Ex Parte Gerken et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 25, 2012

10904106 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 25, 2012)

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.
10/904,106 10/22/2004 Christopher Henry Gerken AUS920040887US1 1106
48916 7590 06/25/2012
Greg Goshorn, P.C.
9600 Escarpment
Suite 745-9
AUSTIN, TX 78749
EXAMINER
RAMPURIA, SATISH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2191
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/25/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte CHRISTOPHER HENRY GERKEN
and GEOFFREY MARTIN HAMBRICK
____________________

Appeal 2010-002024
Application 10/904,106
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, THU A. DANG,
and CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-002024
Application 10/904,106

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to an application generator which
applies an application definition to a view template having one or more
custom code blocks with unique identifiers to generate content; wherein, the
system determines whether a file having the same content exists and, if so,
the system merges the new content generated, while preserving custom code
blocks having matching unique identifiers (Fig. 5; Abstract; Spec. ¶ [0040]).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method for roundtrip generated content protection
comprising:

specifying a view template having one or more custom code section
blocks;

generating application content based on said view template, said
generating including:

i. generating application content

ii. generating custom code section blocks, each of said blocks
having a unique custom code block section identifier;

testing to determine whether application content having said unique
custom code block section identifier already exists;
Appeal 2010-002024
Application 10/904,106

3
if custom code block section identifier already exists, retrieving
custom code block corresponding to the corresponding identifier; and

storing a final application content including generated application
content, retrieved custom code sections, and newly generated unique custom
code block sections if such sections did not already exist.

C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Beuk US 6,298,480 B1 Oct. 2, 2001
Ruggier US 2003/0145305 A1 Jul. 31, 2003
Claussen US 6,981,212 B1 Dec. 27, 2005

Claims 1, 3-7, and 12-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ruggier in view of Claussen.
Claims 2 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Claussen in view of Beuk.
Claims 9-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Claussen in view of Beuk and Ruggier.

II. ISSUE
The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in
finding that the combination of Ruggier and Claussen teaches or would have
suggested “generating custom code section blocks, each of said blocks
having a unique custom code block section identifier,” “testing to determine
whether application content having said unique custom code block section
identifier already exists,” and “storing a final application content including
Appeal 2010-002024
Application 10/904,106

4
generated application content, retrieved custom code sections, and newly
generated unique custom code block sections if such sections did not already
exist” (claim 1, emphasis added).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Ruggier
1. Ruggier discloses a method for developing and managing large-
scale web user interfaces (WUI) using the Model View Controller (MVC)
paradigm (Abstract, ¶ [0003]); wherein, the generation process first
generates code for each PagePart and then automatically generates Web
Page Templates by combining the generated code for each PagePart and a
shell template having an associated View (¶¶ [0111] and [0113]).
Claussen
2. Claussen discloses a system having a page handling engine that
parses a web page into an eXtensible Markup Language (XML) Document
Object Model (DOM), while loading all required XML tag libraries
including registered custom tags stored in files having names of the custom
tag as well as an associated Java object name or a URL naming an XSL
stylesheet (col. 3, ll. 33-39).
3. The engine then traverses the DOM tree searching for
registered custom tags and, upon finding one, when the tag is registered as a
Java object, a bean is loaded and a process method is called; wherein, the
Java object has access to the entire DOM and may modify the DOM
however it deems necessary (col. 3, ll. 39-45). In particular, the Java object
Appeal 2010-002024
Application 10/904,106

5
may examine and replace the custom tag with another custom tag, script
code, or HTML (col. 3, ll. 45-47).
4. Once processing is complete, the system reexamines the DOM
to identify any new tag library directives and new custom tags (col. 3, ll. 47-
50 and 63-65). Afterwards, the DOM tree is collapsed into the fewest
possible number of method blocks (col. 3, ll. 65-67) and the resultant servlet
is compiled to be ready for use by the runtime code (col. 7, ll. 65-67) .

IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3-7, and 12-15
Appellants contend that in Claussen “1) there is no testing of a tag to
determine if the tag has already been used and 2) no indication that code
corresponding to any tag is not inserted into an application if a determination
is made that a tag has been used;” “[r]ather, Claussen merely describes a
method of traversing a DOM tree and replacing every tag with a
corresponding macro” (App. Br. 12). Appellants argue that “the tags of
Claussen are not ‘tested’ for duplicate code with the result that duplicate
code is eliminated” (App. Br. 13). Appellants contend further that “neither
Claussen nor Ruggier teach or suggest ‘generating custom code blocks’” nor
“employ unique identifiers to identify custom code blocks and the ‘tags’ of
Claussen are misconstrued as identifiers” (id.).
However, the Examiner finds that “Claussen discloses generating
custom tags (i.e., custom code) by searching the DOM tree for the registered
custom tags (i.e., those already exist)” and the “DOM tree is
searched/reexamined again for any new custom tags and register them with
the library” (Ans. 12). Thus, “a test is made to determine whether the DOM
Appeal 2010-002024
Application 10/904,106

