NOMURA RESEARCH INSTITUTE, LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 5, 2021

2020006092 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 5, 2021)

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.
15/630,322 06/22/2017 Yusuke SHIOKAWA 2499.1007 9694
21171 7590 11/05/2021
STAAS & HALSEY LLP
SUITE 700
1201 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
WEI, ZHENG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2192
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/05/2021 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):
ptomail@s-n-h.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte YUSUKE SHIOKAWA, EIKO MIYAMAE, and
MAMORU SHIMIZU
_____________

Appeal 2020-006092
Application 15/630,3221
Technology Center 2100
_______________

Before HUNG H. BUI, AMBER L. HAGY, and DAVID CUTITTA, II,
Administrative Patent Judges.

BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 and 2, all of the pending claims.
Appeal Br. 8 (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.2

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
According to Appellant, Nomura Research Institute, Ltd. is the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 1.
2 We refer to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed March 17, 2020 (“Appeal
Br.”); Reply Brief filed August 14, 2020 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s Answer
mailed June 30, 2020 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action mailed December 30,
2019 (“Final Act.”); and Specification filed June 22, 2017 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2020-006092
Application 15/630,322

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to “a development technique of a Web
application, and more specifically, to a technique effectively applied to a
development support system that supports development of a Web application
performing screen display compatible with multi-devices.” Spec. 17–11.
Claim 1 is independent and is representative, as reproduced below
with disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A development support system, connectable to a
developer terminal, that supports screen development of a Web
application that receives a request from a client terminal and
that returns a processing result screen compatible with a device
type of the client terminal, the development support system
comprising:
a memory storing a template, formed of at least one
screen part, defining an appearance of each screen part when
being displayed on a screen for each of the device types; and
at least one processor programmed
to receive from the developer terminal, a request for
development of a component reusable in the screen
development of the Web application,
to acquire, for a component development model,
information containing source code of the component
based on the request,
to display a component development view on the
developer terminal with a predetermined background
image compatible with the device type specified by
the developer terminal and a component development
region defined by an inline frame, having the
appearance of the component as a development target
superposed on the background image, and
to edit the source code of the component and display the
component based on the source code, in the
component development region so as to provide the
Appeal 2020-006092
Application 15/630,322

3
appearance defined by the template compatible with
the device type specified by the developer terminal.

Appeal Br. 8 (Claims App.).
REJECTION AND REFERENCES
Claims 1–2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the
combined teachings of Christfort et al. (US 2002/0078168 A1; published
Jun. 20, 2002; “Christfort”), Ebbo et al. (US 2003/0025728 A1; published
Feb. 6, 2003; “Ebbo”), and Mizushima et al. (US 2014/0157144 A1;
published Jun. 5, 2014; “Mizushima”). Final Act. 6–11.
ANALYSIS
In support of the obviousness rejection, the Examiner finds the
combination of Christfort, Ebbo, and Mizushima teaches or suggests all of
the limitations of Appellant’s claim 1. Final Act. 6–11. In particular, the
Examiner finds Christfort teaches most limitations of Appellant’s claimed
“development support system [shown in Figures 1A-1B], connectable to a
developer terminal, that supports screen development of a Web application
that receives a request from a client terminal and that returns a processing
result screen compatible with a device type of the client terminal,” including
a processor, shown in Figure 5, programmed to (1) “receive [] a request for
development of a component reusable in the screen development of the Web
application;” (2) “acquire [] information containing source code of the
component based on the request;” (3) “display a component development
view on the developer terminal [] a component development region defined
by an inline frame (an editing window/fields), having the appearance of the
Appeal 2020-006092
Application 15/630,322

4
component as a development target”; and (4) “edit the source code of the
component.” Id. at 6–8 (citing Christfort ¶¶ 80, 86, Abstract).
Christfort’s Figure 1A, depicting an online software development
system, is reproduced below:

