SAP SE

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 24, 2021

2020004310 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 24, 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. 15/695,844 09/05/2017 Walter Mak 000005-064000US 8873 58735 7590 12/24/2021 Fountainhead Law Group P.C. Chad R. Walsh 900 LAFAYETTE STREET SUITE 301 SANTA CLARA, CA 95050 EXAMINER WELCH, JENNIFER N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2143 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/24/2021 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): docketing@fountainheadlaw.com klhussain@fountainheadlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte WALTER MAK, PAK MAN CHAN, STEFFEN KÖTTE, NATHAN WANG, and MICHAEL TSZ HONG SUNG ____________________ Appeal 2020-004310 Application 15/695,844 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before MARC S. HOFF, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20 (see Final Act. 2–7). 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. “The word ‘applicant’ when used in this title refers to the inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as provided in §§ 1.43, 1.45, or 1.46.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2019). According to Appellant, SAP SE, is the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 2). We note that neither Appellant’s (i) Appeal Brief, nor (ii) Reply Brief is not paginated. For purposes of this Decision, we refer to pages (i) 1–20 of the Appeal Brief, and (ii) 1–4 of the Reply Brief in sequential order. Appeal 2020-004310 Application 15/695,844 2 DISCLOSED AND CLAIMED INVENTION Appellant’s disclosed invention, entitled “Layout Management for Mobile Applications” (see Title), relates to “mobile computing devices [which] may not be able to handle resource-intensive tasks and applications that the stationary computing devices can handle” (Spec. ¶ 1). Appellant discloses presenting layout pages on a device display by generating plural background user interface (UI) pages to process a set of visualizations in locations on the layout page (Spec. ¶ 2). Appellant achieves these purposes by generating background UI pages as “an out-of-process browser configured to render web pages while not displayed on the device” (claims 1, 8, 15). Appellant claims a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing a program with instructions (claim 1), a method executable by a device (claim 8), and a system (claim 15) for presenting layout pages (see Figs. 2A–D background UI pages 225, 230) using a visualization definition (see Spec. ¶ 33), and by processing jobs in a work queue 235 (see Spec. ¶ 62; see Figs. 2A–D). According to Appellant, “a background UI page is an out-of-process browser configured to load and/or render web pages while out of view of a user of client device 105 (e.g., not displayed to the user of client device 105)” (Spec. ¶ 60 (emphasis added); see Fig. 1). Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below. 1. A non-transitory machine-readable medium storing a program executable by at least one processing unit of a device, the program comprising sets of instructions for: generating a plurality of background user interface (UI) pages, [A] wherein each background UI page in the plurality of background UI pages is an out-of-process browser configured to render web pages while not displayed on the device; Appeal 2020-004310 Application 15/695,844 3 receiving a request for a layout page comprising a set of locations for presenting a set of visualizations; for each visualization in a subset of the set of visualizations, [B] using one of the background UI pages in the plurality of background UI pages to process the visualization by sending a visualization definition of the visualization to a computing system, receiving the visualization from the computing system, and rendering the visualization on the background UI page; and presenting the layout page with the processed subset of the set of visualizations in the corresponding locations of the layout page. Appeal Br. 16, Claims App. (formatting, bracketed lettering, and emphasis added). EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS (HEREINAFTER, “REJECTIONS 1 & 2”) (1) The Examiner rejected claims 1–4, 7–11, and 14–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Liang (US 2014/0179287 A1; published June 26, 2014) and Glazkov (US 2014/0047318 A1; published Feb. 13, 2014).2 Final Act. 2–6. (2) The Examiner rejected claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Liang, Glazkov, and Hosier, Jr. (US 2014/0282016 A1; issued Sept. 18, 2014). Final Act. 7. 2 Although the Examiner inadvertently omitted independent claim 8 from the heading of the statement of the rejection (see Final Act. 2), claim 8 is addressed on the merits in the body of the rejection (see Final Act. 4–5). We consider this harmless error, and accordingly, claim 8 stands rejected and before us on appeal. Appeal 2020-004310 Application 15/695,844 4 ISSUES We note that if Appellant fails to present arguments on a particular rejection, we will not unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (“If an appellant fails to present arguments on a particular issue – or, more broadly, on a particular rejection – the Board will not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection.”); Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1313–14 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (The Board may treat arguments Appellant failed to make for a given ground of rejection as waived). With regard to Rejection 2, Appellant does not separately argue with particularity the limitations of claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, and 20 rejected over the combination of Liang, Glazkov, and Hosier (see Appeal Br. 10–15; Reply Br. 2–4). Because Appellant does not present any separate patentability arguments as to the obviousness rejections of claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, and 20 over the combination of Liang, Glazkov, and Hosier (Rejection 2), Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, and 20, and we sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, and 20 pro forma. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1076 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (“[T]he Board will generally not reach the merits of any issues not contested by an appellant.”); 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2017) (Each ground of rejection must be treated under a separate heading.). Other than including the prior art rejections of claims 4– 8, 16, and 17 (see supra Rejection 2) in our conclusion, we will not discuss this rejection further. Appeal 2020-004310 Application 15/695,844 5 Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br. 10– 15) and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2–4),3 the following principal issues are presented on appeal: With regard to Rejection 1, has Appellant shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–4, 7–11, and 14–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Liang and Glazkov, because the combination fails to teach or suggest limitations A and B set forth in representative claim 1? ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br. 4–16) and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2–6), the Examiner’s rejections (Final Act. 3–17), and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments (Ans. 3–22). Issue (2): Base Combination of Liang and Glazkov (Rejection 3) With regard to claim 1, we agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings of facts and conclusions as set forth in the Final Rejection (Final Act. 2–3) and Answer (Ans. 3–5). Appellant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 (see Appeal Br. 10–15; Reply Br. 2–4) regarding the combination of Liang and Glazkov, as failing to teach or suggest limitations 3 Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 each contain commensurate limitations setting forth a process for presenting a layout page by, inter alia, generating background UI pages. Appellant argues Rejection 1 over the combination of Liang and Glazkov on the basis of claims 1, 8, and 15 (see Appeal Br. 10– 15; Reply Br. 2–4). Based on Appellant’s arguments, we select claim 1 as representative of claims 1–4, 7–11, and 14–18 rejected over Liang and Glazkov. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2020-004310 Application 15/695,844 6 A and B of claim 1, are not persuasive. Claim 1, Limitation A We note that each reference cited by the Examiner must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (finding one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references). In this light, Appellant’s contentions (see Appeal Br. 10–12; Reply Br. 2), that Glazkov fails to disclose using a background UI page to process a visualization (i.e., claim 1, limitation A), are unpersuasive because the Examiner relies on the combination of Liang and Glazkov as teaching or suggesting the disputed limitation. Appellant’s contentions, which address the teachings of Glazkov individually, fail to address the Examiner’s reliance on the combination of references as teaching or suggesting the disputed limitations (see e.g., limitation A in claim 1). Specifically, the Examiner relies on Liang as disclosing generating UI pages (see Final Act. 2 citing Liang Fig. 1, step 110), and Glazkov as teaching background UI pages that are out-of-process browsers as claimed (see Final Act. 3; Ans. 3–5 citing Glazkov ¶¶ 6, 57). The Examiner finds (see Final Act. 3; Ans. 3–5), and we agree, that Glazkov describes that “[a] browser-level background page may be a script file that lacks a user interface of its own” (¶ 6), and thus is not in view of, or displayed to, a user of a device (see Spec. ¶ 60), as claimed (see claim 1, limitation A). Thus, to the extent Appellant’s arguments as to limitation A of claim 1 (see Appeal Br. 13; Reply Br. 3) address the individual shortcomings of Glazkov, and not the collective teachings and suggestions of the references, Appeal 2020-004310 Application 15/695,844 7 Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 over the combination of Liang and Glazkov. Appellant’s argument that Glazkov’s script file is different than an out-of-process browser (see Appeal Br. 13), is unpersuasive. Appellant provides no persuasive evidence on this record to support the assertion that a script file is not the same as, and thus cannot perform the functions of, an out-process browser, apart from mere conclusory statements. It is well settled that mere lawyer’s arguments and conclusory statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to little probative value (In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984)), and that the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602 (CCPA 1965). Attorney argument is not evidence. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974); Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, 2017 WL 744548 *5 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 27, 2017). Nor can it take the place of evidence lacking in the record. Meitzner v. Mindick, 549 F.2d 775, 782 (CCPA 1977). Claim 1, Limitation B Here, Appellant argues that Glazkov fails to teach limitation B recited in claim 1, namely interaction with a computing system (see Appeal Br. 12– 13; Reply Br. 2). Instead, as to claim 1, we find the Examiner’s findings, reasoning, and response to Appellant’s arguments (see Ans. 3–5) to be reasonable. Glazkov discloses implementing a method of presenting layout pages and processing visualizations using any combination of computing devices 700/750, server 720, laptop computer 722, cellular phone 780, smart phone 782 in various (see ¶¶ 67, 75; Fig. 7). Appellant’s contentions that Glazkov fails to disclose a process involving interacting with a computing Appeal 2020-004310 Application 15/695,844 8 system (see Appeal Br. 10–12; Reply Br. 2), or “anything related to the concept of a device interacting with a computing system” (Appeal Br. 12) (underlining omitted), are conclusory, unsupported by record evidence, and unpersuasive. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d at 1470; In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d at 705); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d at 602; In re Pearson, 494 F.2d at 1405. Appellant has not shown the Examiner erred in finding that Glazkov teaches or suggests using background UI pages to process visualizations by sending visualization definitions to a computing system (see Final Act. 3; Ans. 3–4). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1, as well as claims 2–4, 7–11, and 14–18 grouped therewith. CONCLUSIONS (1) Appellant has not shown the obviousness rejection of claim 1 over the combination of Liang and Glazkov to be in error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of representative claim 1, along with claims 2–4, 7–11, and 14–18 grouped therewith (Rejection 1). (2) Appellant has not presented any separate arguments as to claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, and 20, therefore, Appellant has not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, and 20 over the combination of Liang and Glazkov taken with Hosier. Accordingly, we summarily sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, and 20 over the combination of Liang, Glazkov, and Hosier (Rejection 2). In view of the foregoing, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1–20 over the base combination of Liang and Glazkov. Appeal 2020-004310 Application 15/695,844 9 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–4, 7–11, 14– 18 103 Liang, Glazkov 1–4, 7– 11, 14–18 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, 20 103 Liang, Glazkov, Hosier 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, 20 Overall Outcome 1–20 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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