Ex Parte Brayton et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 10, 2013

10037683 (P.T.A.B. May. 10, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ROBERT S. BRAYTON, JACOB P. FRANTZ,
and JOHN R. CARPENTER
____________

Appeal 2011-000288
Application 10/037,683
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ROBERT E. NAPPI,
and LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-000288
Application 10/037,683

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 29-47, which constitute all the claims pending in this application as
claims 1-28 and 48 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention relates to a method and system for serving real-
time data by separating the development of Web pages from that of the
dynamic data (see Spec. 5:7-12).
Independent claim 37, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
37. A method of displaying a web page, comprising:
requesting at least a frame of a web page from a managed
server, wherein the frame comprises a first embedded object
and a call to a scripting language function defined by the first
embedded object, wherein the scripting language function is for
merging data corresponding to the first embedded object with
the web page;
receiving the frame from the managed server;
based on evaluating the scripting language function,
requesting, by a requesting computer, the data corresponding to
the first embedded object from the managed server after
receiving the frame from the managed server;
receiving, by the requesting computer, the data
corresponding to the first embedded object;
calling, by the requesting computer, the scripting
language function defined by the first embedded object; and
merging, by the requesting computer, the data
corresponding to the first embedded object into the frame.

Appeal 2011-000288
Application 10/037,683

3
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 29-43, 46, and 47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Mateos (US 2003/0050995 A1) and Coates (US
6,952,737 B1). (See Ans. 4-13).
Claim 44 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mateos, Coates, and Chen (US 6,021,437 B1). (See Ans.
13).
Claim 45 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mateos, Coates, and Lynch (US 6,823,319 B1). (See Ans.
14).

ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 37 over the combination of Mateos and Coates, the
Examiner finds that Mateos discloses all the claimed features except for
“wherein the first embedded object executed on the client specifically
requests the dynamic data from the server after receiving the webpage from
the managed server and evaluating the embedded scripting function” for
which the Examiner further relies on Coates (see Ans. 7-8).
Appellants argue that, in contrast with the claimed requirement that
“the scripting language function is for merging data corresponding to the
first embedded object with the web page,” the embedded SRLS of Coates
allows a user to submit requests directly to the storage center (App. Br. 8).
Appellants specifically point out that:
It is clear that the HTML document is only interpreted or
parsed at the client computer, with information for populating
the table to be displayed already part of the HTML
document. The retrieval of data has already been performed
at the server by the CGI program 230 running at the server.
Appeal 2011-000288
Application 10/037,683

4
There would be absolutely no need whatsoever for the client
computer to evaluate the HTML document received from the
server, and then based on the evaluation of the HTML
document, to further request the data corresponding to an
embedded object from the server. Mateos makes it clear that the
HTML document already contains the necessary scripts and
data to allow for a table with the dynamic information to be
displayed at the client computer upon the client computer
receiving the HTML document and parsing the HTML
document.
(Reply Br. 3, emphases in original). Appellants further contend that the
necessary data for populating a table for display in Mateos is already
included in the HTML document (id.).
We agree with Appellants’ contentions above. Contrary to the
Examiner’s position in response to Appellants’ arguments (Ans. 18), while
paragraphs 56 and 71 of Mateos describe using embedded objects for
merging the retrieved data into the web page, the data is already retrieved by
the server. As stated by Appellants, nowhere in the reference is the browser
or the client computer described as first evaluating the scripting language
and then based on such evaluating, requesting the data corresponding to the
first embedded object (see Reply Br. 4).

CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 37, as well as independent claims 29 and 46 which recite similar
limitations, over the combination of Mateos and Coates. Therefore, since
the Examiner has not identified any teachings in the other references further
applied in rejecting the dependent claims that would have overcome the
Appeal 2011-000288
Application 10/037,683

5
deficiencies discussed above with respect to claim 37, the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejections of claims 29-47 cannot be sustained.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 29-47 is reversed.

REVERSED

tj