Harry G. James

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 25, 2019

14089198 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2019)

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.
14/089,198 11/25/2013 Harry G. James TRCP.P0031USC1/1000318658 8886
29053 7590 09/25/2019
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
2200 ROSS AVENUE
SUITE 3600
DALLAS, TX 75201-7932
EXAMINER
LIAO, JASON G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2156
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/25/2019 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):
doipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HARRY G. JAMES
Appeal 2019-000151
Application 14/089,198
Technology Center 2100
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 6–8, all the pending claims in the
present application. See App. Br. 14–17 (Claims Appendix). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Thomson
Reuters Global Resources Unlimited Company. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-000151
Application 14/089,198

2
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to systems and methods for facilitating an
integrated display of information to a user. See Spec., Abstract. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method, comprising:
storing information related to a first service on a non-
transitory computer readable data storage of a remote display
management server registry that is part of a first user device, the
information related to the first service indicating that the first
service is configured to receive data from a first remote data
source;
storing information related to a second service on the
data storage of the remote display management server registry,
the information related to the second service indicating that the
second service is configured to receive data from a second
remote data source, the second remote data source being
independent of the first remote data source;
selecting a layout of a windowed display of the first
service and a windowed display of the second service within a
pane of a display application based on a role of the user within
an organization, wherein the layout specifies a placement of a
first area within the pane to display information received by the
first service from the first remote data source and of a second
area within the pane to display information received by the
second service from the second remote data source;
determining context information associated with the first
service;
displaying, based on the context information, data
received from the first remote data source, by the first service,
on the first area specified by the layout selected based on the
role of the user;
publishing information, by the first service, based on the
data received from the first remote data source, for use by the
second service;
determining, by the second service, based on the
published information, data to be displayed, of data received
from the second remote data source; and
Appeal 2019-000151
Application 14/089,198

3
displaying, by the second service, the data determined to
be displayed of the data received from the second remote data
source on the second area specified by the layout selected based
on the role of the user.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6–8 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gershman (US 6,199,099 B1, Mar. 6,
2001) and Silberschatz (Operating System Concepts 5th Ed., 1999)2. Non-
Final Act. 8.
Claim 3 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gershman, Silberschatz, and Scimone (US 6,647,410 B1,
Nov. 11, 2003). Id. at 17.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1–3 and 6–8
Appellant initially contends the combination of Gershman and
Silberschatz does not teach or suggest claim 1’s “selecting a layout of a
windowed display of the first service and a windowed display of the second
service within a pane of a display application based on a role of the user
within an organization.” App. Br. 7–9 (emphasis omitted); Reply Br. 2–4.
In particular, Appellant contends,
Gershman discloses a web page layout that may be specified by
user preferences and that a single user may have multiple sets

2 The Non-Final Action also refers to Silberschatz as IPC (“interprocess
communication”) and “DinoBook.” See Non-Final Act. 4, 8, 11; Ans. 11.
Appeal 2019-000151
Application 14/089,198

4
of preferences (i.e., multiple personas). However, a layout
based on user preferences is not the same as a layout that is
based on a user role within an organization.

App. Br. 8. Appellant then provides two examples. In the first, Appellant
asserts that if there were “two users, both with different roles” and “the same
preferences,” these users would “see the same context and layout” in
Gershman. Id. “In this case,” Appellant contends, “each of the users’ roles
would have no bearing on the layout and content of the web page presented
to each of the users.” Id. In Appellant’s second example, “two users, both
with the same role within an organization and with different preferences . . .
would see different context and a different layout.” Id.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, “Gershman as a whole discloses
layouts (Profiles have layouts) based on the role of a user (e.g.
‘David(Work)’).” Ans. 4. The Examiner further finds, and we agree, that
Appellant’s examples “are not supported by any citation to Gershman, and
the [A]ppellant does not even explain how they arrive to the conclusion that
Gershman would operate in accordance with the ‘examples.’” Id. at 5.
On Reply, Appellant contends, “the personas in Gershman are simply
a means for aggregating profile information for the user’s convenience.”
Reply Br. 3. Appellant further contends the Examiner “mistakenly assumes
that because a label for a persona may be ‘Work,’ then ‘the layout and
content preferences . . . for that particular user’ are somehow based on the
user’s role within the organization.” Id. According to Appellant, “[t]he
label ‘Work’ merely refers to profile information that can be used when the
user selects the ‘Work’ persona.” Id. Appellant concludes, “a context under
Appeal 2019-000151
Application 14/089,198

5
which a persona may be used is not the same [as] a layout based on a user’s
role within an organization.” Id.
Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive. In Gershman, “personas . . .
aggregate profile information,” and a persona “David (Work)” represents a
“persona that can be used when [David] is in a work context.” Gershman,
32:10, 15–16, 37–48. This “Work” persona in Gershman “may store the
user’s work address and may indicate that the user . . . works for a certain
company.” Id. at 32:16–18. In other words, the “Work” persona is related
to a user’s role in an organization—that of a worker in “a certain company.”
Additionally, we are not persuaded an ordinarily skilled artisan would find it
uniquely challenging or an unobvious modification for Gershman’s persona
or profile to store a role within an organization. A skilled artisan is “a
person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” See KSR Int'l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420-21 (2007). Significantly, the claim recites
selecting a layout broadly “based on” a role. Gershman’s web server “gets a
layout . . . according to the . . . profile,” which includes the “Work” persona;
therefore, Appellant does not persuade us that the Examiner erred in finding
Gershman teaches or suggests “selecting a layout . . . based on a role of the
user within an organization.” See Gershman 31:40–41, 53–54, 32:10, 37.
Appellant next contends Gershman and Silberschatz do not teach or
suggest claim 1’s “publishing information, by the first service, based on the
data received from the first remote data source, for use by the second
device,” and “determining, by the second service, based on the published
information, data to be displayed, of data received from the second remote
data source.” App. Br. 9–11; Reply Br. 5–7. Appellant contends the
Examiner’s reliance on Gershman “equat[es] a mere display of a webpage to
Appeal 2019-000151
Application 14/089,198

6
the claimed publishing of information based on the data received from the
first remote source by the first service.” App. Br. 9–10. In contrast,
Appellant contends, “Appellant’s own disclosure . . . prevents such an
interpretation.” Id. at 10. Rather, Appellant contends, the Specification
requires that the claimed “publishing” is more than merely “displaying”
because the Specification refers to publishing data as follows: “publish data
(e.g., is able to provide data to other services and/or applications)” and “a
service might ‘publish’ information that can be consumed by other services.”
Id. (citing Spec. 7:18–20, 11:4–6). Moreover, Appellant contends that
“selecting UI interface options, such as those shown in Figure 21 of
Gershman, is not the same as” the claimed “determining” limitation. Id.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that
[w]hen considering Gershman as a whole (including Fig.
10A and Fig. 22 or 23), it is implicit that when one interacts
with the left pane, one may alter the service being displayed in
the right pane. This demonstrates that the information
published by the first service (Fig. 22 or 23 left pane) is from
data received by the first remote data source (Fig. 10A sources
connected to integrator’s web server) and based on the
published information, the second service determines data to be
displayed (Fig. 22 or 23, whichever service is servicing the
right pane with user’s selection of first pane determining what
service is provided in the right pane), the data received from the
second remote data source (Fig. 10A sources connected to the
supplier’s web server).

Ans. 7–8. The Examiner also finds, and we agree, “the claims under appeal
do not dictate the manner which publishing is performed.” Id. at 8. The
Specification does not define explicitly the term “publish” but instead,
provides examples––“publish data (e.g. is able to provide data to other
services and/or applications)” (Spec. 7) and “a service might ‘publish’
Appeal 2019-000151
Application 14/089,198

7
information that can be consumed by other services” (id. at 11). Taking a
broad but reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification, we construe
“publish” as including “to make data publicly or generally known.” See
Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language,
1987 (cited by Ans. 9).
Nevertheless, even in light of the examples of publishing data in the
Specification (Spec. 7, 11), we find Gershman teaches the disputed
limitation. Specifically, Figure 22 of Gershman is reproduced below:

Figure 22 illustrates a user main display. Gershman, 3:66–67. Gershman
explains, “World 2200 and local news 2210 [are] provided based on a user’s
preference. The user has also selected real estate 2230 as an item to provide
direct information on the main display.” Id. at 36:58–62. In other words,
Figure 22’s left pane displays various links, while the right pane of Figure
22 displays details from those links based on the user’s selections from
Appeal 2019-000151
Application 14/089,198

8
Figure 22’s left pane. We, therefore, agree with the Examiner that “the
information published by the first service” in Fig. 22 (left pane) is based on
“data received by the first remote data source” in Fig. 10A, “and based on
the published information, the second service determines data to be
displayed” in Fig. 22 (right pane), i.e., “the data received from the second
remote data source” in Fig. 10A. Ans. 7–8. Thus, we determine the
Examiner did not err in finding Gershman teaches or suggests the disputed
“publishing” and “determining” limitations.3
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Appellant’s arguments regarding the rejection of independent claims 6 and 8
rely on the same arguments as for claim 1, and Appellant does not argue
separate patentability for the dependent claims except claim 4, which we
address below. See App. Br. 12. We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 2, 3, and 6–8. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Dependent Claim 4
For dependent claim 4, Appellant contends Gershman and
Silberschatz do not teach or suggest “wherein the data storage further
includes an indication of the publishing information, by the first service.”
App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 7. The Examiner finds, and we agree, “Gershman
discloses the data storage further includes an indication that the first service

3 Further, the Examiner also finds, and Appellant does not dispute, that even
under Appellant’s interpretation of “publish,” Silberschatz discloses the
claimed “publishing” via interprocess communication (IPC), which is “one
technology by which operating system processes can communicate . . . such
that a service that controlled data was capable of providing said data to
another service.” Ans. 11–12.
Appeal 2019-000151
Application 14/089,198

9
is to publish data (Col 2 lines 60–63, information is derived from Web.
Access on the World Wide Web requires ‘publication’ of said data on said
Web).” Non-Final Act. 17.
Appellant contends the Examiner “does not explain how publication
of data to the Web also discloses a data storage that includes an indication of
a first service publishing information based on data from a first remote
source.” App. Br. 11. But the Examiner finds, and Appellant does not
dispute, that Gershman teaches or suggests claim 1’s “storing information
related to a first service on a non-transitory computer readable data storage
of a remote display management server registry that is part of a first user
device, the information related to the first service indicating that the first
service is configured to receive data from a first remote data source.” Non-
Final Act. 8 (emphasis added); see generally App. Br. Thus, Gershman
teaches or suggests data storage.
Further, as we explained above, the cited references teach or suggest
publishing information. And Appellant does not offer an interpretation for
claim 4’s “indication” or any explanation how an indication differs from the
teachings of Gershman relied upon by the Examiner. See id. at 17 (citing
Gershman 2:60–63). Thus, Appellant does not persuade us the Examiner
erred in finding Gershman teaches or suggests claim 4’s “data storage
further includes an indication of the publishing information, by the first
service.” We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4.
Appeal 2019-000151
Application 14/089,198

10
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 6–8 § 103 Gershman,
Silberschatz
1, 2, 4, 6–8
3 § 103 Gershman,
Silberschatz, Scimone
3
Overall Outcome 1–4, 6–8
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED