Ex Parte Agboatwalla et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJun 24, 200910165454 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 24, 2009) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte ADNAN M. AGBOATWALLA, ADNAN H. LAWAI, ASHWIN R. KAMATH, UMAIR A. KHAN, and WASIQ M. BOKHARI ____________________ Appeal 2008-004127 Application 10/165,454 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Decided:1 June 24, 2009 ____________________ Before JAMES D. THOMAS, LEE E. BARRETT, and THU A. DANG, Administrative Patent Judges. DANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Data (electronic delivery). Appeal 2008-004127 Application 10/165,454 2 Appellants appeal the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE A. INVENTION According to Appellants, the present invention provides “a method, system, and article of manufacture that allows a user to aggregate any content or data from any source into a single customizable network user interface of his/her choice” (Spec. 3, ll. 16-18). B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIMS The independent claims at issue, claims 1, 6, 9, 15, 20, and 22, are reproduced below: 1. A method for generating a user-sharable network user interface, comprising: displaying a management interface for allowing a first end user to select and manage information displayed on an information screen of a habitat, wherein the management interface includes information of at least one content source; allowing the first end user to select portions of the information available in the at least one content source; marking the selected information of the content source; storing the marked information; Appeal 2008-004127 Application 10/165,454 3 retrieving the marked information; displaying the marked information on the information screen, wherein the information screen includes at least one view, wherein each view contains at least one window for displaying the marked information; checking a permission status of a second end user for determining whether the second end user is authorized to see a window containing information selected by the first end user; and allowing the second user to view a window of the information screen if the second user is authorized. 6. A method for customizing a network user interface, comprising: displaying a management interface on a wireless device for allowing a user to select and manage information to be displayed on an information screen of a habitat, wherein the management interface includes information of at least one content source and customization tools; allowing the user to select portions of the information available in the at least one content source; marking the selected information of the content source; storing the marked information for subsequent output on the information screen; and allowing the user to interact with the customization tools via the wireless device for customizing the management interface. Appeal 2008-004127 Application 10/165,454 4 9. A method for generating a customizable network user interface, comprising: displaying a management interface for allowing a user to select and manage information displayed on an information screen; receiving specification of a transaction pattern, the pattern being for performing an interaction with a remote data source for retrieving data upon replay of the pattern, the pattern storing at least one of information submitted by a creator of the pattern, actions taken by the creator, actions taken by a system to generate results, and results sent to the creator during recording of the pattern; replaying the pattern for retrieving the data from the remote data source; and displaying information selected by the user on the management interface and the retrieved data on the information screen. 15. A method for managing an enterprise network data interface system, comprising: assigning identification information to data of an enterprise; allowing users to access the data via a habitat based on access privileges; assigning the users to groups, wherein the groups are tiered; associating selected identification information of the enterprise data with each group; allowing users in a particular group to access data associated with their particular access tier; Appeal 2008-004127 Application 10/165,454 5 allowing users in a particular group to access data associated with a group in a lower tier; and controlling administrative privileges to the data interface system; wherein the administrative privileges are tiered, wherein a user on a particular administrative tier has administrative rights over all users in lower administrative tiers. 20. A method for generating a network user interface with sharable data, comprising: displaying a management interface for allowing a user to select and manage information displayed on an information screen of a habitat, wherein the management interface includes information of at least one content source; allowing the user to select portions of the information available in the at least one content source; marking the selected information of the content source; storing the marked information in the habitat for subsequent output on the information screen; and [sic] allowing an external application to access the marked information for extracting data therefrom; and allowing the external application to add data to the habitat. 