HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT LP

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 3, 2020

15246266 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 3, 2020)

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.
15/246,266 08/24/2016 Brian Charles King 90219949 3714
146568 7590 11/03/2020
MICRO FOCUS LLC
500 Westover Drive
#12603
Sanford, NC 27330
EXAMINER
CORTES, HOWARD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2144
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/03/2020 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):
software.ip.mail@microfocus.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRIAN CHARLES KING, THOMAS CHRISTOPHER
SWEDLUND, and CHRISTIAN ATTILA SZABO
Appeal 2019-002663
Application 15/246,266
Technology Center 2100
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOYCE CRAIG, and
MATTHEW J. MCNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–15, and 17–22. See Final Act. 1.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as ENTIT
SOFTWARE LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-002663
Application 15/246,266

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to web page manipulation. Claims 1 and 8,
reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium encoded
with instructions that upon execution by a computing device
cause the computing device to:
receive a web page that includes application instructions
for modifying objects included in the web page;
execute the application instructions;
record, in an ordered list of changes, change data for each
application object that is modified, created, or destroyed during
execution of the application instructions, the application object
defined by the application instructions;
record, in the ordered list of changes, change data for each
web page object that is modified, created, or destroyed during
execution of the application instructions, the web page object
defined by a document object model (DOM) of the web page;
identify, in the ordered list of changes, a transition point
between recorded changes;
receive a request to change a state of the web page to the
transition point; and
apply, in reverse order, an inverse of each change specified
in the ordered list of changes from a current point in time until
the transition point.
8. A method for application manipulation, implemented using a
hardware processor, the method comprising:
receiving a web page that includes application instructions for
modifying objects included in the web page;
executing the application instructions;
receiving, during execution of the application instructions and
at a first state of the web page, input that causes a change to an
application object defined by the application instructions;
recording, in an ordered list of changes, change data for the
change to the application object caused by the received input;
receiving a request to change a current state of the web page to
the first state of the web page; and
Appeal 2019-002663
Application 15/246,266

3
applying an inverse of the change to the application object
caused by the received input to place the web page at the first state.
Appeal Br. i, iii (Claims Appendix).
REJECTIONS
Claims 8 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Cudich et al. (US 2009/0013244 A1; published Jan. 8, 2009)
(“Cudich”). Final Act. 4.
Claims 1, 2, 4–6, 8, 14, 15, and 17–192 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Cudich and Thomas et al.
(US 2010/0251143 Al, published Sept. 30, 2010) (“Thomas”). Final Act. 7.
Claims 7 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the combination of Cudich, Thomas, and Jiang et al. (US 2012/0036264
A1, published Feb. 9, 2012)(“Jiang”). Final Act. 13.
Claims 9–11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the combination of Cudich and Thomas. Final Act. 14.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the combination of Cudich, Thomas, and Jiang.3 Final Act. 18.

2 The Examiner did not explicitly reject independent claim 8 under § 103,
but did reject dependent claims 9–11 and 13, which depend from claim 8.
See Final Act. 14–17. We understand the Examiner to have intended to
reject claim 8 under § 103, and we reflect that in the statement of rejections
for clarity.
3 Claim 13 depends from claim 8, which was rejected under §103 in view of
Cudich and Thomas (see n.2 above). We understand the Examiner to have
intended to reject claim 13 under Cudich, Thomas, and Jiang, and we reflect
that in the statement of rejections for clarity.
Appeal 2019-002663
Application 15/246,266

4
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the combination of Cudich, Thomas, and Wedel et al. (US 2005/0081105
A1, published Apr. 14, 2005) (“Wedel”). Final Act. 19.
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the combination of Cudich and Wedel. Final Act. 20.
ANALYSIS
Rejection of Claims 8 and 12 Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
The Examiner found that Cudich discloses all the limitations recited in
claim 8. Final Act. 4–6.
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred because Cudich fails to
disclose “receiving a web page that includes application instructions for
modifying objects included in the web page,” as recited in claim 8. Appeal
Br. 8. In particular, Appellant argues that constructing a page component
from a heterogeneous data source, as disclosed in Cudich, does not disclose
an application object defined by the application instructions included in a
web page, as claim 8 requires. Id. at 9. Appellant further argues that “[t]here
is absolutely no teaching or hint by Cudich that the heterogeneous data
sources are application instructions included in a web page.” Id. Appellant
also argues that HTML instructions that define a web page are not the
recited “application instructions for modifying objects included in the web
page,” as recited in claim 8. Id. According to Appellant, an artisan of
ordinary skill would not understand that HTML instructions are instructions
for modifying objects included in the web page, as claimed. Id.
Appellant has persuaded us that the Examiner erred. The plain
language of the “receiving” limitation, as recited in claim 8, requires
receiving a web page that includes application instructions for modifying
Appeal 2019-002663
Application 15/246,266

