Ex Parte Johnson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2017

13829274 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2017)

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.
13/829,274 03/14/2013 Mark A. Johnson ORACP0076 3813
7590
Trellis IP Law Group/Oracle
1900 Embarcadero Road
Suite 109
Palo Alto, CA 94303
EXAMINER
CHOI, DAVID E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2017 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):
docket@trellislaw.com
megan@trellislaw.com
ann@trellislaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK A. JOHNSON
and DARRYL MARTIN SHAKESPEARE
Appeal 2017-000831
Application 13/829,274
Technology Center 2100
Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, BARBARA A. BENOIT and
JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—7, 9-11, 13, and 15—23. Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 1—3, 6, 9, 11, 13, 15,21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Milosevic et al. (US 2006/0248166 Al; Nov. 2,
2006) andNuthakki et al.(US 2008/0256096 Al; Oct. 16, 2008). Final Act.
3-16.
Appeal 2017-000831
Application 13/829,274
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Milosevic, Nuthakki, and Gassner et al. (US 2009/0327912 Al; Dec. 31,
2009). Final Act. 17-18.
Claims 7, 10, 16—20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Milosevic, Nuthakki, and Kern et al. (US 2011/0154185 Al;
June 23, 2011). Final Act. 18—25.
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to “facilitating displaying client-side
graphical user interface elements based on information retrieved from a
server.” Spec. 11. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A method for generating a client user interface display, the
method comprising:
determining, using a client application residing on a client device, one
or more User Interface (UI) elements that are metadata-based and
specifically associated with the client application and an enterprise
application, for display on the client device, wherein the one or more UI
elements are stored on a server as a plurality of abstract definitions for
access by the client application separate from HyperText Markup Language
(HTML) based content;
transmitting, from the client application to the server, a request to
supply the one or more abstract definitions;
receiving, at the client application, the abstract definitions from the
server, wherein the abstract definitions comprise metadata having
descriptions of the one or more one or more UI elements to be displayed on
2
Appeal 2017-000831
Application 13/829,274
the client device, wherein the descriptions include platform-dependent
instructions for generating metadata-based platform-dependent UI elements,
and instructions for generating metadata-based dynamic elements that
represent implementations of platform-independent element descriptions;
in response to the metadata, using the client application to generate
the metadata-based dynamic elements and conform the metadata-based
platform-dependent UI elements in accordance with a platform-specific
paradigm consistent with the description and client-side platform-specific
requirements; and
employing the metadata to display the one or more UI elements.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).
ANALYSIS
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1-3,6,9,11,13,15,21, and 22
over Milosevic and Nuthakki
The Examiner finds Milosevic and Nuthakki teach all limitations of
claim 1. Final Act. 3—6; see also Ans. 3—5.
Appellants present the following principal arguments:
i. “Milosevic discloses a server 12 that transmits data from server
12 to client 14 explicitly and fully specifying webpage 22, which is
passively interpreted by a browser 16 hosted on client 14 to render webpage
3
Appeal 2017-000831
Application 13/829,274
22 and does not disclose metadata-based UI elements generated from
abstract definitions.” App. Br. 15; see also Reply Br. 4.
ii.
Nuthakki discloses transmitting report definition data fully
specifying report visualizations, from stored data environment
104 to client 106, which is interpreted by an application hosted
on client 106. Therefore, client 106 and hosted application
process the report visualization data received from stored data
environment 104 to passively render the visualization based on
the data received (see Nuthakki Figures 1—3, 8, Abstract, and
pars. [0019]—[0027]), and [0039]-[0045]).
App. Br. 15—16; see also Reply Br. 4.
Appellants’ arguments (i) and (ii) focus on the prior art’s passive
interpretation of fully specified webpages (Milosevic) and the prior art’s
passive rendering of fully specified report visualizations (Nuthakki),
asserting that these disclosures do not teach claim 1 ’s metadata-based UI
elements.
On the record before us, we do not see any error in the contested
findings of the Examiner. Nor do we see any error in the Examiner’s
conclusion of obviousness.
The Examiner finds Milosevic teaches (claim 1):
determining, using a client application residing on a client
device, one or more User Interface (UI) elements that are
metadata-based and specifically associated with the client
application and an enterprise application, for display on the client
device, wherein the one or more UI elements are stored on a
server as a plurality of abstract definitions for access by the client
application separate from HyperText Markup Language
(HTML) based content.
Final Act. 3 (citing Milosevic 139). We agree with and adopt this finding as
our own.
4
Appeal 2017-000831
Application 13/829,274
Milosevic (139) discloses “data required to generate the web user
interface is provided in the form of nested JavaScript arrays. The generation
of HTML is then done by browser 16, through the use of JavaScript.” Thus,
Milosevic’s generation of HTML by the browser teaches UI elements as a
plurality of abstract definitions because the JavaScript arrays are abstract
definitions for the UI elements. See Milosevic 139. To the extent that the
webpage is fully specified, this does not preclude a finding that the
Javascript arrays constitute abstract definitions for the UI elements because
there is no specific instance of the webpage until it is generated by
Milosevic’s browser. See Milosevic 139.