Christfort’s Figure 1A shows an online software development system
including host server 110 to enable application user/developer 124 to design
an application (“software”) that works with different types of client devices
130–134 with different capabilities and screen sizes, such as desktop,
personal digital assistant (PDA), or mobile phone. Christfort ¶¶ 6, 7, 11, 12,
18, 21.
According to Christfort, host server 110, shown in Figure 1B, includes
an online software development kit 116, which provides a user interface (UI)
including “an editing window or edit field” to enable a user/developer “to
Appeal 2020-006092
Application 15/630,322

5
create, edit, test, deploy, and otherwise management applications or modules
associated with the hosting service.” Christfort ¶¶ 70, 80. For example,
Christfort’s online software development kit 116 enables the user/developer
“to edit the [existing source] code of the selected application,” typically, in
an appropriate mark-up language (ML), such as the extensible markup
language (XML) or hypertext markup language (HTML), to account for
different capabilities of client device (e.g., desktop, PDA, or mobile phone)
and produce an application output that includes several output variations for
displaying on the client device based on parameters and conditions of the
client’s service request. Christfort ¶¶ 70, 80, 86, 87, 100.
The Examiner acknowledges Christfort does not expressly teach
certain limitations, but relies upon (1) Ebbo to teach the use of “a
predetermined background compatible with the device type specified by the
developer terminal” as part of the claimed “component” (id. at 9 (citing
Ebbo ¶ 3)), and (2) Mizushima to teach “edit the source code of the
component (i.e., source code region 92) and display the component . . .
based on the source code in the component development region (i.e.,
preview region 93) so as to provide the appearance defined by the template
compatible with the device type specified by the developer terminal” in
order to support the conclusion of obviousness (id. at 10–11 (citing
Mizushima ¶ 175, Fig. 10)); see also Mizushima’s Figure 2 for the user’s
editing a layout, via layout-editing screen 90, based on template files.
Appellant does not challenge the Examiner’s rationale for combining
the references. Instead, Appellant disputes the Examiner’s factual findings
regarding Christfort, Ebbo, and Mizushima. In particular, Appellant
contends the cited references, including Christfort and Ebbo, do not teach or
Appeal 2020-006092
Application 15/630,322

6
suggest (1) “a component development region defined by an inline frame,
having the appearance of the component as a development target superposed
on the background image,” and (2) “to edit the source code of the
component and display the component based on the source code, in the
component development region” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 3–6;
Reply Br. 1–3 (emphasis added). According to Appellant, nowhere in the
cited paragraphs 80 and 86 of Christfort, or the cited paragraph 3 of Ebbo, is
there any disclosure of Appellant’s claimed “component development region
defined by an inline frame.” Appeal Br. at 4. Likewise, Appellant contends
that Mizushima’s “preview region 93 [shown in Figure 10]” is not
(1) Appellant’s claimed “component development region defined by an
inline frame, having the appearance of the component as a development
target superposed on the background image,” or (2) Appellant’s claimed
“edit the source code of the component and display the component based on
the source code, in the component development region,” as recited in claim
1. Id. at 5.
Appellant’s contentions are not persuasive of Examiner error.
Instead, we find the Examiner’s findings and reasons, including the
Examiner’s response to Appellant’s contentions, are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence on this record. Ans. 3–9. As such, we adopt
the Examiner’s findings and reasons provided therein. Id. For additional
emphasis, we note that claim terms, during examination, are given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re
Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under
the rule of broadest reasonable interpretation, claim terms are given their
ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary
Appeal 2020-006092
Application 15/630,322

