14546195 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 7, 2019)

Martin Schaus

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 7, 2019

14546195 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 7, 2019)

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. 14/546,195 11/18/2014 Martin Schaus 140169US01 8914 52025 7590 08/07/2019 SAP SE c/o BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC 50 LOCUST AVENUE NEW CANAAN, CT 06840 EXAMINER TAPP, AMELIA L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2144 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/07/2019 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): colabella@bmtpatent.com martin@BMTPATENT.COM szpara@bmtpatent.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte MARTIN SCHAUS ____________________ Appeal 2018-007546 Application 14/546,1951 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Introduction Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1–17, which are all of the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.2 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is SAP, SE. App. Br. 1. 2 Our Decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed March 5, 2018 (“App. Br.”); Appellant’s Reply Brief filed July 18, 2018 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed May 22, 2018 (“Ans.”); Advisory Action mailed July 24, 2017 (“Adv. Act.”); and Final Office Action mailed May 22, 2017 (“Final Act.”). Appeal 2018-007546 Application 14/546,195 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claims on Appeal Claims 1, 7, and 13 are independent claims. Claim 1 is reproduced below: 1. A system comprising: a memory storing processor-executable program code; and a processor to execute the processor-executable program code in order to cause the computing system to: receive first Web application code for a first Web page, the first Web application configured to display information within a first allocated portion of the first Web page; receive second Web application code for the first Web page, the second Web application configured to display information within a second allocated portion of the first Web page; execute the first Web application code to: register a first data model in a container of the first Web page; and execute the second Web application to: query the container registered by the first Web application for data models; request the first data model from the container; receive the first data model from the container; extract first data from the first data model; and present the first data in the second allocated portion of the first Web page. References Burd et al. US 6,990,653 B1 Jan. 24, 2006 Faris et al. US 2009/0049370 A1 Feb. 19, 2009 Buttner et al. US 9,218,435 B2 Dec. 22, 2015 Appeal 2018-007546 Application 14/546,195 3 Examiner’s Rejection Claims 1–17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Burd, Buttner,3 and Faris. Final Act. 2–11. ANALYSIS 35 U.S.C. § 103 Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Burd, Buttner, and Faris teaches “execut[ing] the first Web application code to: register a first data model in a container of the first Web page” and “execut[ing] the second Web application to . . . extract first data from the first data model; and present the first data in the second allocated portion of the first Web page,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 7 and 13. App. Br. 5–9; Reply Br. 2–5. Specifically, Appellant argues the combination does not teach that a “first data model is registered in [a first Web page’s] container” by a first Web application and that a “second Web application for the same first Web page extract[s] first data from the first data model.” Reply Br. 3–4; see App. Br. 7–8. We are persuaded of Examiner error. The Examiner relies on Burd’s “handler” which “handle[s] different types of resources . . . provided on [a] web server” to teach a “second Web application.” Ans. 12 (citing Burd 5:4– 9); Final Act. 4. Further, the Examiner points out that Burd’s handler, i.e., 3 The Examiner identifies “Buttner” as “U.S. Patent No. 9,218,425 B2.” Final Act. 2; Ans. 2. However, U.S. Patent No. 9,218,425 B2 is not issued to Buttner. U.S. Patent No. 9,218,435 B2 is issued to Buttner. We deem this harmless error and understand the Examiner’s citations to Buttner to reference U.S. Patent No. 9,218,435 B2. This is how Appellant understands the rejection as well. See App. Br. 5. Appeal 2018-007546 Application 14/546,195 4 the “second Web application,” can “access files or control objects from a class library or a server-side declaration data store, i.e., a registered container, in response to an HTTP request.” Ans. 12–13 (citing Burd 5:10– 37). That is, the Examiner relies on Burd’s handler, which accesses “server side control objects and content files” to teach “execut[ing] the second Web application to . . . extract first data from the first data model.” Ans. 13; Final Act. 4. Although the Examiner asserts that “the claimed ‘container’ may be interpreted to be a content file of a web page, residing on either a client or on a server, and should not necessarily be limited to being a structure within the web page itself” (Ans. 11–12), the claims recite, and therefore require, that data is extracted from “a first data model in a container of the first Web page,” which was “register[ed]” by a first Web application. Burd describes that its handler can extract data, but the Examiner has not sufficiently explained how Burd’s handler extracts data that was “register[ed] [in] a first data model in a container of the first Web page.” The Examiner relies on Burd’s disclosure of a handler accessing files. Ans. 12–13 (citing Burd 5:10–37); Final Act. 4. In particular, Burd discloses that its “handler 120 accesses the static content file 122 and passes the static content file 122 back through the HTTP pipeline 118 for communication to the client 100.” Burd 5:10–14. This disclosure, however, describes extracting data from a server, rather than from a Web page with a data model in a container that was registered in the Web page by a first Web application. The Examiner also points to disclosures of Burd’s handler accessing data stored in server-side class control library 126, client-side control class library 128, and non-user- interface server components 130, such as a stock price look-up application Appeal 2018-007546 Application 14/546,195 5 or a database component. Final Act. 4 (citing Burd 5:26–53). These disclosures of Burd, however, do not describe that those data are extracted from the first Web page, let alone that those data are extracted from a data model in a container of the first Web page, registered by a first Web application. Additionally, the Examiner does not rely on Faris to teach “extract[ing] first data from the first data model.” Ans. 13–14 (Faris “is not relied upon to teach querying or extracting content.”); see Final Act. 4–5. Nor does the Examiner conclude that it would have been obvious to do so. In particular, the Examiner “combine[s] the disclosed elements” of “updating a Web page using browser based messaging taught by Buttner,” “displaying content from different sources disclosed by Faris,” and “dynamically generating web page content taught by Burd,” but does not explain how it would have been obvious to “extract first data from the first data model” in a container of the first Web page that was registered by a first Web application based on the teachings of the references. Final Act. 5. Accordingly, we are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 1, 7, and 13 over the stated combination of Burd, Buttner, and Faris. Dependent claims 2–6, 10–12, and 14–17 stand with their respective independent claims. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1–17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–17. REVERSED