Ex Parte Sykes et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 11, 2009

10825502 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 11, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte ROY SYKES, JOSEPH ZUSMAN,
SIKUN LAN, KENT FRAZIER, TYLER YOUNG,
YONG HUANG, and STANISLAV SOLARI
________________

Appeal 2008-004756
Application 10/825,502
Technology Center 2100
________________

Decided:1 June 11, 2009
________________

Before JAMES D. THOMAS, LEE E. BARRETT, and THU A. DANG,
Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2008-004756
Application 10/825,502

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 through 15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.

Invention
A method for updating web pages on a web server without
republishing the web pages involves providing on a production
database server a live version of one or more business data tables
containing information used to populate web pages on a production
web server and storing in a quality assurance database server a quality
assurance version of the business data tables that can be used to
populate pages on a quality assurance web server. A maker at a
business workstation can access the quality assurance database server
from time to time and enter a change to data on the quality assurance
version of the business data tables. Thereafter a checker at a business
workstation accesses the quality assurance database server to review
and approve or reject the changes to the data on the quality assurance
version of the business data tables, and if the checker approves the
changes, the changes to the data on the quality assurance version of
the business data tables are replicated from the quality assurance
database server to the live version of the business data tables on the
production database server.

(Spec. 34, Abstract; see also Figures 1 and 2).

Representative Claim
1. A computer-implemented method for updating web pages on a
web server without republishing the web pages, comprising:
Appeal 2008-004756
Application 10/825,502

3
providing on a production database server a live version of at
least one business data table containing information used to populate
web pages on a production web server;
storing in a quality assurance database server a quality
assurance version of the at least one business data table used to
populate pages on a quality assurance web server;
allowing a maker at a business workstation to access the quality
assurance database server and enter a change to data on the quality
assurance version of the at least one business data table;
allowing a checker at the business workstation to access the
quality assurance database server to review and approve or reject the
change to the data on the quality assurance version of the at least one
business data table; and
if the checker approves the change, replicating the change to the
data on the quality assurance version of the at least one business data
table from the quality assurance database server to the live version of
the at least one business data table on the production database server.

Prior Art and Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence of
anticipation and unpatentability:
Skok 2002/0091725 A1 Jul. 11, 2002
Sutherland 2002/0120757 A1 Aug. 29, 2002
Ries 2003/0023632 A1 Jan. 30, 2003
Cochran 2004/0030697 A1 Feb. 12, 2004

Appeal 2008-004756
Application 10/825,502

4
Claims 1 through 3, 7, 9, 12, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Skok. All other claims on appeal
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As to claims 4 through 6, and 10, the
Examiner relies upon Skok in view of Ries; as to claims 8 and 13, the
Examiner relies upon Skok in view of Sutherland; and as to claim 11, the
Examiner relies upon Skok in view of Cochran.2

Claim Groupings
Based upon Appellants’ arguments at pages 6 through 8 of the
principal Brief on appeal, we consider independent claim 1 as representative
of the subject matter of independent claims 1 and 15 on appeal. No separate
arguments are presented before us as to any claim depending from these
independent claims within the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We will
address separately the positions set forth with respect to the three stated
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 later in this Opinion.

ISSUE
On the basis of the positions before us presented in the Brief, Answer,
and Reply Brief, have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding
that Skok teaches the feature recited at the end of representative independent
claim 1 on appeal of “replicating the change”?

2 As noted at page 7 of the Answer, the Examiner has withdrawn an
outstanding rejection of claims 1 through 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Appeal 2008-004756
Application 10/825,502

5
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Appellants admit that the prior art approaches to updating web
pages of a web server include the following:
Typically, web publications are accomplished by taking HTML
files and their graphics, etc. and moving them from a development
Web server to quality assurance Web server to a production Web
server. That is also the usual way in which most websites are
updated. . . .

. . . Thus, there is a present need for a method and system for
updating web pages on a website frequently without moving files into
the web server.