7
skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech.,
Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Here, the term “inline frame” is not defined in Appellant’s
Specification. Instead, Appellant’s Specification only describes “an inline
frame” as being specified by “an IFRAME tag” to define a component
development region, i.e., development screen on developer terminal 201.
Spec. 21:4–8. However, the term “inline frame” is commonly known and
understood by ordinarily skilled artisans as a HTML element used to embed
another HTML document within the current HTML document.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML_element#Frames. Accordingly,
the use of an “inline frame” and “IFRAME tag” to embed a HTML
document within a frame is within the “general knowledge” of a person of
ordinary skill in the art. See Koninkjike Phillips N.V. v. Google LLC, 948
F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2020). As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would
have understood that an “inline frame” in HTML would be used to define
Appellant’s claimed “component development region” or Christfort’s
“editing window [or edit field] for display on the developer’s web browser,”
i.e., Appellant’s claimed “component development region,” in order “to edit
the source code and display the component based on the source code, in the
component development region” in the manner recited in claim 1. Indeed, a
person skilled in the art is presumed to know that an “inline frame” in
HTML would be used to define Appellant’s claimed “component
development region” or Christfort’s “editing window [or edit field] for
display on the developer’s web browser,” i.e., Appellant’s claimed
“component development region.” Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan
Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appeal 2020-006092
Application 15/630,322

8
Based on Appellant’s own Specification and the “general knowledge”
of an ordinarily skilled artisan, we agree with the Examiner that Appellant’s
claimed “component development region defined by an inline frame” can be
broadly, but reasonably, interpreted to encompass Christfort’s “editing
window [or edit field] for display on the developer’s web browser.” Ans. 4
(citing Christfort ¶¶ 80, 86).
The test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is
expressly disclosed in the references, but whether the claimed subject matter
would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the
combined teachings of those references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(CCPA 1981). In an obviousness analysis, it is not necessary to find precise
disclosure directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences
and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can
be taken into account. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007). In this regard, “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of
ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 421.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, obviousness requires an
“expansive and flexible” approach that asks whether the claimed
improvement is more than a “predictable variation” of “prior art elements
according to their established functions.” Id. at 415, 417. Here, in contrast
to that approach, Appellant’s contentions rigidly focus on a narrow reading
of individual references, including Christfort, Ebbo, and Mizushima, without
considering an ordinarily skilled artisan’s “knowledge, creativity, and
common sense.” Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir.
2013). For example, Christfort teaches an online software development kit
116, shown in Figure 1B, which provides a user interface (UI) including “an
Appeal 2020-006092
Application 15/630,322

9
editing window or edit field” to enable a user/developer “to create, edit, test,
deploy, and otherwise management applications or modules associated with
the hosting service,” including, for example, “to edit the [existing source]
code of the selected application.” Final Act. 6–9 (citing Christfort ¶¶ 80, 86,
Abstract).
As a secondary reference, Ebbo is simply relied upon to provide a
background image for display in an application, for example, “where the
host application and/or application code would be displayed on top the
background image” within the user’s “editing window or edit field.”
Ans. 6–7 (citing Ebbo ¶ 3). Likewise, Mizushima is relied upon to teach
that Christfort’s “editing window or edit field” could be source code region
92 and preview region 93, shown in Figure 10, to develop an application
with a particular screen layout/configuration based on different types of
client devices with different capabilities and screen sizes, such as desktop,
personal digital assistant (PDA), or mobile phone. Final Act. 10–11 (citing
Mizushima ¶ 175, Fig. 10); Ans. 8.
Based on these teachings, we agree with the Examiner that the
combined teachings of Christfort, Ebbo, and Mizushima would suggest to a
person of ordinary skill in the art (1) “to display . . . a component
development region defined by an inline frame, having the appearance of the
component as a development target superposed on the background image,”
and (2) “to edit the source code of the component and display the component
based on the source code, in the component development region” in the
manner recited in Appellant’s claim 1. Ans. 3–9.
Appeal 2020-006092
Application 15/630,322

10
For these reasons, Appellant does not persuaded us of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1
and its dependent claim 2, which is not argued separately.
CONCLUSION
On this record, Appellant does not show the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1–2 as obvious over the combined teachings of Christfort,
Ebbo, and Mizushima.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2 103 Christfort, Ebbo,
Mizushima
1, 2
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