Ex Parte BROWN et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 6, 2018

13459953 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 6, 2018)

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.
13/459,953 04/30/2012 Michael S. BROWN ORA120287-US-NP 6840
55498 7590 03/08/2018
Vista IP Law Group, LLP (Oracle)
2160 Lundy Avenue
Suite 230
San Jose, CA 95131
EXAMINER
SONG, DAEHOD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2141
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/08/2018 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):
docketing@viplawgroup.com
ev@viplawgroup.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL S. BROWN, CHAKRIYA D. LIPPS, and
GURBINDER S. BALI1
Appeal 2017-008836
Application 13/459,953
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOYCE CRAIG, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1 through 20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a technique for generating state-driven
role-based landing pages. Abstract.
1 According to Appellants, the Real Party in Interest is Oracle International
Corp. App. Br. 3
Appeal 2017-008836
Application 13/459,953
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below.
1. A computer implemented method for presenting
landing pages to a user within an enterprise software
application having a security model that supports both user
credentials and role credentials, the method comprising:
validating, using the security model, an enterprise
software application user login event for a user of a plurality of
users accessing the enterprise software application;
identifying, by a computer, at least one user role that is
determined for the user based at least in part on the security
model;
determining role-specific content based at least in part
upon the at least one user role of the user;
determining user-specific content that is specific to the
user based at least in part upon a link that is provided by the
user and pointing to the user-specific content;
presenting the user-specific content in addition to the
role-specific content in a landing page to the user;
accepting a user indication from within the landing page
to invoke launching of an enterprise application task interface;
and
determining whether the launching of the enterprise task
interface is allowed or denied at least by validating the
launching of the enterprise application task interface with at
least the security model and a role credential associated with the
at least one user role.
2
Appeal 2017-008836
Application 13/459,953
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE2
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 6, 8 through 13, and 15
through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Dodd et al. (U.S.
2005/0102154 Al, pub. May 12, 2005) (“Dodd”). Final Act. 2-8.
The Examiner has rejected claims 7 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over the combination of Dodd and Goldberg et al. (US
2004/0199541 Al, pub. Oct. 7, 2004) (“Goldberg”). Final Act. 9-10.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to Appellants’
arguments. Appellants’ arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1 through 6, 8 through 13, and
15 through 20.
Appellants argue independent claims 1,10, and 17 recite determining
content that is specific to the user based in part upon a link provided by the
user and pointing to the user-specific content. App. Br. 15-16. Specifically,
Appellants argue that the disclosure of Dodd cited by the Examiner merely
discloses a link that is used by the user and not a link provided by the user.
App. Br. 17. We concur with the Appellants. The Examiner’s rejection
cites to Dodd paragraphs 80 through 85, and the Examiner’s response to
2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed
January 23, 2017, Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed May 30, 2017, Final
Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed May 20, 2016, Appellants’ Specification
(“Spec.”) submitted April 30, 2012, and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”)
mailed March 29, 2017.
3
Appeal 2017-008836
Application 13/459,953
Appellants’ arguments cites Dodd Fig. 2 and paragraph 69. Final Act. 3;
Ans. 2-3. We have reviewed the cited sections of Dodd and do not find a
disclosure of determining user-specific content based in part on a user
providing a link. Thus, the Examiner’s rejection cites insufficient evidence
to support the finding that Dodd discloses the claimed user-provided link.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1,10, and 17 and dependent claims 2 through 6, 8, 9, 11 through 13,
15, 16, and 18 through 20.
The Examiner has not shown that the additional teachings of Goldberg
make up for the deficiency noted above in the anticipation rejection.
Accordingly, we similarly do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 7 and 14 for the same reasons as discussed above with
respect to the anticipation rejection.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 6, 8 through
13, and 15 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 7 and 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
Should there be further prosecution of this application, the Examiner
is encouraged to consider the application of a rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101.
REVERSED
4