6
tree has any custom tags that have not been processed” (Ans. 13). The
Examiner also notes that “[t]he custom tags of Claussen are associated with
a value (i.e., a unique identifier) to identify them whether they exist in the
library” (id.).
We give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997). However, we will not read limitations from the Specification into the
claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 1 does not place any limitation on what “custom code section
blocks,” “unique custom code block section identifier,” and “application
content” mean, include, or represent. The Specification discloses that
application content is software that is generated by an application generator
that uses a view template and generates the content based upon a specified
application definition (Abstract; Spec. ¶¶ [0010] and [0022]). The
Specification, however, is silent as to the definition of “custom code section
blocks” and “unique custom code block section identifier.” Thus, we give
“generating custom code section blocks, each of said blocks having a unique
custom code block section identifier” its broadest reasonable interpretation
as deriving a subroutine having an exclusive value for identification, as
consistent with the Specification and as specifically defined in claim 1.
We also give “testing to determine whether application content having
said unique custom code block section identifier already exists” its broadest
reasonable interpretation as determining if software content includes an
existing subroutine having the exclusive value for identification, as
consistent with the Specification and as specifically defined in claim 1.
Appeal 2010-002024
Application 10/904,106

7
Ruggier discloses a method for developing and managing large-scale
WUI; wherein, Web Page templates are generated by combining generated
code and a shell template associated with a View (FF 1). We find that
generating code comprises custom code section blocks. That is, we find that
“generating custom code section blocks” reads on Ruggier’s method for
developing large scale WUI.
In addition, Claussen discloses a system having a page handling
engine that parses a web page into an XML DOM, while loading all required
XML tag libraries including registered custom tags stored in files having
names of the custom tag as well as an associated Java object name or a URL
naming an XSL style sheet (FF 2). We find that the registered custom tags
comprise derived subroutines having exclusive values for identification.
That is, we find that “generating custom code section blocks, each of said
blocks having a unique custom code block section identifier” (claim 1) reads
on Claussen’s XML tag libraries including registered custom tags stored in
files having names of the custom tag as well as an associated Java object
name or a URL naming an XSL style sheet.
Claussen further discloses that the engine then traverses the DOM tree
searching for registered custom tags (FF 3). We find that when the engine
searches for registered custom tags, it determines if the software content
includes an existing subroutine having an exclusive value for identification.
Particularly, we find that “testing to determine whether application content
having said unique custom code block section identifier already exists”
(claim 1) reads on Claussen’s engines search for registered custom tags
having names (identifier).
Appeal 2010-002024
Application 10/904,106

8
In addition, Claussen discloses that if a registered custom tag is found
in the DOM tree and the custom tag is a Java object, the Java object may
replace the registered custom tag with another custom tag, script code, or
HTML (FF 3). After the processing is complete, where the DOM is
examined and reexamined, the DOM tree is collapsed into the fewest
possible number of method blocks and the resultant servlet is made ready for
compilation (FF 4). That is, we find that “storing a final application content
including generated application content, retrieved custom code sections, and
newly generated unique custom code block sections if such sections did not
already exist” (claim 1) reads on Claussen’s DOM tree and the resultant
servlet.
The Supreme Court has stated that “[t]he combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding that the combination
of Ruggier’s system (including code generating processes) with the system
that parses a web page into an XML DOM and examines the DOM for
registered custom tags, as disclosed in Claussen, produces generating code
having unique identifiers, testing to determine whether application content
includes this generated code, and storing the application content including
this retrieved generated code and other code which would be obvious
(Ans.5-6; FF 1-4).
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Ruggier
in view of Claussen. Furthermore, independent claim 3 having similar claim
Appeal 2010-002024
Application 10/904,106

9
language and dependent claims 4-7 and 12-15 (depending from claims 1, 2,
and 3), which have not been argued separately, fall with claim 1.
Claims 2, 8, and 9-11
Appellants argue that claims 2, 8, and 9-11 are patentable over the
cited prior art for the same reasons asserted with respect to claim 1 (App. Br.
14-15).
As noted supra, however, we find that the combination of Ruggier
and Claussen at least suggests all the features of claim 1. Independent claim
2 possesses similar claim language to that of independent claim 1 and
therefore falls with claim 1. We therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 2 and dependent claims 8, and 9-11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 for the same reasons expressed with respect to parent claims 1 and 2,
supra.

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
affirmed.
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

pgc