HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT LPDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 3, 202015246266 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 3, 2020) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation