Harry G. JamesDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 25, 201914089198 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2019) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation