Ex Parte Boye et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2016

11866346 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
11/866,346 10/02/2007
72058 7590 07/05/2016
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Adobe Systems, Inc. 58083
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309-4530
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Steven R. Boye
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.
58083-375338 (M050Cl) 6963
EXAMINER
FABER, DAVID
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2177
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/05/2016 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):
ipefiling@kilpatrickstockton.com
j lhice@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEVEN R. BOYE,
RAJAGOP AL LAKSHMINARA YAN,
MICHAEL R. SHUMANN, BERNARD DESARNAUTS,
MARC E. ESCOBOSA, and VICTOR B. ZAUDERER
Appeal2015-001143
Application 11/866,346
Technology Center 2100
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants 1 seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 10-32. 2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Adobe Systems
Incorporated. App. Br. 3.
2 Claims 1-9 have been cancelled. App. Br. 23.
Appeal 2015-001143
Application 11/866,346
Invention
The claims are directed to a method of generating a web page layout
which lines up web page elements in rows and columns. Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 10, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter with disputed limitations emphasized:
10. A method for preserving a preferred presentation layout of
a web page authored on a first computing system and rendered
on one or more second computing systems, the method
compnsmg:
obtaining a layout of display elements on a web page, each
display element comprising content, the layout comprising
position data of each of the display elements, the position data
indicating a location of the content of each display element as
displayed in the web page;
determining, using the first computing system, a primary
split direction for the web page based on the position data, the
position data used to determine whether the display elements are
splittable, the primary split direction determined after the layout
is obtained;
determining splits of the web page, in the primary split
direction by comparing the position data of one display element
to the position data of at least one other display element; and
generating, after receiving a request from a user, an
internal representation of the web page where the layout of the
web page is primarily by rows or primarily by columns in
accordance with the splits.
Applied Prior Art
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
2
Appeal 2015-001143
Application 11/866,346
Yamashita
Templeman
King
us 5,555,362
us 5,845,303
us 5,956,737
Sept. 10, 1996
Dec. 1, 1998
Sept. 21, 1999
Gareth Branwyn, Mosaic Quick Tour for Mac: Accessing & Navigating the
Internet's World Wide Web (1994) (hereinafter "Branwyn").
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 10, 11, 13, 16-28, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Templeman. Final Act. 3-11.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Templeman and Branwyn. Id. at 11-12.
Claims 14, 15, 29, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Templeman and King. Id. at 12.
Claim 31 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Templeman and Yamashita. Id. at 12-13.
ANALYSIS
Independent Claims 10, 16, 17, 2 5
Appellants first contend Templeman does not teach or suggest
"determining, using the first computing system, a primary split direction ...
the primary split direction determined after the layout is obtained," as recited
in claim 10 and similarly recited in claims 16, 17, and 25. App. Br. 10-12.
Appellants argue "Templeman cannot determine any splits by selecting the
form after layout is obtained because Templeman's form is selected before
the Templeman layout exists." App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 2--4.
3
Appeal 2015-001143
Application 11/866,346
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree,
Templeman teaches a metaform (i.e., a template) which defines the layout of
a page using frames which are subject to positional constraints. Final Act.
3--4 (citing Templeman Fig. 3A, 5:15-20, 5:30-36, 8:20-33, 8:39-9:14).
The Examiner further finds, and we agree, content is "flowed," i.e., added,
into a frame and content flowing into the frame can result in an overflow
when the amount of context added exceeds the frame's constraints. Id. at 5-
7 (citing Templeman 9:57---63, 11:32--40). When content overflows a frame,
the overflowing content is flowed into "a frame accepting the same type of
data on [a] new page or the overflowed data is placed in another frame on
the current page." Ans. 7-8 (citing Templeman 9:57---63, 11:32--40).
Appellants' argument is not persuasive because Templeman's
metaform itself is the obtained layout of the page; text content is then flowed
into, and split, based on the metaform. Templeman 9:57---63, 11 :32--40.
That is, the page split must occur after the metaform has been obtained
because text cannot be added into the metaform until after the metaform is
selected. Further, the page split must occur after the metaform has been
selected because the page split is contingent on the metaform's defined
constraints. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
finding Templeman teaches or suggests "determining, using the first
computing system, a primary split direction ... the primary split direction
determined after the layout is obtained," as recited in claim 10 and similarly
recited in claims 16, 17, and 25.
Appellants next contend Templeman does not teach or suggest
"determining ... a primary split direction for the web page based on the
position data, the position data used to determine whether the display
4
Appeal 2015-001143
Application 11/866,346
elements are splittable," as recited in claim 10 and similarly recited in claims
16, 17, and 25. App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 3. Appellants argue Templeman
"suggests moving content from a frame to another page or metaform," but
moving the content "to another page, metaform or frame does not teach or
suggest that a determination is made as to whether display elements are
splittable." App. Br. 13.
We are not persuaded. As discussed supra, the Examiner finds a
metaform includes multiple frames. Final Act. 4 (citing Templeman Fig.
3A, 5:15-20, 5:30-36, 8:20-33). The Examiner further finds, and we agree,
when an "entire block of text cannot fit into the frame based on the
positioning of the frame, [Templeman] uses position data to determine if the
(to-be) displayed text needs to be split." Ans. 7 (citing Templeman 9:57---63,
11 :32--40).
Templeman's metaform itself determines that display elements are
splittable before text is added into the frames; Figure 3A of Templeman
shows display elements, i.e., frames, which have been split based on their
positions on a page. Furthermore, Templeman also determines whether
frame content should be split, i.e., whether the frame content is splittable,
when text added to the frame overflows the frame. Templeman 9:57-63,
11 :32--40. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
Templeman teaches or suggests "determining ... a primary split direction
for the web page based on the position data, the position data used to
determine whether the display elements are splittable," as recited in claim 10
and similarly recited in claims 16, 17, and 25.
Appellants also contend Templeman does not teach or suggest
"generating, after receiving a request from a user, an internal representation
5
Appeal 2015-001143
Application 11/866,346
of the web page where the layout of the web page is primarily by rows or
primarily by columns in accordance with the splits," as recited by claim 10
and similarly recited in claims 16, 17, and 28. App. Br. 13. Appellants
argue "[ n ]owhere does Templeman disclose or suggest generating an
internal representation of a web page after receiving a user request." Id.
We are not persuaded. We note that neither the claims nor the
Specification define an "internal representation," and Appellants do not
proffer any definition of an "internal representation" in their argument. See
id. We agree with the Examiner's conclusion that Templeman suggests the
"resulting web page is designed to be displayed (i.e. displayed internally)
within a browser" based on the finding that Templeman suggests formatting
its page in a web page format, as discussed infra. Ans. 8-9; Final Act. 7
(citing Templeman 5:45--49, 9:57---63, 11:32--40). Appellants have not
provided arguments detailing why Templeman's generated webpage is not
an internal representation (see Ans. 13), and we agree with the Examiner's
interpretation that the browser rendering of Templeman's resultant page is
an internal representation. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred by finding Templeman teaches or suggests "generating, after receiving
a request from a user, an internal representation of the web page where the
layout of the web page is primarily by rows or primarily by columns in
accordance with the splits," as recited by claim 10 and similarly recited in
claims 16, 17, and 28.
Appellants finally contend the modification of Templeman is
improper because it lacks rational underpinning. App. Br. 14--15.
Appellants argue "[ n ]othing in the cited portions of Templeman or the other
portions of Templeman supports the Office Action's statement that 'the use
6
Appeal 2015-001143
Application 11/866,346
of elements on a web page would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the invention."' Id. at 14 (quoting Final Act. 3 ).
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree,
Templeman teaches a metaform defining a page layout of display elements
such as text and graphics. Final Act. 3--4 (citing Templeman 3:15-25, 5:15-
25). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Templeman teaches
formatting data in HTML, which is a well-known and popular web page
format. Id. (citing Templeman 7:62---66). The Examiner concludes it would
have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan, to layout display elements
on a web page to "provid[ e] the advantage of a popular type of document
presentation utilized on computers such as PDA[s], as well as the Internet."
Id. (citing Templeman 1:34--36, 3:40--43, 7:62-67).
Appellants' argument, that Templeman itself does not provide the
Examiner's rationale (App. Br. 14--15), relies on a teaching, suggestion, or
motivation standard, which is not required under KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). We find the Examiner has articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning - presenting a page in the
widely-accessible web page format - for the modification of Templeman.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner improperly modified
Templeman.
For all the reasons stated above, we sustain the Examiner's rejection
of independent claims 10, 16, 17, and 25, as well as dependent claim 28.
Dependent Claims 31, 31
Appellants contend the Examiner improperly modified Templeman to
find "performing a split in another split direction, the split in the another
7
Appeal 2015-001143
Application 11/866,346
direction being perpendicular to the split in the primary split direction," as
recited in claim 32, which depends from claim 10. App. Br. 15-16.
Specifically, Appellants argue Templeman changes a frame's size in
multiple directions, but changing the frame's size does not teach or suggest
splitting the frame in another direction. Id.
The Examiner finds Templeman teaches that constraints affect the
resizing and repositioning of a frame and "if a frame comprising content
cannot move in one direction due to constraints, [then] it would move into
the other direction to resolve the constraint issue." Ans. 12; Final Act. 9-11
(citing Templeman 10:51-11:16, Fig. 4). The Examiner concludes, based on
Templeman's frame resizing and repositioning, that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that if a frame cannot move in one
direction then it would move into the other direction. Ans. 14. We disagree.
Although Templeman teaches resizing and repositioning a frame in
different directions to resolve constrains, Templeman does not teach or
suggest performing a split in another direction perpendicular to a split in the
primary direction to resolve constraints. See Templeman 10: 51-11: 16.
Furthermore, the Examiner's rationale of maintaining a relationship between
page elements on a variety of platforms does not persuade us that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to split frames in
different directions to maintain page layout. Ans. 14. Accordingly, based
on this record, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner's§ 103 rejection
of claim 32.
Claim 31, which also depends from claim 10, similarly recites "a split
in another split direction." The Examiner, however, relies upon an
additional reference in the rejection of claim 31, Yamashita, to teach using
8
Appeal 2015-001143
Application 11/866,346
an extended line to determine split availability. Final Act. 13; Ans. 17-18.
But this teaching does not cure the deficiency discussed supra in regard to
claim 32 (a split in another direction). Accordingly, based on this record, we
are constrained to reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 31 as well.
Remaining claims 11-15, 18-24, 26, 27, 29, and 30
Appellants have not presented separate, substantive, persuasive
arguments with respect to claims 11-15, 18-24, 26, 27, 29, and 30. See
App. Br. 13, 15-18. For the reasons set forth above, we sustain the
Examiner's rejections of these claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 10-30.
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejections of claims 31 and 32.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2014).
AFFIRMED-IN PART
9