(Spec. 1, ll. 10-13, 26-28).

2. To properly appreciate the nature of the disclosed invention and
the concept of updating “without republishing the web pages” as recited in
the preamble of independent claim on appeal, we reproduce the following:
Embodiments of the invention enable web pages on a web
server to be updated without republishing the web pages, which
involves, for example, providing on a production database server a
live version of one or more business data tables containing
information used to populate web pages on a production web server
accessible via a browser on a customer workstation.

(Spec. 3, ll. 4-8).

It is to be noted that makers and checkers can user the same or a
different business workstation and that multiple business workstations
can be located anywhere throughout the world.

(Id. at 3, l. 30 to 4, l. 2).

As a result, an embodiment of the invention provides the capability to
change the ORACLE database and then automatically have those
Appeal 2008-004756
Application 10/825,502

6
changes appear on the website without having to move any files
around.

(Id. at 5, ll. 7-10).

The data management capability of the present invention enables
database table editing in a way that is analogous to document editing
by a word processor, such as MICROSOFT Word, and is a powerful
database editor that will edit any type of SQL database table on an
ORACLE system.

(Id. at 7, ll. 9-13).

3. With respect to what the Appellants and the prior art regard as
replication, we reproduce the following from Appellants’ disclosed
Specification:
In embodiments of the invention, the data is actually replicated
to two or more different databases in keeping with continuity of
business requirements to have two or more ORACLE production
databases. The movement of data between the QA database and the
production database is done with database replication techniques
supported, for example, by ORACLE. The replication strategy for
embodiments of the invention is much less problematic than moving
around numerous files according to existing art processes. A key
feature of embodiments of the invention is the capability to have data
and a database that can be edited in such a manner that it is not
immediately applied but goes through the maker/checker work flow
process. The present invention employs a work flow process in which
the maker makes the change and the checker then must approve the
change, which was not previously available in any commercially
available software. The data management tool of the WDIU utility for
embodiments of the invention allows a user, for example, to look at a
table, add rows to the table, add columns to the table, change
individual data items within the table, delete rows from the table,
and/or delete columns from the table.

Appeal 2008-004756
Application 10/825,502

7
Essentially, a user can edit and change the whole structure of an
SQL database table as part of the data management activity according
to embodiments of the invention, a capability which likewise was not
previously available. The data management capability of the present
invention enables database table editing in a way that is analogous to
document editing by a word processor, such as MICROSOFT Word,
and is a powerful database editor that will edit any type of SQL
database table on an ORACLE system.

(Spec. 6, l. 22 to 7, l. 13).

Security aspects of the WDIU system for embodiments of the
invention include, for example, providing secure transmission and
storage of data and controlled access to the databases. Secure
transmission between customers and the production web servers 12
and between business users and the development/QA web servers 18
is provided using Secure Sockets Layer (SSL), and secure
transmission between web servers 12, 18 and the database servers 14,
16 is provided using secure JDBC. In addition, the QA database
server 16 and development/QA web servers 18 are behind a firewall.
Changes to the production version of the business data table are
replicated from the QA database server 16 to the production database
servers 14 using secure DB replication. Further, access to the QA
database 16 by business users is controlled by user IDs and
passwords, and business users can change their password via the web
browser of the business user's workstation 20.

(Id. at 21, ll. 11-22).

Each production database server 14 has a database link to the
QA database server 16. This link is used for publishing business data
table changes from QA to production and for snapshots between these
two servers. Each production database server 14 contains two table
snapshots for tables PUBLISH_SCHED and USER_INFO in the QA
database server 16. The PUBLISH_SCHED snapshot replicates the
entire table data every minute. Any new rows in the table or any
updated rows that have JOBSTATUS column value being
"Completed" trigger a change request publishing stored procedure in
Appeal 2008-004756
Application 10/825,502

8
the production database server 14 to perform table data copy functions
for relevant tables or rows from the QA database server 16 to the
production database server 14. The USER_INFO snapshot replicates
the rows with column ROLE equaling ‘System Administrator’. With
this snapshot, system error can be reported to system administrators
by e-mail.

