Ex Parte Carrier et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 14, 2014

11733829 - (R) (P.T.A.B. May. 14, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SCOTT R. CARRIER and JOHN R. HIND
____________________

Appeal 2011-008908
Application 11/733,829
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
THOMAS F. SMEGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.

ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING

Appeal 2011-008908
Application 11/733,829

2
The Appellants have filed a request for rehearing under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.52 (hereinafter “Request”), dated March 31, 2014. The Request seeks
reconsideration of a decision, mailed January 29, 2014, affirming the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 16-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Padmanabhuni (US 2007/0209011 A1, pub. Sep. 6, 2007)
and Carr (US 2005/0273503 A1, pub. Dec. 8, 2005). We have jurisdiction
over the Request under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Appellants contend that the Board has misapprehended or
overlooked certain arguments presented by the Appellants in the Appeal
Brief, dated December 13, 2010. Request 2. In the Appeal Brief the
Appellants contend that Examiner’s finding that Padmanabhuni discloses
“responsive to a user of the computerized client manipulating interactive
fields in the XForm, a fourth instruction to package the manipulated XForm
in a return RSS/ATOM feed item,” (emphasis added) as recited in claim 16,
is incorrect. See Br. 9-13. More specifically, the Appellants contend “the
Board did not consider the inappropriate comparison of a ‘portlet’ to an
‘interactive field of an XForm’” because “while a portlet is widely
understood to be an application executing within a portal page, a field is a
user interface control of a form.” Request 5.
The Examiner finds that Padmanabhuni inherently discloses
manipulating interactive fields “since any interaction between a user and the
individual portlets require interaction of some type of fields.” Ans. 8. As
support, the Examiner quotes paragraphs [0053]-[0054], which states that a
“[c]onsumer . . . might be selectively allowed to access the portals.” Id. at 7
(emphasis omitted). However, Padmanabhuni does not specify, and the
Examiner does not explain, how access to the portals corresponds to
Appeal 2011-008908
Application 11/733,829

3
“manipulating interactive fields.” The Examiner further quotes paragraph
[0063], which states that the portlet “can be customized . . . depending on
the requesting consumer.” Id. at 8 (emphasis omitted). However, this
statement is not evidence that the consumer, i.e., a user, interacts with a
portal.
Notably, the Specification lacks a definition of the term “field,”
however one skilled in the art would understand the plain and ordinary
meaning to be “[a] space in an on-screen form where the user can enter a
specific item of information.” Microsoft Computer Dictionary 183 (4th ed.
1999) (def. 2). Using this interpretation, we find that there is inadequate
evidence to support the Examiner’s finding that Padmanabhuni’s portlet
includes a field. While Padmanabhuni discloses allowing the consumer to
“access” the portals and that the portlets may be customized “depending on
the requesting consumer,” there is no disclosure that the consumer
manipulates a space in the XFORM to enter a specific item of information.
Additionally, the Examiner’s findings with regard to Carr do not
remedy the deficiency of the inadequately supported finding with regard to
Padmanabhuni.
Thus, in view of the Appellants’ contention, we grant the request and
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Padmanabhuni and Carr.

DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 16-21.

GRANTED
Klh