Ex Parte Fanning et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 29, 2018

13167325 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/167,325 06/23/2011
69316 7590 12/03/2018
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael C. Fanning
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.
331810.01 7773
EXAMINER
JOSEPH, SHAWN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/03/2018 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):
usdocket@microsoft.com
chriochs@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL C. FANNING, MATTHEW HALL, GARY
LINSCOTT, and EVGENY TVORUN 1
Appeal 2018-002 846
Application 13/167 ,325
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, LARRY J. HUME, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1 through 21, which constitute all the
claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Microsoft Technology
Licensing, LLC. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-002846
Application 13/167,325
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a web development tool which enables
developers to diagnose problems. The tool allows developers to modify the
Document Object Model (DOM) and see the changes in a running page in a
browser. A representation of the DOM and the text source document are
linked such that by selecting an element in the DOM, the corresponding
element in the text source document representation is also selected. Spec.,
para 2, 4, and 19.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below.
1. A method comprising:
selecting, within a web development tool, a browser from
a plurality of browsers on which to base the construction of a
Document Object Model (DOM);
opening a text source document comprising original
source code prior to being parsed in a source code editor;
parsing the text source document to construct a document
node tree such that the document node tree includes a text offset
for each node of the document node tree, each text offset for each
node indicating a location of associated original source code
within the text source document corresponding to the node of the
document node tree;
constructing, from the document node tree, a DOM based
on the selected browser and a view node tree that represents the
DOM, the constructing of the view node tree including mapping
the view node tree to the document node tree;
providing a running representation of the DOM; and
one of tracking a modification to the DOM to provide first
change information and tracking a modification to the text source
document to provide second change information,
wherein the text offset for each node of the document node
tree includes a line number and position within the line or a
2
Appeal2018-002846
Application 13/167,325
character number that indicates the position of a character
relative to the beginning of the text source document, and
wherein by selecting a DOM element within the running
representation of the DOM, the original source code of the text
source document associated with the selected DOM element is
selected within the source code editor.
REJECTION AT ISSUE2
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 19 and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable Scott Hanselman "MultiBrowser
or CrossBrowser Testing and deconstructing Microsoft Expression Web
Super Preview" (Sept. 23, 2009),
http://www.hanselman.com/blog/MultiBrowserOrCrossBrowserTestingAnd
Deconstructing ... (last visited Sept. 14, 2013), Kaandorp (US 2007/0266050
Al, Nov. 15, 2007), Chandan Luthra, "Firebug 1.5: Editing, Debugging, and
Monitoring Web Pages" (2010) (hereinafter "Firebug"), Barlow (US
2008/0270345 Al, Oct. 30, 2008) and Dulepet (US 7,316,003 Bl, Jan. 1,
2008). Final Act. 2-34.
The Examiner has rejected claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as
being unpatentable Hanselman, Kaandorp, Firebug, Barlow, Dulepet and
"ItsNat Overview" 2010. Final Act. 35-36.
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 19 and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable Hanselman, Dulepet, Firebug, and
Barlow. Final Act. 36-65.
2 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed
August 7, 2017, the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed January 18, 2018, the
Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed February 23, 2017, and the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed December 6, 2017.
3
Appeal2018-002846
Application 13/167,325
The Examiner has rejected claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as
being unpatentable Hanselman, Dulepet, Firebug, Barlow and "ItsNat
Overview" 2010. Final Act. 66-67.
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 obviousness rejections.
Appellants argue the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1,
11, and 17 is in error for several reasons. App. Br. 13-14. The dispositive
issue presented by these arguments is, did the Examiner err in finding that
the combination of the references teaches by selecting a DOM within a
running representation of the DOM, the source code of the text document
associated with the selected DOM element is selected within the source code
editor?
Each of independent claims 1, 11, and 1 7 recites that by selecting ( or
highlighting) a DOM element in the running representation of the DOM, the
original source code of the text source document associated with the DOM
element is selected ( or highlighted) in the source code editor. The
Examiner, in both obviousness rejections of the independent claims, finds
that Dulepet teaches opening a text source document of original source code
in an editor. Answer 6-7. Further, the Examiner finds that Firebug teaches
when selecting a DOM element, a running representation the source code of
the text associated with the DOM element is selected in the source code
editor. Final Act. 5, 38, and 39 (citing pages 43, 44).
4
Appeal2018-002846
Application 13/167,325
We disagree with the Examiner and do not find that the cited
teachings of Firebug when combined with Dulepet teaches by selecting an
element in the DOM, the associated element in the text source document is
also selected. The cited teachings discuss highlighting changes and
identifying that when the cursor is over a table, the background color of the
rows interchange. These passages present insufficient evidence to support a
finding that Firebug teaches that selecting an item in DOM will also select
the associated item in another representation, such as the source code editor.
See Firebug pages 43 and 44. The evidence does not show the table
discussed in these passages is a DOM. Further, there are no teachings that
selecting a specific element in the HTML tab (which is similar to a
representation of the DOM) results in the associated element in the text
source document also being selected. As discussed above, both of the
Examiner's obviousness rejections rely upon similar findings. Accordingly,
we do not find that the Examiner has identified sufficient evidence in either
of the obviousness rejections and we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejections of claims 1 through 21.
DECISION
We reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
5