Ex Parte Suggs et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 21, 2016

13002983 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/002,983 01/06/2011
22879 7590 10/25/2016
HP Inc,
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Bradley N Suggs
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
82595344 5797
EXAMINER
STITT, ERIK V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2145
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/25/2016 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRADLEY N. SUGGS, IMMANUEL AMO,
CHANDAR K. ODDIRAm and OLUP NISSEN
Appeal2015-005812
Application 13/002,983
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, KARA L. SZPONDOWKI, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-005812
Application 13/002, 983
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Exemplary Claims
Exemplary claims 1 and 7 under appeal read as follows (emphasis
added):
1. A system, comprising:
storage comprising a shell application and a sub-
application, said sub-application is adapted to
provide a functionality to the shell application; and
processing logic coupled to the storage and adapted to
execute the shell application and the sub-
application;
wherein the processing logic generates a first graphical
user interface (GUI) for the sub-application, the
sub-application not using services of the shell
application to display graphical data of the
sub-application through the first GUI, and
generates a second GUI for the shell application;
wherein the processing logic displays on a display the
first GUI superimposed onto the second GUI;
wherein the processing logic captures input provided
using the first GUI and provides said input to the
sub-application.
7. The system of claim 1, wherein the processing logic
provides said input to the shell application, and wherein the
processing logic provides said input from the shell application
to the sub-application.
2
Appeal2015-005812
Application 13/002, 983
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-13, 15, 17-18, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Lau
et al. (US 2003/0052906 Al; Mar. 20, 2003) and Kushnirskiy (US
2003/0079052 Al; Apr. 24, 2003). 1
The Examiner rejected claims 4, 5, 9, 14, 16, and 19, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over various combinations of Lau,
Kushnirskiy, and other references. 2
Appellants' Contentions3
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
Kushnirskiy discloses the use of platform independent plug-ins
(pluglets) that access information and functions within a web
browser. (Kushnirskiy, i-f 52). These pluglets are capable of
accessing a URL within the network connection of the web
browser even though the pluglet cannot directly get to the URL,
being compatible with the web browser at a functional level, and
receiving stream data information of the web browser. (Id.).
While the pluglets and web browser of Kushnirskiy are able to
communicate with one another, nowhere does Kushnirskiy
teach or suggest that the pluglets not use the services of the
1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2, 3, 6, 8, 10-13, 15, 17-18,
and 20. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed
further herein. Claim 12 is rejected in the analysis for this rejection. Final
Act. 7.
2 Arguments are not presented for claims 4, 5, 9, 14, 16, and 19. Therefore,
our decision as to claim 1 is determinative as to the rejections of claims 4, 5,
9, 14, 16, and 19. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not
discussed further herein.
3 These contentions are determinative as to the rejections on appeal.
Therefore, Appellants' other contentions are not discussed herein.
3
Appeal2015-005812
Application 13/002, 983
shell application (the web browser) to display graphical data of
the plug-in through a second GUI as required by the
independent claims. Inf act, Kushnirskiy does not discuss what
services are utilized to effectuate its display, or even how, the
plug-in application is displayed. Further, Kushnirskiy fails to
disclose a GUI at all. Thus, Kushnirskiy cannot teach or suggest
that its plug-in does not use the services of the shell application
to display the graphical data of the plug-in through a second GUI,
separate from the GUI utilized to display the web browser.
App. Br. 13, emphasis added.
2. Appellants further contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
The Answer specifically states that "a browser [is] connected to
a plugin engine, the plugin engine [is] connected to a Java Virtual
Machine (JVM), and also connected to the browser. Thus, the
plugin itself is isolated from the browser by the plugin engine,
and JVM." (Answer p. 2, emphasis in original).
However, the absence of a direct connection does not
indicate that "the sub-application [is] not using services of the
shell application." (Claim 1). Moreover, the Answer states that
"the plugin . . . uses the plugin engine, and JVM to provide a
translation to the browser." (Answer, p. 3). Again, a translation
of information does not suggest that the "sub-application [is] not
using the services of the shell application." (Claim 1 ). Rather, as
described in the Appeal Brief, the pluglet can access functions
within the web browser. For example, a pluglet is capable of
accessing a URL within a network connection of the web
browser even though the pluglet cannot directly access the URL.
Thus, the pluglet is compatible with the web browser and
receives stream data information from the web browser. (See
Kushnirskiy, paragraph [0052]).
Reply Br. 4 (page not numbered), emphasis added.
4
Appeal2015-005812
Application 13/002, 983
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred.
As to Appellants' above contentions 1 and 2, in the Final Action at
page 4, the Examiner cites to paragraph 52 of Kushnirskiy as disclosing the
claimed limitation:
Thus, the plugin (pluglet) never directly communicates with the
browser shell, thus "the plugin application does not use the
services of the shell service to display graphical data of the plug-
in through a second GUI".
Appellants' above contentions 1 and 2 challenge this finding. We agree with
Appellants. We conclude, consistent with Appellants' argument, there is
insufficient articulated reasoning to support the Examiner's findings.
Therefore, we conclude that there is insufficient articulated reasoning to
support the Examiner's final conclusion that claim 1 would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellants'
invention.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-20 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) On this record, these claims have not been shown to be
unpatentable.
5
Appeal2015-005812
Application 13/002, 983
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20 are reversed.
REVERSED
6