(Id. at 22, ll. 17-28).

4. With respect to the ability to edit web pages, Skok illustrates
his technique in Figures 5 and 6. In Figure 5, the flow chart depicted there
illustrates the use of a so-called thin client editor. Pertinent discussions
include the following:
The thin client editor is capable of rendering HTML and of editing
HTML. In one embodiment, a user can graphically edit the rendered
web page. The HTML code for the page is available and is updated as
the web page is edited. Alternately, the user can edit the HTML code
itself if desire, with changes appearing on the rendered web page in
the editor.

(¶ [0064], ll. 7-13).

Once a user is authorized to create or edit content, the user may
invoke tools of the invention to create or edit content on the page. In
one embodiment of the invention, the tool is a thin client HTML
editor. The editor may be a thin client editor that is provided as a
JavaTM programming language applet, or it may reside on each user's
computer. The HTML editor provides the ability to perform richly
formatted text editing, such as italics, bold, centered, underline, tables,
links, inserting graphics, etc. The invention shows the user content
and editing as it occurs in a WYSIWYG mode, as well as
automatically creating HTML tags that are associated with the rich
formatting. The user can choose between editing in a WYSIWYG
browser emulation display, or an HTML code level where HTML tags
are directly editable.

Appeal 2008-004756
Application 10/825,502

9
The editing of a web page is illustrated in the flow diagram of
FIG. 6. At step 601 the user enters the edit mode. This brings an
editing window with a copy of the web page of interest. (The user can
move freely back and forth between the edit window and the browser
window during editing mode). At step 602 the user edits the local
copy of the web page. At step 603 the user attempts to publish the
web page (in other words, to commit the changes to the web page
server). At step 604 the edited document is placed in an approval
queue. In the approval queue the argument "Approved?" is made at
step 605. If the argument is true, the web server is updated with the
changes at step 606. If the argument is false, the changes are not
updated at the web server. At the user end, the user does not see the
changes to the actual browser page until the user requests a refresh or
update of the web page. If the user requests a refresh of an
unapproved web page, the original web page will be presented.

(¶¶ [0065]-[0066]).

Once editing or creation is completed, the web page is
published. This is accomplished by updating the server containing the
web page. Once the server is updated, browsers newly accessing the
page, or refreshing their view of the page, are presented with the
edited document.

(¶ [0073]).

If a new document is added to the site, users will not be able to
easily find that document unless there are navigation links added to
the site. The invention allows links to be both dynamically added and
updated on a site by using category information such as document
title, author, and date which can be stored with each document.

(¶ [0074], ll. 1-6).

Appeal 2008-004756
Application 10/825,502

10
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d
628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Analysis of whether a claim is patentable over
the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 begins with a determination of the scope
of the claim. We determine the scope of the claims in patent applications
not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their
broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech.
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The properly interpreted claim
must then be compared with the prior art.

Obviousness
“What matters is the objective reach of the claim. If the claim
extends to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103.” KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). To be nonobvious, an
improvement must be “more than the predictable use of prior art elements
according to their established functions.” Id. at 417. Appellants have the
burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate error in the Examiner’s
position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“On
appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection [under § 103] by
showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the
prima facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.”)
(quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). Therefore,
Appeal 2008-004756
Application 10/825,502

11
we look to Appellants’ Briefs to show error in the proffered prima facie
case.

