Ex Parte Smith

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 16, 2012

10209818 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 16, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte CHRISTOPHER T. SMITH
____________________

Appeal 2010-000402
Application 10/209,818
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-000402
Application 10/209,818

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
1

Introduction
Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection
of claims 1-23 and 25-48, the only claims pending in the application on
appeal. Claim 24 has been canceled. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Exemplary Claim
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below, bracketing, numbering, and
emphases added:

1. In a server, a method comprising:

[A] receiving an identifier corresponding to a first user interface (UI)
object to be displayed within a client browser;

[B] generating one or more client-side scripts to be executed by a
client, the one or more client-side scripts designed to generate [1] a root
object, [2] a context object to store state information corresponding to at
least one of the root object and one or more child objects, and [3] a window
manager to facilitate control of one or more display properties of at least one
secondary UI window, the root object, context object, and window manager
being objects of a hierarchical client based object model;

[C] generating display content associated with the first user interface
object; and

[D] transmitting the one or more client-side scripts, and content
representing at least the first UI object.

1
Our decision will make reference to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Br.”) filed
April 1, 2009, and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed July 7, 2009.
Appeal 2010-000402
Application 10/209,818

3
Rejections
(1) Claims 1-12, 14-16, 23, and 25-42 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kloba (US
2001/0047394 A1) in view of Gish (US 6,052,711). Ans. 3-12.
(2) Claims 19-22 and 45-48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Kloba and Gish, further in view of Lindhorst (US
2002/0089539 A1). Ans. 12-13.
(3) Claims 13, 17, 18, 43, and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kloba and Gish, further in view of
Carlucci (US 2003/0149749 A1). Ans. 14-15.
Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant contends (Br. 10-12) that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 under § 103(a) for numerous reasons including:
2

(1) Gish’s presentation engine (PE) is merely downloaded from a
server by a client node, and is not generated by a client-side script as recited
in limitation [B][3] of claim 1;
(2) neither Kloba nor Gish teaches or suggests a window manager that
is designed to be generated by the client-side scripts; and
(3) there is no motivation to combine the references to achieve the
system where a client-side script is designed to generate a windows manager
as claimed.

2
Appellant only presents arguments on the merits with regard to
independent claim 1 (see Br. 10-11). Separate patentability is not argued for
independent claims 10, 23, 27, and 36 which recite limitations similar to
claim 1, and for the dependent claims (see Br. 11-12). We select claim 1 as
representative claim in our analysis infra. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2010-000402
Application 10/209,818

4
ISSUE
Based on Appellant’s arguments, the following issue is presented:
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-23 and 25-48 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of references because
Gish fails to teach or suggest generating a client-side script to be executed
by a client, wherein the client-side script is designed to generate a window
manager (i.e., presentation engine (PE)), as recited in representative claim 1?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions in the Appeal Brief (Br.10-12) that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellant’s 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 Appellant’s Appeal Brief. Ans. 3-6
and 16-21. We highlight that Gish’s startup applet 620 is a client-side script
that is generated to be executed by a client 600 (Fig. 6; col. 16, ll. 33-46; col.
18, ll. 54-67; col. 28, ll. 16-30; col. 29, ll. 6-11 and 42-45; col. 30, ll. 29-32;
col. 35, ll. 21-23; and col. 52, ll. 15-21). We agree with the Examiner’s
cogent explanation (Ans. 16-21) of how the combination of Kloba and Gish
provides an applet which is designed to generate a window manager (i.e.,
Gish’s presentation engine (PE)), as recited in claim 1. We agree with the
Examiner’s conclusions that (i) “Gish teaches generating on a server a
presentation engine that is sent to a device, as an applet, that is a script,” (ii)
“The device executes the script and generates a user interface and a
presentation engine,” and (iii) “The presentation engine controls the display
Appeal 2010-000402
Application 10/209,818

5
of windows, handles events from windows and determines where to display
results in the display, which is a window manager.” (Ans. 21).
Appellant has not sufficiently rebutted the Examiner’s findings and
determinations in the Answer (see Ans. 16-21), or otherwise shown that the
Examiner’s explanation is in error (see generally Br. 10-12). Based on
Appellant’s contentions and rebuttal, we do not find that the Examiner erred
in determining that the references teach or suggest the disputed limitation
recited in representative claim 1.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-23 and 25-48 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Kloba and Gish
because Gish teaches or suggests generating a client-side script to be
executed by a client, wherein the client-side script is designed to generate a
window manager (i.e., presentation engine), as recited in representative
claim 1.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-23 and 25-48 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

ELD