With regard to the further claim limitations relating to the abstract
definitions, the Examiner finds Nuthakki teaches the further recited (claim
1):
wherein the descriptions include platform-dependent instructions
for generating metadata-based platform-dependent UI elements,
and instructions for generating metadata-based dynamic
elements that represent implementations of platform-
independent element descriptions;
in response to the metadata, using the client application to
generate the metadata-based dynamic elements and conform the
metadata-based platform-dependent UI elements in accordance
with a platform-specific paradigm consistent with the description
and client-side platform-specific requirements.
Final Act. 5—6 (citing Nuthakki || 19, 25). We agree with and adopt this
finding as our own.
Nuthakki (| 19) discloses “the report definitions provided to the client
device include abstract metadata that can be automatically rendered at the
client device 106. Alternatively, the report definitions include a precision
5
Appeal 2017-000831
Application 13/829,274
layout that is provided to the client device 106 to provide a precise rendering
of the report on the client device 106.”
Nuthakki (| 25) further discloses:
In an automatic format, the report store 118 includes information
that relates to the type of information that is to be visualized, but
does not provide a precise layout for the client device to use in
its report. An example of such a report in one embodiment is a
sales report. The sales report can illustrative[ly] include
information about clients, including the name of the client, a
business address, total sales to that client, and a time period of
the report. While a report of this nature necessarily includes this
type of information, it may not be especially important as to how
that information is displayed on the client device 106. With the
automated layout format, the client device can illustratively
provide a visualization without precise layout provided by the
information in the report store 118.
Thus, Nuthakki’s automatic format teaches, in particular, conforming
metadata-based platform-dependent UI elements as claimed. See Nuthakki
Tflf19, 25. To the extent that report visualizations are fully specified, this
does not preclude a finding that Nuthakki’s automatic format constitutes
conforming metadata-based platform-dependent UI elements because the
client device provides visualization without precise layout information being
provided to the client. See Nuthakki 125.
The Examiner provides some reasoning with a rational underpinning
as to why the claimed invention would have been obvious. Final Act. 6; see
also Milosevic 139, Nuthakki H 19, 25. We find the Examiner’s reasoning
is rational and supported by the record.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 15 and 21, which are not separately argued
with particularity. See App. Br. 16—17.
6
Appeal 2017-000831
Application 13/829,274
Regarding claims 2, 3, 6, 9, 11, 13, and 22, the Examiner finds
Milosevic and Nuthakki teach all limitations of these claims. See Final Act.
7—11, 16; see also Ans. 5.
Appellants’ arguments, for each of these claims, quotes claim
language and goes on to assert that the claim language is not taught by
Milosevic and Nuthakki, characterizing Milosevic as “disclosing
transmitting webpage data to a client” and characterizing Nuthakki as
“transmitting report definition data fully specifying report visualizations.”
See App. Br. 17—19. Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments for these claims
are essentially the same as arguments (i) and (ii) discussed above.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2, 3, 6, 9,
11, 13, and 22 for the same reasons discussed above when addressing claim
1.
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 4 and 5 over Milosevic,
Nuthakki, and Gassner
The Examiner finds Milosevic, Nuthakki, and Gassner teach all
limitations of claims 4 and 5. Final Act. 17—18; see also Ans. 5—6.
Appellants present the following principal arguments:
i. (Teaching away)
[Bjecause Gassner discloses generating metadata on the server
to develop server side applications that are deployed to client
devices using standard browser protocols, such as HTTP and
HTML, to avoid the use of additional executables on the client
side, Gassner directly teaches away from using client side
applications for any processing purpose outside the normal
rendering process of a browser.
7
Appeal 2017-000831
Application 13/829,274
App. Br. 20 (citing Gassner || 71—77, 81—82, 93—97; Figs. 2-4, 11); see also
Reply Br. 5.
ii. (Claim 4)
Gassner discloses using a server side application development
system, which is separate from a client device, to develop a user
interface (e.g., Web page) for display on client devices using a
browser and does not disclose a characterization of a UI element
which includes a behavior and actions that the UI element can
perform.
App. Br. 21; see also Reply Br. 5.
iii. (Claim 5)
Gassner discloses using a server side application development
system, which is separate from a client device, to develop a user
interface (e.g., Web page) for display on client devices using a
browser and does not disclose a characterization of a UI element
which includes a characterization of a location of the UI element.
App. Br. 21; see also Reply Br. 5.