ANALYSIS
At the outset, we note that Appellants’ contribution in the art appears
to avoid the prior art approach of moving entire files to a web server that
prior art approaches appear to consider to be republishing the web pages.
(FF 1-2). Moreover, Appellants’ approach is to be able to edit a database
with respect to the associated web page in a manner consistent with that of
the prior art word processor approach. (FF 2). This would appear to permit
merely making changes to the web page itself rather than downloading entire
web pages and the files associated with them.
With respect to the subject matter of representative independent claim
1 on appeal, the Examiner sets forth his view of the correlated teachings of
Skok to this claim at pages 3 and 4 of the Answer. In response to the
Appellants’ four bullet-point-type arguments at pages 6 through 8 of the
principal Brief on appeal, the Examiner makes counter arguments beginning
at page 7 of the Answer by repeating in its entirety each respective bullet-
point-type argument and responding thereto. Significantly, the Reply Brief
does not contest the first three of these correlations buttressed in the
responsive arguments portion of the Answer but only takes issue with the
fourth one of them at page 4 of the Reply Brief.
As we have characterized the issue earlier in this Opinion,
representative independent claim 1 focuses its inventive property and the
argued feature upon the “replicating the change” feature at the end of this
claim which is the focus of the argument at page 4 of the Reply Brief. In
Appeal 2008-004756
Application 10/825,502

12
response to the Examiner’s apparent view that replicating a change means
copying and republishing, Appellants make reference to the Specification as
we reproduced it in Finding of Fact 3, a view that asserts the art recognizes
differently than what the Examiner asserts the feature of replicating is to
mean.
Initially, we do not understand that the Examiner’s view has anything
to do with republishing and certainly Skok makes no mention of
republishing per se. As our reproduced portions of Skok indicate in Finding
of Fact 4, there is no republishing per se taught in this reference but merely
publishing. In the context of Skok, the Examiner’s view is appropriate to
include the concept of copying and publishing. Of importance here is that
Skok essentially teaches that copying and publishing mean editing, updating,
copying, and in Skok’s terms, publishing, only the changes to be desired on
a given web page. Editing, and therefore, publishing, in Skok is consistent
with mimicking editing within prior art word processors at the end of
Finding of Fact 2 relied on in the disclosed invention. These changes in
Skok also include the capability of adding material to a copy of the web
page that was not there before within the concept of editing. The approaches
taken in Skok therefore appear to be consistent with the copying capabilities
as disclosed and as reproduced in Finding of Fact 3 within Appellants’ own
Specification, which may be read to include the ability to copy only the
changes. Moreover, to the extent Appellants argue that the term replication
has a well-known understanding in the art, it constitutes an admission that
this capability was also known in the art.
Therefore, the evidence and arguments of the Examiner of the feature
of replication support the Examiner’s conclusion of anticipation of the
Appeal 2008-004756
Application 10/825,502

13
subject matter of independents claims 1 and 15 on appeal, to the extent
otherwise argued before us.
Turning to the rejections of various dependent claims in three
separately stated rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (beginning at page 8 of
the principal Brief on appeal), Appellants make only general arguments of
patentability including merely reproducing the key features of each of the
respectively rejected claims. Appellants do not contest the combinability of
Skok with the respective references to Reis, Sutherland, and Cochran, and
do not directly contest what the Examiner alleges is taught in each of these
respective references. The Reply Brief also does not contest the Examiner’s
additional correlations in the responsive arguments portion of the Answer,
beginning at page 12, as to these rejections.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Skok teaches the feature of “replicating the change” at the end of
representative independent claim 1 on appeal. Appellants also have not
shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that the combination of Skok
and each of the respective references utilized for the three rejections under
35 U.S.C. §103 would have rendered obvious the respectively rejected
dependent claims.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 3, 7, 9, 12, 14, and 15 as
being anticipated by Skok under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed. Likewise,
the Examiner’s three separately stated rejections of claims 4 through 6, 8,
Appeal 2008-004756
Application 10/825,502

14
10, 11, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed. All claims on appeal
are unpatentable.

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

msc

KING & SPALDING LLP (CITI CUSTOMER NUMBER)
ATTN: GEORGE T. MARCOU
1700 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW
SUITE 200
WASHINGTON, DC 20006