017 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):
docketing@crgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JELLE VINK1’2
Appeal 2017-004609
Application 14/173,814
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, DENISE M. POTHIER, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.
POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—18. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We affirm.
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Action (Final Act.)
mailed January 6, 2016, (2) the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed June 20, 2016,
(3) the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed November 18, 2016, and (4) the
Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed January 18, 2017.
2 Sugar CRM, Inc. is listed as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-004609
Application 14/173,814
The Invention
Appellant’s invention “relates to cascading style sheet (CSS) sprites
and more particularly to master image loading of a CSS sprite in a Web
page.” See Spec. 12.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method of dynamic theme switching utilizing sprites,
the method comprising:
loading into memory of a computer a stylesheet defining
an arrangement and display of different user interface controls
of a user interface to an application, the user interface controls
of the user interface providing control elements with which end
users interact in interacting with the user interface;
identifying within the stylesheet, a reference to a sprite
comprising a single bitmap image of multiple different ones of
the user interface controls according to specified display
characteristics;
assembling a page for the user interface including the
referenced sprite and transmitting the page to a requesting
content browser over a computer communications network;
and,
responsive to a request to change a theme of the user
interface to a different theme, modifying the stylesheet to
reference a different sprite associated with the different theme,
re-assembling a page for the user interface including the
referenced different sprite and transmitting the re-assembled
page to the content browser over the computer communications
network.
App. Br. 11 (Claims App’x).
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Marlow US 2011/0113000 A1 May 12, 2011
Pearson US 2011/0225631 A1 Sept. 15,2011
2
Appeal 2017-004609
Application 14/173,814
The Rejection
Claims 1—18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Marlow and Pearson. Final Act. 2—7; Ans. 2—7.
THE CONTENTIONS
Regarding representative claim l,3 the Examiner finds that Marlow
teaches “loading ... a stylesheet defining and arrangement and display of
different user interface controls of a user interface” and “identifying within
the stylesheet, a reference to a sprite comprising a single bitmap image of
multiple different ones of the user interface controls.” Final Act. 2—3 (citing
Marlow 15, 27, 30). Concerning the limitation “modifying the stylesheet
to reference a different sprite associated with the different themes” in
response to a request to change a theme of the user interface to a different
theme, the Examiner determines Marlow and Pearson in combination teach
this limitation. Id. at 3^4 (citing Marlow 130, Pearson || 248—54).
Appellant quotes the “loading” step and then states “[s]o much is
believed to be lacking in the combination of Marlow and Pearson.” App.
Br. 6. Appellant also argues that Marlow’s paragraph 15 does not use sprites
as claimed in accessing image elements. Id. at 7. Specifically, Appellant
asserts that Marlow teaches images are sprited as part of a part module but
the page module itself is not sprited. Id. at 8; Reply Br. 3. Appellant
contends in comparison, as claimed, “a stylesheet also defines a reference to
a sprite that includes a single bitmap ... is identified within the stylesheet.”
App. Br. 8. Lastly, Appellant argues Marlow fails to teach “modifying the
3 Claims 1—18 are argued as a group. App. Br. 5—10. We select claim 1 as
representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
3
Appeal 2017-004609
Application 14/173,814
stylesheet to reference a different sprite” in response to a request to change
the theme. Id. at 9 (citing Marlow 127).
ISSUES
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
Marlow and Pearson collectively would have taught or suggested:
I. “loading into memory of a computer a stylesheet defining an
arrangement and display of different user interface controls of a user
interface to an application, the user interface controls of the user interface
providing control elements with which end users interact in interacting with
the user interface,”
II. “identifying within the stylesheet, a reference to a sprite
comprising a single bitmap image of multiple different ones of the user
interface controls according to specified display characteristics,” and
III. “responsive to a request to change a theme of the user interface to
a different theme, modifying the stylesheet to reference a different sprite
associated with the different theme [and] re-assembling a page for the user
interface including the referenced different sprite and transmitting”?