22. A method for providing a customizable network user interface, comprising: Appeal 2008-004127 Application 10/165,454 6 displaying a management interface for allowing a user to select and manage information displayed on an information screen, wherein the management interface includes information of at least one content source; allowing the user to select portions of the information available in the at least one content source; marking the selected information of the content source; storing the marked information; retrieving the marked information; translating the retrieved information to a different language; and displaying the translated information on the information screen. C. REJECTIONS The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the claims on appeal: Kelts U.S. 2001/0030667 A1 Oct. 18, 2001 Anuff U.S. 6,327,628 B1 Dec. 04, 2001 MacIntosh U.S. 2002/0138581 A1 Sep. 26, 2002 Nason U.S. 6,630,943 B1 Oct. 07, 2003 Quatrano U.S. 6,748,420 B1 Jun. 08, 2004 Saindon U.S. 6,820,055 B2 Nov. 16, 2004 Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as having insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation of “the other habit.” Appeal 2008-004127 Application 10/165,454 7 Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18-21, and 26-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Anuff. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Anuff and Quatrano. Claims 6-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Anuff and Kelts. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Anuff and Official Notice. Claims 14 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Anuff and Nason. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Anuff and MacIntosh. Claims 22 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Anuff and Saindon. Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Anuff, Quatrano, Kelts, MacIntosh, and Saindon. II. ISSUES 1) Have Appellants shown the Examiner erred in finding that Anuff discloses “displaying a management interface for allowing a first end user to select and manage information displayed on an information screen of a habitat, wherein the management interface includes information of at least one content source” (claim 1)? Appeal 2008-004127 Application 10/165,454 8 2) Have Appellants shown the Examiner erred in finding that Anuff discloses “receiving specification of a transaction pattern, the pattern being for performing an interaction with a remote data source for retrieving data upon replay of the pattern” (claim 9)? 3) Have Appellants shown the Examiner erred in finding that Anuff discloses “assigning the users to groups, wherein the groups are tiered;” “allowing users in a particular group to access data associated with their particular access tier;” and “allowing users in a particular group to access data associated with a group in a lower tier” (claim 15)? 4) Have Appellants shown the Examiner erred in finding that Anuff discloses “allowing the external application to add data to the habitat” (claim 20)? 5) Have Appellants shown the Examiner erred in finding that Anuff and Nason suggest “translating the retrieved information to a different language; and displaying the translated information on the information screen” (claim 22)? III. FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Anuff Appeal 2008-004127 Application 10/165,454 9 1) A portal server presents an HTML page of modules, where a module represents a network resource that can be accessed by portal users (Abstract). 2) The modules can be added to a portal using an administration graphical user interface (“GUI”) (col. 6, ll. 43-45). 3) “Module permissions” include “end-user permissions (for example, whether a module is available to the members of the user group, whether the user group members can customize the module, etc.)” (col. 10, ll. 7-10). 4) A “tabbed” user interface allows users to move between portal pages by mouse-clicking on one of a series of tabs (col. 8, ll. 14-21). 5) A “permissions architecture” includes “user group permissions,” which “determine whether one group can perform any administrative tasks over another group (for example, view the group membership, add members to the group, delete members from it, etc.)” (col. 9, l. 63 – col. 10, l. 4). 6) “[T]he portal server can be viewed as a client/server model” whereby the “client interface is provided by HTML code generated by the portal server to run in a user’s browser application” (col. 4, ll. 18-21). 7) “[T]he ability to add modules to pages can be made specific to a group” (col. 16, ll. 6-7). Appeal 2008-004127 Application 10/165,454 10 8) The modules include “a JSP [Java Server Pages] module, which can execute a JSP page and display the contents of that page as the contents of the module” and which can be changed without recompiling of Java class files (col. 7, ll. 22-37). 9) The modules also include “an XML [Extensible Markup Language] inclusion module, which retrieves an XML style sheet and generates the HTML [Hypertext Markup Language] for display as the content of a module; [and] a transaction module which can employ a script to obtain filtered data from a network location for display in a module” (col. 7, ll. 17-22). Quatrano 10) An “event notification” is provided to users for sharing of a session within a web server (col. 28, ll. 47-62). Kelts 11) An “interactive navigation system,” which may be “entirely server based and capable of automatically scaling its features to the capability of the client presentation device” (p. 3, ¶ [0051]), displays “a graphical map generated in a format suitable for use with the particular presentation device, e.g., a television, a personal computer, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a wireless telephone, or the like” (p. 3, ¶ [0048]). Nason 12) “User items such as applications, documents, files, or network links may be added to a user button via any conventional Appeal 2008-004127 Application 10/165,454 11 method such as copy and paste or drag and drop functions of system software or of any web browser” (col. 21, ll. 19-22). Saindon 13) The “systems and methods for receiving live speech, converting the speech to text, and transferring the text to a user” allow speech or text to be translated into different languages (Abstract; col. 12, ll. 39-47). IV. PRINCIPLES OF LAW 35 U.S.C. § 112, Second Paragraph The second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 states, “The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.” If the language of the claim is such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement, a rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See Morton Int’l, Inc. v. Cardinal Chem. Co., 5 F.3d 1464, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claim Interpretation The PTO gives claims their “broadest reasonable interpretation.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). This means that the words of the claim must be given their plain meanings, unless the plain meanings are Appeal 2008-004127 Application 10/165,454 12 inconsistent with the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). However, “limitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d at 321). 35 U.S.C. § 102 Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). “Anticipation of a patent claim requires a finding that the claim at issue ‘reads on’ a prior art reference.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed Cir. 1999) (citing Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 781 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Official notice unsupported by documentary evidence should only be taken by the examiner where the facts asserted to be well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art, are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known. See In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091 (CCPA 1970) (stating that notice of facts beyond the record must be “capable of such instant and unquestionable demonstration as to defy dispute” (citation omitted)). “To adequately traverse such a finding, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. See 37 CFR 1.111(b).” Appeal 2008-004127 Application 10/165,454 13 MPEP § 2144.03(C). An adequate traverse must contain adequate information or argument to create on its face, a reasonable doubt regarding the circumstances justifying Examiner’s notice of what is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Boon, 439 F.2d 724, 728 (CCPA 1971). 35 U.S.C. § 103 One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejection is based on a combination of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). “Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.’” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). In KSR, the Supreme Court cautioned against “granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art,” id. at 401, and rejected “confining the obviousness analysis by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasizing the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents.” Id. at 402. Thus, “when a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform’ and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious,” id. at 417 (citation omitted). Appeal 2008-004127 Application 10/165,454 14 A reference teaches away “when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). V. ANALYSIS 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph Appellants traverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph by arguing that “the other habitat” refers to “another habitat” in claim 27 (App. Br. 16). Because an artisan would not reasonably ascertain whether “the other habitat” refers to “a habitat” as recited in claim 1, from which claim 27 depends, or “another habitat” in claim 27, we conclude that claim 27 does not particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the Appellants regard as their invention. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 Independent Claim 1 and Dependent Claims 2, 5, 26, and 28 With respect to independent claim 1, Appellants argue that Anuff “fails to even suggest ‘displaying a management interface for allowing a first end user to select and manage information displayed on an information screen of a habitat’” (App. Br. 17; Appellants’ emphasis). However, the Examiner finds that “Appellant’s arguments center around the erroneous Appeal 2008-004127 Application 10/165,454 15 premise that a portal administrator in the system of Anuff is not an ‘end user’” (Ex. Ans. 21). In view of the above, we address whether Anuff discloses “displaying a management interface for allowing a first end user to select and manage information displayed on an information screen of a habitat, wherein the management interface includes information of at least one content source” (claim 1). We begin our analysis by giving the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1324. Furthermore, our analysis will not read limitations into the claims from the Specification. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d at 1184. Appellants’ claim 1 simply does not place any limitation on what the terms “management interface” and “end user” are to be, to represent, or to mean other than that the management interface is displayed to allow the end user to select and manage information. Anuff’s portal administrator uses an administrative GUI to add modules to the portal (FF 2), where each module represents a network resource that can be accessed by portal users (FF 1). We find the “management interface” of claim 1 as reading on Anuff’s administrative GUI and the “first end user” of claim 1 as reading on Anuff’s portal administrator that is allowed to select and manage information. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Anuff. Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites “the first end user sets permissions for allowing other users to view at least one of a view and a window of the information screen.” In reply to a clarification by the Appeal 2008-004127 Application 10/165,454 16 Examiner (Ex. Ans. 22), Appellants argue that “allowing an administrator to set permissions, as in Anuff fails to meet appellant’s [sic] claimed ‘first end user [that] sets permissions’” (Reply Br. 6; Appellants’ emphasis). As set forth above regarding claim 1, we find the recited “first end user” as reading on Anuff’s portal administrator. Anuff’s “various types of permissions” include “end user permissions” for controlling a module’s availability to a user group (FF 3). Thus, we find that Anuff teaches an end user that sets permissions, as required by claim 2. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Anuff. Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and recites “sending a notice to the second end user of the sharing of the window.” Appellants argue it would not have been obvious to combine Anuff and Quatrano because “the purpose of Anuff’s portal server is to allow ‘individual businesses and other entities [to] exercise complete ownership of their portals’. . . [while in] sharp contrast, . . . the purpose of Quatrano is to ‘allow multiple computer user participants to access a single shared session to an application in a collaborative manner’” (App. Br. 27; Appellants’ emphasis). The Appellants appear to be arguing that Anuff teaches away from Quantrano’s use of shared sessions. However, Appellants make no such showing that a person of ordinary skill, upon reading Anuff, would be discouraged from allowing shared sessions as set out in Quantrano. See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d at 553. Furthermore, Quatrano discloses an “event notification” to assist users in the sharing of a session within a web server (FF 10). Appellants fail to Appeal 2008-004127 Application 10/165,454 17 show that “modify[ing] the shared portal of Anuff to include the shared notification of Quatrano, in order to obtain a shared portal” (Ex. Ans. 9), would yield more than one would expect from such an arrangement. See KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1740. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Anuff and Quatrano. With respect to claim 26 depending from claim 1, Appellants argue “disclosing that certain types of modules can be defined fails to suggest that ‘at least one content source is not predefined’ [as recited in claim 26]” (App. Br. 24; Appellants’ emphasis). However, claim 26 simply does not place any limitation on what the term “predefined” is to be, to represent, or to mean. Thus, we interpret the “content source [that] is not predefined” of claim 26 to be a content source that has no preset definition. Anuff’s “JSP module” is changed by modifying the HTML code in a JSP file (FF 8). We find the content source that “is not predefined” of claim 26 as reading on Anuff’s modifiable JSP module and file. That is, we find that the JSP module and file have no preset definition. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Anuff. As to claim 28 depending from claim 1, Appellants argue that the cited “clip module” of Anuff is “capable of capturing the entirety of an HTML page for inclusion in a module,” but does not “suggest a technique ‘wherein the habitat retrieves the marked information, stores the marked information, and displays the marked information on the information screen’ [as recited in claim 28]” (App. Br. 25; Appellants’ emphasis). However, Appeal 2008-004127 Application 10/165,454 18 Anuff discloses “an XML inclusion module, which retrieves an XML style sheet and generates the HTML for display as the content of a module;” and discloses “a transaction module which can employ a script to obtain filtered data from a network location for display in a module” (FF 9). We find Anuff teaches a technique “wherein the habitat retrieves the marked information, stores the marked information, and displays the marked information on the information screen.” Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Anuff. Independent Claim 6 With respect to independent claim 6, Appellants argue that Kelts discloses a navigation interface “using a graphical map generated in a format suitable for use with the particular presentation device, e.g., a television, a personal computer, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a wireless telephone, or the like” (App. Br. 27; Appellants’ emphasis); and argue that “the mere disclosure that the navigation interface is generated for use with a wireless telephone, as in Kelts, fails to even suggest ‘allowing the user to interact with the customization tools via the wireless device for customizing the management interface’” (id. at 27-28). However, the Examiner finds “it would have been obvious to . . . modify the portal information interface of Anuff to include the wireless device compatibility of Kelts in order to obtain an interface navigation system capable of being displayed on wireless devices” (Ex. Ans. 10-11). In view of the above, we address whether Anuff Appeal 2008-004127 Application 10/165,454 19 and Kelts suggest “allowing the user to interact with the customization tools via the wireless device for customizing the management interface” (claim 6). Contrary to Appellants’ argument, the Examiner is not citing Kelts as teaching a client wireless device that interacts with customization tools of a portal, e.g., Anuff’s portal. Rather, the Examiner substitutes Kelts’ client wireless device (which operates a customizable interface) for Anuff’s client device (which also operates a customizable interface). As the rejection is based on this combination of Anuff and Kelts, Appellants cannot show nonobviousness by attacking Kelts individually as failing to suggest an interaction between customization tools, such as Anuff’s, via a wireless device. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d at 1097. Further, the “interactive navigation system” of Kelts is “entirely server based” and (FF 11) and can include a wireless telephone or the like (FF 11). Appellants fail to show that substituting a wireless device of Kelt’s client-server model, for the client device of Anuff’s client-server model, would yield more than one would expect from such an arrangement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Anuff and Kelts. Independent Claims 9, 12, and 13 and Dependent Claims 10 and 11 As to independent claim 9 (and independent claims 12 and 13 falling therewith), Appellants argue that “Anuff merely discloses that ‘[i]n a tabbed user interface, the end user mouse-clicks on one of a series of tabs to move between pages’” (App. Br. 19); and further argue that such action does not Appeal 2008-004127 Application 10/165,454 20 teach “receiving specification of a transaction pattern, the pattern being for performing an interaction with a remote data source for retrieving data upon replay of the pattern” (id.). However, the Examiner finds, “By using a well- known Internet protocols such as TCP/IP, the system would perform and replay a ‘transaction pattern’ every time a link to a web page is selected in the user portal” (Ex. Ans. 5). In view of the above, we address whether Anuff discloses “receiving specification of a transaction pattern, the pattern being for performing an interaction with a remote data source for retrieving data upon replay of the pattern” (claim 9). Claim 9 simply does not place any limitation on what the terms “transaction pattern” and “remote data source” are to be, to represent, or to mean other than that the pattern is for performing an interaction with the remote data source. An artisan would have understood a hyperlink as a pattern for performing an interaction with a data source. Furthermore, the label “remote” in “remote data source” does not change the functionality of or provide any additional function to the claimed “data source.” Accordingly, we interpret “remote data source” as reading on any data source. As admitted by Appellants, Anuff discloses a tabbed user interface by which a user mouse-clicks on a series of tabs to change pages of the portal (App. Br. 19; FF 5). We find “receiving specification of a transaction pattern, the pattern being for performing an interaction with a remote data source for retrieving data upon replay of the pattern” of claim 9 as reading on the use of Anuff’s tabbed interface to link from page to page. Appeal 2008-004127 Application 10/165,454 21 Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claims 9, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Anuff. As to claim 10 depending from claim 9, Appellants argue that Anuff’s storing of login information, as a browser cookie, fails to meet the limitations of claim 10 (App. Br. 20), and that “simply selecting a URL that links to content, as the Examiner notes, fails to specifically suggest” the above-quoted limitation of claim 9 (App. Br. 21). However, Appellants do not specifically point out the Examiner’s error and how the claim distinguishes over Anuff, and merely reiterate the contentions regarding the rejection of claim 9. In the Reply Brief, Appellants add the new argument that “a URL, as relied on by the Examiner, is simply utilized for locating content, which does not teach or suggest that such URL is a ‘required [parameter]…stored in the transaction pattern’” (Reply Br. 10; Appellants’ emphasis). However, this new argument should have been raised in the Appeal Brief and is not considered on this Appeal. See Kaufman Co., Inc. v. Lantech, Inc., 807 F.2d 970, 973 n.* (Fed. Cir. 1986). Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Anuff. Claim 11 depends from claim 9 and recites “the replaying of the transaction pattern involves automatic navigation during the transaction without requiring input from the user specifically requesting the data.” Appellants argue the Examiner “simply dismissed” this limitation (App. Br. 28) in taking Official Notice that “web browsers are well known in the art to Appeal 2008-004127 Application 10/165,454 22 include a user-specified homepage that automatically loads each time the browser application is started” (Ex. Ans. 11). However, Appellants do not state why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art, and provides no adequate information or argument to create on its face, a reasonable doubt regarding the circumstances justifying Examiner’s notice of what is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boon, 439 F.2d at 728. As no such statement is provided, Appellants’ argument is not persuasive. Furthermore, Appellants do not show that Anuff’s tabbed user interface (cited against claim 9), whereby the user mouse-clicks to move between pages of the portal (FF 4), does not involve “automatic navigation during the transaction” (claim 11) of page retrieval. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Anuff and Official Notice. Independent Claim 14 and Dependent Claim 25 With respect to independent claim 14, Appellants argue “Nason simply teaches that ‘[u]ser items such as applications, documents, files, or network links may be added to a user button via any conventional method such as copy and paste or drag and drop functions;” and further argue that “adding applications, documents, files, or network links to a user button, as in Nason, fails to teach . . . ‘allowing the user to drag and drop information from remote sources onto the management interface for display on the information screen” (App. Br. 29-30; Appellants’ emphasis). However, the Examiner finds that “Nason teaches a system for displaying selected varied Appeal 2008-004127 Application 10/165,454 23 content on an interface, similar to the portals of Anuff” and allows “the user to drag and drop information from remote sources onto the management interface for display on the information screen” (Ex. Ans. 12-13). In view of the above, we address whether Anuff and Nason suggest “the selection of information includes allowing the user to drag and drop information from remote sources onto the management interface for display on the information screen” (claim 14). Contrary to Appellants’ argument, Nason is not cited as using a “drag and drop” method to add links to a “user button.” Rather, Nason is cited for the broader teaching of using a “drag and drop” method to add information to an interface for display (Ex. Ans. 12; see also FF 12). Appellants’ argument fails to address why the use of a conventional “drag and drop” method, to add elements to the management interface of Anuff, would not be obvious to a skilled artisan; e.g., would yield more than one would expect from such an arrangement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Instead, the argument merely quotes the cited excerpt of Nason and makes a general allegation that such teaching fails to meet the above-quoted limitation of claim 14. As the argument fails to specifically point out the Examiner’s error, it is not persuasive. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Anuff and Nason. Claim 25 depends from claim 1 and similarly recites “the allowing the first end user to select information displayed on an information screen of the habitat includes allowing the user to drag and drop information from remote sources onto the management interface for display on the information Appeal 2008-004127 Application 10/165,454 24 screen.” For the reasons stated above with respect to claim 14, we find that the combination of Anuff and Nason discloses and strongly suggests this limitation. Accordingly, we also affirm the rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Anuff and Nason. Independent Claim 15 and Dependent Claims 17 and 19 With respect to independent claim 15, Appellants argue that “Anuff merely discloses that ‘[r]egistered portal users can be assigned to one or more user groups’” which “fails to even suggest ‘assigning the users to groups, wherein the groups are tiered’” (App. Br. 21; Appellants’ emphasis). However, the Examiner finds that “a site administrator with access to all groups and portals is capable of viewing data associated with a group of a lower tier, while a user who has not been delegated any administrative privileges and granted only access to a single group portal may only ‘access data associated with their particular access tier’” (Ex. Ans. 23). In view of the above, we address whether Anuff discloses “assigning the users to groups, wherein the groups are tiered;” “allowing users in a particular group to access data associated with their particular access tier;” and “allowing users in a particular group to access data associated with a group in a lower tier” (claim 15). Anuff discloses “a permissions architecture” including “user group permissions” that “determine whether one group can perform any administrative tasks over another group (for example, view the group membership, add members to the group, delete members from it, etc.)” (FF Appeal 2008-004127 Application 10/165,454 25 5) (Board’s emphasis). We find “assigning the users to groups, wherein the groups are tiered” (claim 15) as reading on Anuff’s “user group permission” to add members to a lower group; and find “allowing users in a particular group to access data associated with a group in a lower tier” (claim 15) as reading on Anuff’s “user group permission” to view the membership of a lower group. Anuff also discloses “end-user permissions,” which control whether a module is available to a user group (FF 3). We find “allowing users in a particular group to access data associated with their particular access tier” (claim 15) as reading on Anuff’s “end-user permission” to view modules available to a group. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Anuff. Claim 17 depends from claim 15 and recites “wherein deleted user accounts are archived.” Appellants argue claim 17 is not met by the prior art for the reasons argued with respect to claim 15 (App. Br. 31). As discussed above, we find that claim 15 is anticipated by Anuff. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Anuff and MacIntosh. Claim 19 depends from claim 15 and recites “a user with administrative privileges assigns users to groups.” Appellants argue that Anuff fails to disclose “a user with administrative privileges assign[ing] users to groups” (App. Br. 23; Appellants’ emphasis). We find Anuff’s “user group permission” to add members to a lower group (FF 5) to be assigning users to groups, as required by claim 19. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Anuff. Appeal 2008-004127 Application 10/165,454 26 Independent Claim 20 With respect to independent claim 20, Appellants argue that “the disclosure that the HTML code is generated by the portal server to run in a user’s browser where only the user is able to revise the portal, as in Anuff, fails to even suggest ‘allowing the external application to add data to the habitat’” (App. Br. 23; Appellants’ emphasis). However, the Examiner finds that “the browser application of Anuff is external to the data source, and capable of extracting, viewing, and modifying portal data, regardless of whether of [sic] not the HTML code for the client interface is generated by the portal server” (Ex. Ans. 23). In view of the above, we address whether Anuff discloses “allowing the external application to add data to the habitat” (claim 20). Claim 20 simply does not place any limitation on what the term “external” in “external application” is to be, to represent, or to mean other than that application is allowed to add data. Rather, it is merely a label that does not change the functionality of or provide any additional function to the claimed “application.” In fact, claim 20 does not recite an entity to which the “external application” is external. We therefore interpret the recited “external application” as reading on any application. Anuff’s end users can access the portal from a client browser application (FF 6) and add modules to the portal (FF 7). We find Anuff’s addition of modules via a client browser application to be “allowing the external application to add data to the habitat” as required by claim 20. Appeal 2008-004127 Application 10/165,454 27 Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Anuff. Independent Claim 22 and Dependent Claim 23 With respect to independent claim 22, Appellants argue, “Saindon merely discloses that ‘text is encoded in an information stream and streamed to a viewer along with the audio or video event’” and further argue that “streaming text to a viewer fails to even suggest ‘translating the retrieved information to a different language’” (App. Br. 31; Appellants’ emphasis). However, the Examiner finds that “Saindon teaches translating retrieved information into a different language, displaying the translated information, and translating audio data into a different language for output” (Ex. Ans. 15). In view of the above, we address whether Anuff and Saindon suggest “translating the retrieved information to a different language; and displaying the translated information on the information screen” (claim 22). Contrary to Appellants’ argument, Saindon does not merely disclose that text is encoded in an information stream and streamed to a viewer along with the audio or video event. Rather, Saindon discloses the translation and display of speech or text into different languages (FF 13). Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Anuff and Saindon. Claim 23 depends from claim 22 and recites “the marked information includes audio data, wherein the audio data is translated to a different language and output.” Appellants argue that “Saindon merely discloses that Appeal 2008-004127 Application 10/165,454 28 ‘text is encoded in an information stream and streamed to a viewer along with the audio or video event’” (App. Br. 32; Appellants’ emphasis); and argue this disclosure “fails to even suggest a technique ‘wherein the marked information includes audio data, wherein the audio data is translated to a different language and output’” (id.). As stated, Saindon discloses the translation of speech or text into different languages (FF 13). Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Anuff and Saindon. Independent Claim 24 With respect to independent claim 24, Appellants assert limitations and arguments already discussed with respect to claims 1, 5, 9, 14, 15, and 22. In particular, Appellants assert that it would not have been obvious to combine Anuff and Quatrano. As Appellants provide the same comments made with respect to claim 5, we find this argument unpersuasive. Appellants assert that Anuff does not teach “displaying a management interface for allowing a user to select and manage information displayed on an information screen of a habitat, wherein the management interface includes information of at least one content source and customization tools” (App. Br. 35; Appellants’ emphasis). For the reasons provided with respect to claim 1, we find this limitation is disclosed by Anuff. Appellants assert that Anuff does not teach “receiving specification of a transaction pattern, the pattern being for performing an interaction with a Appeal 2008-004127 Application 10/165,454 29 remote data source for retrieving data upon replay of the pattern” (App. Br. 35; Appellants’ emphasis). For the reasons provided with respect to claim 9, we find this limitation is disclosed by Anuff. Appellants assert that Anuff does not teach “assigning the users to groups, wherein the groups are tiered; . . . allowing users in a particular group to access data associated with their particular access tier; [and] allowing users in a particular group to access data associated with a group in a lower tier” (App. Br. 36; Appellants’ emphasis). For the reasons provided with respect to claim 15, we find this limitation is disclosed by Anuff. Appellants assert that Anuff does not teach “allowing the external application to add data to the habitat” (App. Br. 37; Appellants’ emphasis). For the reasons provided with respect to claim 20, we find this limitation is disclosed by Anuff. Appellants assert that Anuff and Saindon do not suggest “translating the retrieved information to a different language” and “displaying the translated information on the information screen” (App. Br. 37; Appellants’ emphasis). For the reasons provided with respect to claim 22, we find this limitation is disclosed or suggested by Anuff and Saindon. Accordingly, for the above reasons, we affirm the rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Anuff in view of Quatrano, Kelts, MacIntosh, and Saindon. Appeal 2008-004127 Application 10/165,454 30 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (1) Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding claim 27 has insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation of “the other habit.” (2) Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding claims 1-4, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18-21, and 26-28 are anticipated by Anuff. (3) Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding claim 5 is unpatentable over Anuff and Quatrano. (4) Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding claims 6-8 are unpatentable over Anuff and Kelts. (5) Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding claim 11 is unpatentable over Anuff and Official Notice. (6) Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding claims 14 and 25 are unpatentable over Anuff and Nason. (7) Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding claim 17 is unpatentable over Anuff and MacIntosh. (8) Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding claims 22 and 23 are unpatentable over Anuff and Saindon. (9) Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding claim 24 is unpatentable over Anuff, Quatrano, Kelts, MacIntosh, and Saindon. Appeal 2008-004127 Application 10/165,454 31 DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-4, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18-21, and 26-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and claims 5-8, 11, 14, 17, and 22-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 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. nhl Zilka-Kotab, PC P.O. BOX 721120 SAN JOSE, CA 95172-1120 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation