Ex Parte Cantwell et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 11, 2009

10403666 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 11, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte BRAD A. CANTWELL, CLIFTONE E. GRIM III,
REX E. MARZKE, and ANDREW P. MCDOWELL
____________
Appeal 2008-005534
Application 10/403,6661
Technology Center 2100
____________
Decided: August 11, 2009
____________

Before JAMES D. THOMAS, JEAN R. HOMERE, and JOHN A.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1 through 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).

1 Filed on March 31, 2003. The real party in interest is International
Business Machines Corporation.
Appeal 2008-005534
Application 10/403,666
2
We reverse.
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants invented a method and system for managing content areas
in live web pages by mapping or linking between the web pages and an
administration tool that manages content thereof. (Spec. 1, para. [001].)
Appellants’ Figure 1 depicts a content administration system (10) for
managing web source content (32) that can be presented as live website
pages (36) via web server (34) to website users (26). (Spec. 4, para. [015].)
The source content management tool (14) provides some or all of the
traditional features of prior art content administration tools, including the
ability to create, replace, view, edit, delete, and store web source content
(32) via a source content server (32). (Spec. 4, para. [015].) When a web
page is created by source content management (14), a special link referred to
as an edit link (38) is placed into the hypertext markup language (“HTML”)
source. (Spec. 5, para. [017].) By clicking on the edit link (38) within a live
web page, the user’s browser is directed from the live web page to the source
content management tool (14) which loads the source content of the web
page. (Spec. 6, para. [018].) The edit links (38) are installed in a manner
such that they can only be viewed and accessed by an administrative user
(24) via the administrative interface (18). (Spec. 6, para. [019].) By using
the edit links described above, the mapping system (22) allows the
administrative user to easily navigate between live website pages (36) and
web source content (32). (Spec. 7, para. [021].)
Appeal 2008-005534
Application 10/403,666
3
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention as follows:
1. A content administration system for managing content areas
within a set of web pages, comprising:

an administrative interface for viewing and navigating the set of web
pages in a live environment being served from a web server, wherein the
administrative interface causes an edit link to be displayed for each live
content area within the set of web pages; and

a source content management tool for managing source content for the
set of web pages, wherein the source content resides on a content server that
is separate from the web server, and wherein in response to a user clicking
on an edit link for a selected live content area, the source content
management tool is automatically launched and loaded with the source
content for the selected live content area.

Prior Art Relied Upon
The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of
unpatentability:
Block US 2003/0050976 Mar. 13, 2003
(filed Sep. 20, 2002)

Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
Claims 1 through 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Block.

Appeal 2008-005534
Application 10/403,666
4
Appellants’ Contentions
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in finding that
Block anticipates independent claims 1, 8, and 14. In particular, Appellants
argue that Block’s disclosure of processor(s) does not teach a separate and
distinct web server and content server. (App. Br. 5-6.)
2. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in finding that
Block anticipates dependent claim 6. In particular, Appellants argue that
Block’s disclosure of accessing and editing information from the website’s
database does not teach a facility for editing source content. (App. Br. 7.)

Examiner’s Findings and Conclusions
1. The Examiner finds that Block anticipates independent claims
1, 8, and 14. In particular, the Examiner avers that Block’s disclosure of an
administrative interface that allows a user to access information using an edit
link that goes to an editable version of an information page, and accessing
information provided to the website from a database, teaches a web server
and content server, respectively. (Ans. 12-13.)
2. The Examiner finds that Block anticipates dependent claim 6.
In particular, the Examiner avers that Block’s disclosure of an edit link that
leads to an editable version of a web page, in conjunction with allowing a
user to edit league profile information within an “.htm” page, teaches a
facility for editing source content. (Ans. 13-14.)

Appeal 2008-005534
Application 10/403,666
5
II. ISSUES
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Block
teaches a content server that is separate from the web server, as recited in
independent claims 1, 8, and 14.

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following findings of fact (“FF”) are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Block
1. Block generally relates to a website structure for populating the
registration database of a website, and for providing access to information
contained within various community areas comprising the website.
(Abstract; Pg. 1, para. [0003].)
2. As depicted in Figure 28, access to the actions (i.e., hyperlinks
shown as edit league info., add officers, assign officers, and remove
checked) as shown in box (2810), are generally available to users with write
access. (Pg. 17, para. [0168].) This information is accessed directly from a
league’s record in the website’s league database. (Pg. 17, para. [0168].)
3. Figure 2(D) depicts a central website and database (281) that
stores information such as the registrants and their access levels. (Pg. 10,
para. [0119].) Further, Figure 46(B) depicts a block diagram for the
computer system (4600) suitable for implementing embodiments of the
present invention. (Pg. 22, para. [0207], [0209].) Processor(s) (4622) (also
Appeal 2008-005534
Application 10/403,666
6
referred to as central processing units, or CPUs) are coupled to storage
devices including memory (4624). (Pg. 22, para. [0209].)
4. Block discloses that a website or webpage can be hosted on
computers and servers. (Pg. 22, para. [0207].) Further, Block discloses that
method embodiments of the present invention may execute solely upon CPU
(4622) or may execute over a network such as the Internet in conjunction
with a remote CPU that shares a portion of the processing. (Pg. 22, para.
[0210].)

IV. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art
reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a
claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis
Pharmaceutical Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Minn.
Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc., 976 F.2d
1559, 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). “Anticipation of a patent claim requires a
finding that the claim at issue ‘reads on’ a prior art reference.” Atlas Powder
Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed Cir. 1999) (“In other words, if
granting patent protection on the disputed claim would allow the patentee to
exclude the public from practicing the prior art, then that claim is
anticipated, regardless of whether it also covers subject matter not in the
prior art.”) (internal citations omitted).
Appeal 2008-005534
Application 10/403,666
7
V. ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites, in relevant part, a content server that is
separate from the web server.
As set forth in the Findings of Fact section, Block discloses a website
structure for populating the registration database of a website. (FF 1.) The
website structure provides users access to information contained within
various community areas comprising the website. (Id.) In particular, Block
discloses that information may be accessed by users with write access
directly from a league’s record located in the website’s league database. (FF
2.) Further, Block discloses a computer system that contains processor(s)
capable of accessing a central website and database. (FF 3.) We find that
Block’s disclosure teaches a website structure containing a computer system
and corresponding processor that accesses a central website and database.
However the cited disclosure falls short of teaching two separate and
functionally distinct servers, let alone specifying a content server that is
separate from a web server. As set forth in the Brief Summary of Invention
section, Appellants’ Figure 1 clearly indicates a separate source content
server (32) and web server (34). Although Block discloses that a website or
webpage can be hosted on computers and servers executing over the Internet
(FF 4), an ordinarily skilled artisan would view Block’s disclosure as a mere
suggestion that a content server may be separate from a web server. While
such a suggestion might be adequate to show obviousness, it is insufficient
to show anticipation. Absent a showing that Block expressly or inherently
Appeal 2008-005534
Application 10/403,666
8
describes a content server that is separate and distinct from a web server, we
find that the Examiner has improperly relied upon Block’s disclosure to
teach the disputed limitation.
Since Appellants have shown at least one error in the rejection of
claim 1, we need not reach the merits of Appellants’ other arguments. It
follows that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Block anticipates independent claim 1.
Because claims 2 through 20 also recite the limitation discussed
above, we find that Appellants have also shown error in the Examiner’s
rejection of these claims for the reasons set forth in our discussion of
independent claim 1.

VI. CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1
through 20 as being anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).

Appeal 2008-005534
Application 10/403,666
9
VII. DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 through 20 as
being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).

REVERSED

rwk

HOFFMAN WARNICK LLC
75 STATE ST
14 FL
ALBANY, NY 12207