ANALYSIS
I.
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
rejection of representative claim 1, which calls for, in pertinent part,
“loading into memory of a computer a stylesheet defining an arrangement
and display of different user interface controls of a user interface to an
application, the user interface controls of the user interface providing control
4
Appeal 2017-004609
Application 14/173,814
elements with which end users interact in interacting with the user
interface.” For this limitation, the rejection cites to Marlow’s teaching of a
web server accessing a CSS used by a web page to generate and display
various page modules in the page’s interface. Final Act. 2—3 (citing Marlow
1115, 30).
Although the rejection relies on both paragraphs 15 and 30 in Marlow
for the above limitation, the arguments only discuss paragraph 15. See App.
Br. 6—7. In particular, Appellant fails to challenge the teaching in Marlow’s
paragraph 30 of accessing a web page that contains page modules including
the CSS used by the displayed page modules, which we determine
reasonably teaches the recited “loading into memory of a computer a
stylesheet” step. Final Act. 2—3. Moreover, the arguments discuss “the
claimed usage of sprites in accessing image elements including menus.”
App. Br. 7. But, no such language related to sprites4 or menus is found in
the “loading” step. App. Br. 11 (Claims App’x).
Granted, the “loading” step recites “loading ... a stylesheet defining
an arrangement and display of different user interface controls of a user
interface,” which “provid[e] control elements with which end users interact.”
Id.', see also App. Br. 8 (stating the claims recite “a stylesheet defines an
arrangement and display of different UI controls of a UI to an application.”)
The rejection explains how Marlow teaches this limitation, stating a page
module in Marlow can be one of several web page elements, including
menus and sidebars (e.g., an arrangement and display of different user
4 “Sprite is a computer graphics term used to refer to two-dimensional
graphical overlays that can be animated and placed into a larger scene.”
Spec. 14.
5
Appeal 2017-004609
Application 14/173,814
interface controls of a user interface that provide control elements with
which end users interact). Id. at 3 (citing Marlow 115).
The arguments related to the “identifying” step are therefore not
persuasive.
II.
Claim 1 also recites “identifying within the stylesheet, a reference to a
sprite comprising a single bitmap image of multiple different ones of the
user interface controls according to specified display characteristics.”
Appellant argues Marlow’s paragraph 15 does not use sprites in accessing
image elements as recited (App. Br. 7) and Marlow’s page module is not
sprited (App. Br. 8).
Claim 1, however, does not recite image elements or even accessing
images as asserted. Id. at 11 (Claims App’x). On the other hand, the claim
recites identifying “a reference to a sprite” within a stylesheet, the sprite
“comprising a single bitmap image of multiple different ones of the user
interface controls according to specified display characteristics.” Id.
(Claims App’x). As such, although claim 1 does not recite that a stylesheet
defines a reference to a sprite as argued {id. at 8), claim 1 recites “identifying
within the style sheet, a reference to a sprite” and the referenced sprite
comprises “a single bitmap image of multiple different ones of the user
interface controls according to specified display characteristics.” Id. at 11
(Claims App’x).
To the extent Appellant contends that Marlow fails to teach the recited
“identifying” step in claim 1 (see App. Br. 7—9), we are not persuaded.
Although Appellant focuses on paragraph 15 of Marlow {id. at 8), the
rejection relies on paragraph 27 to teach this limitation. Final Act. 3 (citing
6
Appeal 2017-004609
Application 14/173,814
Marlow 127). The Examiner further discusses paragraph 26 in the
Response to Argument section. Ans. 8. Appellant’s arguments in the
Appeal Brief and Reply Brief do not address the Examiner’s findings related
to paragraphs 26 and 27 in Marlow. App. Br. 7—9 (addressing Marlow
115); Reply Br 3—6 (addressing Marlow 15, 18, 24).
To be sure, Appellant addresses paragraph 27. See App. Br. 9; Reply
Br. 6—7. But, this is done in the context of discussing the “modifying” step
of claim 1. See App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 6—7. Regardless, Marlow teaches
images 130 and 135 are styled on web pages 100 and 105 using CSS
selectors and associated rules (e.g., step 320) and are combined into a single
image, such as sprite 400 (e.g., .imagel30, .imagel35 { background:
transparent url (http://site.com/sprite.png) no-repeat 0 0; }). Marlow
25—27, Figs. 1 A—B, 3^4. As such, Marlow teaches identifying CSS
selectors and rules (e.g., a stylesheet) and within these selectors and rules is
a reference to a sprite (i.e., http://site.com/sprite.png) comprising a single
image of two different images. Moreover, Marlow teaches such images in
Marlow can be portable network graphic (.png) files, and thus, Marlow
teaches or suggests a sprite (e.g., 400) can be a single bitmap image of
multiple different images. See id.
Additionally, Marlow teaches the above images can be part of a page
module (e.g., 110, 120) of a web page (e.g., 100, 105). Marlow Tflf 16, 25,
Figs. 1 A—B. Marlow explains that such page modules denote a certain
element of a web page and the element may include images, including
menus and sidebars (e.g., user interface controls of a user interface providing
control elements with which end users interact). Marlow 115. Marlow
further explains page modules have associated with it stylesheet language
7
Appeal 2017-004609
Application 14/173,814
(e.g., CSS) for presentation and/or styling (e.g., “style sheet code”). Id.
1115,27.
Thus, Marlow teaches the CSS rules and code form a stylesheet and
Marlow’s rules and code discussed in paragraph 27 (e.g., a stylesheet)
reference a sprite comprising a single bitmap image of multiple different
user interface controls of a user interface as recited in claim 1. Accordingly,
we disagree with Appellant that Marlow’s stylesheet fails to include a
reference to a sprite as recited.
III.
Appellant argues Marlow’s paragraph 27 does not teach “the claimed
modification of a stylesheet to replace a reference to one sprite of UI
controls to another sprite . . . .” App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 6—7. Notably, claim 1
does not recite replacing the reference to one sprite, but rather “modifying
the stylesheet to reference a different sprite associated with the different
theme.” App. Br. 11 (Claims App’x). Moreover, independent claim 6 does
not recite a modifying step or a similar “system” limitation. This argument
therefore does not apply to claim 6.
As the Examiner indicates (Ans. 9), the rejection relies on both
Marlow and Pearson to teach this disputed limitation. Final Act.
3^4 (citing Marlow 130, Pearson H 248—54). Appellant’s argument,
however, only discusses Marlow and does not address or dispute the
Examiner’s findings concerning Pearson. Appellant also discusses
Marlow’s paragraph 27, when the rejection relies on paragraph 30.
Compare App. Br. 9 with Final Act. 4. As such, the Examiner’s findings of
Marlow and Pearson concerning the recited “modifying” step (Final Act. 3—
4) essentially remain undisputed.
8
Appeal 2017-004609
Application 14/173,814
Even so, we emphasize Marlow discusses modifying a CSS to
reference and incorporate the page modules’ images from a sprite, if the
rules indicate that a previously-created sprite is currently required (e.g., a
different sprite). See Marlow 130 (discussing block 320 in Figure 3), cited
in Final Act. 4. Pearson further teaches dynamically changing or updating a
theme or color of a web page/site is known in the art. Pearson || 248—54,
cited in Final Act. 4. The Examiner determines such customization taught
by Pearson can be incorporating into Marlow’s process of modifying a CSS
to modify a stylesheet to refer to a different sprite associated with a different
theme and re-assembling a page for the user interface, including the
referenced, different sprite, with the changes when a theme or color is
selected (see Final Act. 4).
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in
the rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 2—18 not separately argued.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—18 under § 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9