On the record before us, we do not see any error in the contested
findings of the Examiner. Nor do we see any error in the Examiner’s
conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding Appellants’ argument (i), we note that while an alternative
may be inferior to or less desirable than another, that alone is insufficient to
teach away from the inferior alternative unless the disclosure criticizes,
discredits, or otherwise discourages that alternative. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d
1195, 1200-1 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, Gassner discloses customization of
client-server interaction where “[customization is enabled on any client
supporting standard browser functionality.” Gassner Abstract. This does not
constitute a teaching away from using any and all forms of client-side
processing.
8
Appeal 2017-000831
Application 13/829,274
Regarding claim 4, the Examiner finds Gassner discloses (claim 4)
“wherein the definition includes a characterization of a UI element of a UI
display screen, wherein the characterization includes a description of a
behavior of the UI element, and a description of one or more actions that can
be performed in response to user selection of the UI element.” Final Act. 17
(citing Gassner 162).
Gassner (| 62) discloses:
Interaction between a user and an application includes
input the user supplies to the application and output presented to
the user by the application. For example, a user may select user
interface elements with a pointing device (e.g., a mouse), enter
data in a field using a keyboard or voice recognition software, or
use keystrokes to control an application. Configurable properties
of user interaction include defining the function of “hotkeys” and
automatically placing a cursor in a preferred data entry field.
Providing customization of this type allows a user to choose
between the basic point-and-click interaction model and a
keyboard based interaction model. Under many circumstances
the keyboard based interaction model enabled by the present
invention is more efficient and preferred.
Thus, Gassner’s interaction between a user and an application
reasonably describes characterization of a UI element includes a description
of a behavior of the UI element; Gassner’s configurable function of
“hotkeys” reasonably describes characterization of a UI element includes a
description of one or more actions that can be performed in response to user
selection of the UI element. See Gassner | 62.
To the extent Gassner discloses using a server-side application
development system (argument (ii)), we find this argument does not show
any error in the Examiner’s findings because as discussed above, Milosevic
and Nuthakki teach abstract definitions for the UI elements and conforming
9
Appeal 2017-000831
Application 13/829,274
metadata-based platform-dependent UI elements. Gassner (1 62) further
teaches characterization of a UI element which includes a behavior and
actions that the UI element can perform. Collectively, the references teach
the claimed subject matter. The Examiner provides some reasoning with a
rational underpinning as to why the claimed invention would have been
obvious. Final Act. 17—18; see also Gassner 1 62. We find the Examiner’s
reasoning is rational and supported by the record.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, the Examiner finds Gassner discloses (claim 5)
“wherein the characterization further includes a characterization of a
location of the UI element.” Final Act. 18 (citing Gassner 197).
Gassner (1 97) discloses “metadata is generated indicating properties
such as the relative location of the user interface element in the specific
application user interface 255.”
Thus, Gassner’s relative location of the UI element reasonably
describes a characterization of a location of the UI element. See Gassner
197.
To the extent Gassner discloses using a server-side application
development system (argument (iii)), we find this argument does not show
any error in the Examiner’s findings because as discussed above, Milosevic
and Nuthakki teach abstract definitions for the UI elements and conforming
metadata-based platform-dependent UI elements. Gassner (197) further
teaches a characterization of a location of the UI element. Collectively, the
references teach the claimed subject matter. The Examiner provides some
reasoning with a rational underpinning as to why the claimed invention
10
Appeal 2017-000831
Application 13/829,274
would have been obvious. Final Act. 19; see also Gassner 197. We find the
Examiner’s reasoning is rational and supported by the record.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5.
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 7,10,16-20, and 23 over
Milosevic, Nuthakki, and Kern
The Examiner finds Milosevic, Nuthakki, and Kern teach all
limitations of claims 7, 10, 16—20, and 23. Final Act. 18—25; see also Ans. 6.
Regarding independent claims 16, 19, and 20, Appellants present the
same principal arguments as presented for claim 1. See App. Br. 22. These
arguments do not show any Examiner error for reasons discussed above
when addressing claim 1. In the Reply Brief, Appellants further argue
Kern is not designed to work with a client-side application that
plays an active role in determining and generating metadata-
based elements specifically associated with a client-side
application and an enterprise application, which are derived from
abstract definitions stored separate from HTML based content,
and conforming UI elements with respect to the platform where
the client-side application is instantiated as claimed. Kern simply
receives information about a browser state and sends that
information to a server to recreate the browser state on a server.
Reply Br. 5.
This argument also does not show any Examiner error because as
discussed above, Milosevic and Nuthakki teach abstract definitions for the
UI elements and conforming metadata-based platform-dependent UI
elements. Further, the Examiner provides some reasoning with a rational
underpinning as to why the claimed invention would have been obvious.
Final Act. 23; see also Kern 131. We find the Examiner’s reasoning is
11
Appeal 2017-000831
Application 13/829,274
rational and supported by the record, and Appellants’ argument does not
point to any particular error in the Examiner’s reasoning.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16, 19, and
20.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites “varying the metadata-based UI
element depending upon a characteristic of the client device, wherein the
characteristic includes an operating system.” The Examiner finds Kern
teaches this claimed subject matter. Final Act. 18—19 (citing Kern 131).
Appellants argue “Kern is recited to teach this feature. However, as
discussed above captures information pertaining to a webpage on a client to
recreate the webpage on the server for testing. Thus, Kern does not disclose
varying a metadata based UI element, but rather uses information for
webpage recreation.”
Kern (131) discloses “the scripting system determines relevant
metadata information about the webpage and the client display environment,
such as the current browser, screen resolution, and operating system.” The
reliance on Kern is for a teaching of detecting the operating system as part of
the client display environment. As discussed above, Milosevic and Nuthakki
teach abstract definitions for the UI elements and conforming metadata-
based platform-dependent UI elements. Collectively, the references teach
that conforming may consider the detected operating system. The Examiner
articulates a reason to combine the references that is supported by evidence
drawn from the record. See Final Act. 19; see also Kern 131. Appellants’
argument does not point to any particular error in the Examiner’s reasoning.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites
12
Appeal 2017-000831
Application 13/829,274
specifying the metadata, such that the metadata may be
interpreted by different software of different client devices
running different operating systems, thereby enabling different
software running on different client devices to change one or
more actions associated with the one or more metadata-based UI
elements based on one or more characteristics of an
accompanying operating system.
The Examiner finds Kern teaches this claimed subject matter. Final Act. 19
(citing Kern 131).
Appellants argue “Kern is recited to teach this feature. However, as
discussed above Kern discloses capturing information pertaining to a
webpage on a client in order to recreate the webpage on the server for testing
and therefore does not use the information to adapt the webpage to the server
environment.” App. Br. 23.
As discussed above, the references teach that conforming may
consider the detected operating system. The Examiner articulates a reason to
combine the references that is supported by evidence drawn from the record.
See Final Act. 19; see also Kern 131. Appellants’ argument does not point
to any particular error in the Examiner’s reasoning.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites “wherein content other than the
metadata includes HTML content.” The Examiner finds Milosevic teaches
this claimed subject matter. Final Act. 24 (citing Milosevic 129).
Appellants argue “Milosevic does not describe transmitting metadata,
but rather programing script that is passively interpreted like HTML by the
client device to generate WebPage 22, regardless of the platform client side
environment.” App. Br. 24.
13
Appeal 2017-000831
Application 13/829,274
Milosevic (129) discloses “The HTML file and code are sent to
browser 16 in response 26 via network 18.” Thus, Milosevic discloses
content other than metadata including HTML content, and teaches the
subject matter of claim 17.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites “wherein at least one UI element
includes one or more metadata-based dynamic native elements.” The
Examiner finds Nuthakki teaches this claimed subject matter. Final Act. 24
(citing Nuthakki 135).
Appellants argue “Nuthakki is recited to teach this feature. However,
Nuthakki teaches that labels can be remotely modified, which indicates that
labels cannot be modified locally by the client application.” App. Br. 24.
Nuthakki (135) discloses “data elements that are labels as well as
fields.” We agree with the Examiner that this disclosure suggests the
claimed metadata-based dynamic native elements of claim 18 because the
element in Nuthakki, when displayed, has an appearance based on the
platform upon which the element is displayed. See also Nuthakki 125
(“With the automated layout format, the client device can illustratively
provide a visualization without precise layout provided by the information in
the report store 118.”).
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18.
Regarding claim 23, claim 23 recites
in response to another request from another client application
associated with another enterprise application, sending other
abstract definitions stored on the server to the other client
application having descriptions of other UI elements specifically
designed to operate with the other client application and the other
14
Appeal 2017-000831
Application 13/829,274
enterprise application, in addition to the HTML-based content
supplied by the server.
The Examiner finds Milosevic teaches this claimed subject matter. Final
Act. 25 (citing Milosevic Tflf 29-30).
Appellants argue
Milosevic is recited to teach this feature. However,
Milosevic discloses transmitting JavaScript to the client device
to generate HTML for a WebPage 22 for display on the client,
but does not describe transmitting other abstract definitions that
include UI elements specifically designed to operate on other
devices and associated enterprise applications.
App. Br. 24.
As discussed above, Milosevic’s generation of HTML by the browser
teaches UI elements as a plurality of abstract definitions because the
JavaScript arrays are abstract definitions for the UI elements. See Milosevic
139. Similarly, Milosevic’s disclosures readily teach transmitting other
abstract definitions as recited. See Milosevic 139; see also Nuthakki 125
(automated formatting at the client device).
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 23.
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—7, 9—11, 13, and 15—23 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).
AFFIRMED
15