Ex Parte Cohen et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 27, 2012

10531055 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte NORMAN HOWARD COHEN, STEFAN HEPPER,
VERONIQUE PERRET, APRATIM PURAKAYASTHA, and THOMAS
SCHAECK
____________________

Appeal 2010-001943
Application 10/531,055
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before THU A. DANG, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and JAMES R.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-001943
Application 10/531,055

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 18-22, 24, and 26-28 (App. Br. 1). Claims 1-17, 23, and 25 have
been cancelled (id.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to a system and method that enables
a mobile device in a disconnected mode access to web content through a
portal (application); wherein, the system automatically creates a mobile
device specific content topology (portal page layout) at the server side based
on an existing user-defined connected content topology as well as
dynamically changeable technical parameters and downloads this content
topology including its associated data to the mobile device for use in the
disconnected mode (Abstract; Spec. 1, ll.13-19 and Spec. 5, ll. 23-30).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 18 is exemplary:
18. A method for creating a Mobile Device specific content
topology at a Portal Server comprising:

initiating a switch at the server side from a connected to a
disconnected mode between said Portal Server and
said Mobile Device,

selecting available disconnected Portlet applications to be
replicated to said Mobile Device,

creating a Mobile Device specific content topology based
Appeal 2010-001943
Application 10/531,055

3
on an existing user-defined connected content
topology including said selected disconnected
Portlet applications and dynamic information,
wherein the dynamic information indicates at least
one of about channel capabilities, capabilities of
said Mobile Device, and location information of
said Mobile Device, wherein the existing user-
defined connected content topology indicates
server-side portal page layout of content
provided by the Portal Server;

packaging said Mobile Device specific content topology
including said selected disconnected Portlet
applications assigned to it and said data to be
rendered by selected Portlet application, wherein
the Mobile Device specific content topology
indicates layout of the selected disconnected
Portlet applications when aggregated by the
Mobile Device; and

transferring said Mobile Device specific content topology
including said selected disconnected Portlet
applications assigned to it, and said data to be
rendered by said selected Portlet application to
said Mobile Device.

C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
McLain US 6,493,758 B1 Dec. 10, 2002
Jolley US 7,240,280 B2 Jul. 03, 2007
(filed Oct. 24, 2002)

Claims 18-22, 24, and 26-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over McLain in view of Jolley.

Appeal 2010-001943
Application 10/531,055

4
II. ISSUE
The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in
determining that the combination of McLain and Jolley teaches or would
have suggested “creating a Mobile Device specific content topology based
on an existing user-defined connected content topology including said
selected disconnected Portlet applications and dynamic information,”
“packaging said Mobile Device specific content topology including said
selected disconnected Portlet applications assigned to it and said data to be
rendered by selected Portlet application,” and “transferring said Mobile
Device specific content topology including said selected disconnected Portlet
applications assigned to it, and said data to be rendered by said selected
Portlet application to said Mobile Device” (claim 18) (emphasis added).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
The Invention
1. A portal (application) enables an end-user to compile his
personal web page from a set of smaller information units called ‘portlets’
(Spec. 1, ll. 24-26 and 5, ll. 19-23).
2. A content topology is the page layout of a portal page having
portlets that are positioned on the portal page (Spec. 5, ll. 23-25).
3. A topology manager generates a mobile device specific content
topology by modifying an existing user-defined connected content topology
with user selected Portlet applications and dynamic information provided by
the Dynamic Information Manager (Spec. 6, ll. 21-26).
Appeal 2010-001943
Application 10/531,055

5
McLain
4. McLain discloses a system and method of offline viewing of
internet content on a mobile device; wherein, dynamic web page content is
easily updated by a content provider 12 using a Channel Definition Format
(CDF) file downloaded to the user that provides a local index or hierarchical
structure of the content available from content provider 12 (col. 3, ll. 15-25).
5. The user can specify preferences or download options for the
content download process prior to the downloading of content (Fig. 6, step
102), such as whether images and sound clips found during the download
process can or cannot be made available for offline browsing or whether the
of amount of data (bytes) downloaded should be limited (Fig. 6; col. 3, ll.
43-48; col. 7, ll. 32-45). The user preferences can include user selections
regarding the type of information that will be downloaded from content
provider 12, such as text data, image or graphical data and/or sound or audio
data (col. 8, ll. 19-22).
6. A content downloading module 20 within a computer 16
connected to the content provider through the Internet stores the CDF file it
receives from the content provider 12, or it generates a CDF file for the
content provider 12 based upon the user preferences (Figs. 1 and 6; col. 3, ll.
50-52 and col. 8, ll. 33-36).
7. Prior to forwarding the data and the CDF file to the mobile
device 18, a content filtering module 30 at the computer 16 filters or
transforms the content as a function of characteristics of the type of mobile
device 18 (Fig. 1; col. 3, ll.57-60).
8. The system stores the content data and the CDF file in a cache
memory 22 of the computer 16 and forwards the same to a cache memory 28
Appeal 2010-001943
Application 10/531,055

6
of the mobile device 18 through synchronization modules 24 and 26 (Fig. 1;
col. 3, ll. 52-55).
9. A browser module 32, provided on mobile device 18, enables
user access to the CDF file within cache 28 to render content during offline
browsing (col. 3, ll. 63-65).
Jolley
10. Jolley discloses a system and method for providing application
flow integration in a portal framework having a plurality of portlets each
having individual webflow (Abstract); wherein, webflow based on both user
events and programming events is a stat-machine-like mechanism that can
be used to describe the flow of application logic throughout the Web site or
portal, including the execution of business logic, error handling and
dispatching (col. 3, ll.1-12).

IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 18-22, 24, and 26-28
Appellants provide arguments with respect to independent claim 18
(App. Br. 3-6). Appellants do not provide arguments with respect to
dependent claims 19-22, 24, and 26-28 (id.). Accordingly, we select claim
18 as being representative of the claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellants contend that “McLain does not disclose or suggest creating
a CDF [based] on either … user preferences and another CDF;” rather,
“McLain states that the CDF is created based on content of the content
provider structure of the website content provider, not on user preferences
and another CDF” (App. Br. 4). Appellants argue that, since “McLain
discloses a computer obtaining, from a mobile device, characteristic
Appeal 2010-001943
Application 10/531,055

7
information of the mobile device before transferring content to the mobile
device after a CDF has already been downloaded or generated;” “the CDF
cannot be created based on mobile device characteristic information
obtained after the CDF is generated” (App. Br. 4-5).
However, the Examiner finds that “a browser module is provided on
mobile device to access the CDF file in cache to render content during
offline browsing;” wherein, the CDF file is created by the “downloading
module … in accordance with user preference[s]” (Ans. 10). The Examiner
notes that “user-defined connected content topology [is] interpreted as user
preferences;” wherein, “the user preferences can also limit how many levels
of content organized in a hierarchical manner will be downloaded from
content provider” (id.). Thus, “the mobile device can receive the desired
offline browsing based on the user preferences and the mobile device
characteristic information” (Ans. 11).
Appellants’ argument that “the CDF cannot be created based on
mobile device characteristic information obtained after the CDF is
generated” is not commensurate in scope with the specific language of claim
18 (App. Br.5). In particular, claim 18 does not recite such a “CDF [must]
be created based on mobile device characteristic information obtained” as
Appellants’ argue. That is, the mobile device specific content topology may
be derived from the CDF file and the filtered content of the content filtering
module (detailed in the analysis as follows).
To determine whether the combination of McLain and Jolley teaches
or would have suggested a method including “creating a Mobile Device
specific content topology based on an existing user-defined connected
content topology including said selected disconnected Portlet applications
Appeal 2010-001943
Application 10/531,055

8
and dynamic information,” “packaging said Mobile Device specific content
topology,” and “transferring said Mobile Device specific content topology”
as specifically recited in claim 18, we give the claim its broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d
1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). However, we will not read limitations from the
Specification into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed.
Cir. 1993).
Claim 18 does not place any limitation on what “Mobile Device
specific content topology” and “existing user-defined connected content
topology” mean, include, or represent. The Specification discloses that the
portal enables an end-user to compile his personal web page from a set of
smaller information units called ‘portlets’ (FF1) and that content topology is
the page layout of a portal page having portlets that are positioned on the
portal page (FF2). The topology manager modifies existing user-defined
connect content topology with user selected Portlet applications and
dynamic information in order to generate the Mobile Device specific content
topology (FF3). Thus, we give “creating a Mobile Device specific content
topology based on an existing user-defined connected content topology” its
broadest reasonable interpretation as a user defined portal web page layout
specific to the capabilities of a particular mobile device, as consistent with
the Specification and as specifically defined in claim 18.
McLain discloses a system and method of offline viewing of internet
content on a mobile device; wherein, dynamic web page content is easily
updated by a content provider using a CDF file defining the available
content (FF 4). Prior to the downloading of content data and the CDF file
from the content provider, the user can specify preferences or download
Appeal 2010-001943
Application 10/531,055

9
options for the content download process (FF 5). A content downloading
module receives the CDF from the content provider or generates a CDF file
based upon the user preferences (FF 6). We find that the CDF file generated
based upon user preferences comprises the existing user-defined connected
content topology. That is, we find that “existing user-defined connected
content topology” (claim 18) reads upon the CDF file that is generated by
the content downloading module.
We also note that, prior to forwarding the data and the CDF file to the
mobile device, a content filtering module filters or transforms the content as
a function of characteristics of the type of mobile device (FF 7 and 8).
Additionally, a browser module within the mobile device provides access to
the CDF file in cache memory of the mobile device where the content data
and the CDF file are stored to render content during offline browsing (FF 8
and 9). We find that the content filtering module provides content specific
to the mobile device. That is, “creating a Mobile Device specific content
topology based on an existing user-defined connected content topology
including said selected … dynamic information” and “packaging said
Mobile Device specific content topology” (claim 18) read upon the CDF file
and content data that is filtered by the content filtering module. We find
further that “transferring said Mobile Device specific content topology”
(claim 18) reads upon the CDF file and content data that is forwarded to the
mobile device.
In addition, Jolley is directed to a system and method for providing
application flow integration in a portal framework having a plurality of
portlets (FF 10). We find that portlets to be the user selected disconnected
Appeal 2010-001943
Application 10/531,055

10
Portlet applications. That is, we find that “selected disconnected Portlet
applications” (claim 18) reads on Jolley’s portlets.
In view of our claim construction above, we find that the combination
of McLain and Jolley at least suggests providing “creating a Mobile Device
specific content topology based on an existing user-defined connected
content topology,” “packaging said Mobile Device specific content
topology,” and “transferring said Mobile Device specific content topology”
as specifically required by claim 18.
The Supreme Court has stated that “[t]he combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding that the combination
of McLain’s system and method of offline viewing of internet content on a
mobile device (including a content download module that generates a CDF
file based upon user preferences) with the portal framework having a
plurality of portlets, as disclosed in Jolley, produces creating a mobile device
specific content topology based on an existing user-defined connected
content topology including selected disconnected Portlet applications and
dynamic information which would be obvious (Ans. 6; FF 4-10).
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over McLain in view of Jolley; and claims 19-22, 24, and 26-28 depending
from claims 18 which have been grouped therewith.

Appeal 2010-001943
Application 10/531,055

11
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 18-22, 24, and 26-28 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
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

peb