11315381 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 18, 2012)

Ex Parte Seurig et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJan 18, 2012

11315381 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 18, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/315,381 12/21/2005 Andreas Seurig DE920040065US1 8451 48916 7590 01/18/2012 Greg Goshorn, P.C. 9600 Escarpment Suite 745-9 AUSTIN, TX 78749 EXAMINER RIEGLER, PATRICK F ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2173 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/18/2012 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 ANDREAS SEURIG and THOMAS SPILLECKE ____________ Appeal 2009-012693 Application 11/315,381 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and MICHAEL R. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-012693 Application 11/315,381 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-11, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Invention Appellants’ invention relates to a method and system for editing arbitrary Extenstible Markup Language (XML) formatted web content within a graphical user interface (GUI), where user-edited XML is converted according to the rules of an Extensible Stylesheet Language (XSL) style sheet using a XSL Transformation Processor into a mark-up document specific to the browser software running on a client side operating system. The XML based web content is converted in a web-mark-up that is modifiable. The editing process takes place within the browser that displays the rendered XML content. Abstract. Representative Claim 1. A method, comprising: detecting a predetermined event triggered by respective graphical user interface (GUI) actions done by a user when editing a predetermined editable element in a predetermined browser-displayable format, handling said event by looking up a predefined corresponding Content Builder component mapped to said editable element for being selected for executing the edit actions of the user, Appeal 2009-012693 Application 11/315,381 3 invoking the selected Content Builder component offering to the user a defined set of GUI edit options specific for said editable element, converting edit-actions of the user within the offered options into a respective updated browser document in said browser-displayable format adapting XML fragments implementing said edit actions done by the user, visualizing said XML document by aid of said browser- displayable format. Prior Art Zawadzki US 6,226,656 B1 May 1, 2001 Sahota US 2001/0056460 A1 Dec. 27, 2001 Kuo US 2004/0268304 A1 Dec. 30, 2004 Allan US 2005/0102612 A1 May 12, 2005 Bell US 7,168,035 B1 Jan. 23, 2007 Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1, 6, and 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Kuo. Claims 2 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kuo and Allan. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kuo and Sahota. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kuo and Zawadzki. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kuo, Zawadzki, and Sahota. Appeal 2009-012693 Application 11/315,381 4 Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kuo and Bell. Claim Groupings Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide the Appeal on the basis of claim 1. See App. Br. 12-19. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding that Kuo discloses “handling said event by looking up a predefined corresponding Content Builder component mapped to said editable element for being selected for executing the edit actions of the user” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS Appellants contend that Kuo does not disclose content builders mapped to editable elements or a content builder selected for executing the edit actions of the user. App. Br. 12-14. The Examiner finds that Figures 3- 5 and paragraphs [0003],[0006], and [0025] of Kuo describe “handling said event by looking up a predefined corresponding Content Builder component mapped to said editable element for being selected for executing the edit actions of the user,” as recited in claim 1. See Ans. 5, 15-19. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. Appeal 2009-012693 Application 11/315,381 5 CONCLUSION OF LAW The Examiner did not err in finding that Kuo discloses “handling said event by looking up a predefined corresponding Content Builder component mapped to said editable element for being selected for executing the edit actions of the user” as recited in claim 1. DECISION The rejection of claims 1, 6, and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Kuo is affirmed. The rejection of claims 2 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kuo and Allan is affirmed. The rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kuo and Sahota is affirmed. The rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kuo and Zawadzki is affirmed. The rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kuo, Zawadzki, and Sahota is affirmed. The rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kuo and Bell 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED Appeal 2009-012693 Application 11/315,381 6 tj