5
objects that are included in the web page. Here, the Examiner has not clearly
mapped Cudich’s disclosure of a constructor application and resulting page
(or web page or web display) to the elements of the “receiving” limitation.
See Ans. 5–6. The Examiner found “it is the web display generated by the
application constructor that includes the instructions for modifying objects,
[and] further, the web display is indeed a web page as disclosed by Cudich.”
Id. at 5 (citing Cudich ¶¶ 14–15) (emphasis added). On the next page of the
Answer, however, the Examiner found “in Cudich, the constructor page
including components is a web page that includes application instructions
for modifying objects included in the web page that is provided to the user.”
Id. at 6 (citing Cudich ¶¶ 137–139) (emphasis added). Thus it is not clear
whether the Examiner relied on the page (web display) generated by the
constructor, or on the constructor itself, as the web page that includes
application instructions for modifying objects included in the web page. See
Reply Br. 2.
Moreover, neither the page (web display) generated by the constructor
in Cudich nor the constructor itself includes both objects and application
instructions for modifying the objects, as claim 8 requires. See id. The
Examiner found that Cudich’s “page components” are “objects included in
the web page.” Ans. 6. Cudich, however, discloses that “Page Components
can be UI elements which can be added to pages by users.” Cudich ¶ 137.
Cudich further discloses that “[a]ny time a user adds a page component to a
page,” Cudich’s Constructor (which is different from the page), takes some
action. Id. at ¶ 138. Thus, at best, the Examiner pointed to two different web
pages in Cudich—one including objects, and one including application
instructions.
Appeal 2019-002663
Application 15/246,266

6
For these reasons, the Examiner erred in finding that Cudich discloses
“receiving a web page that includes application instructions for modifying
objects included in the web page.” Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s
§ 102 rejection of claim 8, as well as of claim 12, which recites similar
limitations and is not argued separately with particularity.
Because it is dispositive that the Examiner has not shown that Cudich
discloses the “receiving” limitation, as recited in claim 8 and similarly
recited in claim 12, we do not address other issues raised by Appellant’s
arguments related to claims 8 and 12. See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742
F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (finding an administrative agency is at
liberty to reach a decision based on “a single dispositive issue”).

Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9–11, 13–15, and 17–22
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
For the reasons discussed above with regard to the rejection of
independent claim 8 under § 102, Appellant argues the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claim 1 under § 103. Appeal Br. 11.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred. For the reasons
similar to those discussed above with regard to claim 8, the Examiner has
not clearly identified a teaching or suggestion of a web page in either Cudich
or Thomas that includes application instructions for modifying objects
included in the web page. See Final Act. 7–13.
Thus, the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Cudich
and Thomas teaches or suggests the limitation “receive a web page that
includes application instructions for modifying objects included in the web
page,” as recited in claim 1.
Appeal 2019-002663
Application 15/246,266

7
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 1, as
well as of independent claims 8 and 14, which recite similar limitations.
Because the Examiner did not find that Jiang or Wedel teaches or suggests
the limitation missing from Cudich and Thomas, we also reverse the
Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 2, 4–7, 9–11, 13, 15, and 17–22.
Because it is dispositive that the Examiner has not shown that the
cited prior art teaches or reasonably suggests the claimed “receive”
limitation, we do not address other issues raised by Appellant’s arguments
related to the § 103 rejection of these claims. See Beloit, 742 F.2d at 1423.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4–15, and
17–22.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
8, 12 102(a)(1) Cudich 8, 12
1, 2, 4–6, 8,
14, 15, 17–
19
103 Cudich, Thomas 1, 2, 4–6,
8, 14, 15,
17–19
7, 20 103 Cudich, Thomas, Jiang 7, 20
9–11 103 Cudich, Thomas 9–11
13 103 Cudich, Thomas, Jiang 13
21 103 Cudich, Thomas,
Wedel
21
22 103 Cudich, Wedel 22
Overall
Outcome:
1, 2, 4–15,
17–22
REVERSED