Noah Horton et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 1, 2019

13794464 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 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.
13/794,464 03/11/2013 Noah HORTON R00237NP 7294
129668 7590 10/01/2019
Invoke / Oracle
30 Wall Street #800
8th Floor
New York, NY 10005
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, LUU-PHUONG T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2177
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/01/2019 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):
docketing@InvokeIP.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte NOAH HORTON, SALMAN RAFAT ANSARI,
JOSHUA JAMES ELLITHORPE, and
DAMANDIP SINGH SANGHERA
____________

Appeal 2019-000032
Application 13/794,464
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–4, 6–12, 14–16, 18, 19, and 21, which constitute
all claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Oracle International Corporation as
the real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-000032
Application 13/794,464

2

BACKGROUND
The Claimed Invention
The invention relates to an “improved [method] to implement web
pages,” and specifically, to a configuration for a web page layout permitting
a web page designer to “implement functional content on the web page.”
Spec. ¶¶ 4, 8–9. The Specification refers to such functional content (or
embedded applications) as “widgets,” id. ¶ 4, and describes a “new type of
widget,” called a “contextual” widget, as follows:
disclosed is an improved approach to implement a new type of
widget that obtains its context information from another widget.
For example, when a contextual widget is dropped into a drop
zone, that contextual widget would obtain its context data from
its parent drop zone widget. The drop zone is a location on the
web page layout that permits drag and drop capability to insert
functional content.
Id. ¶ 9 (emphasis added).
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
invention and the subject matter in dispute, and reads as follows:
1. A computer implemented method implemented with a
processor, comprising identifying a widget to render;
determining that the widget is a particular instance of a
contextual widget comprising code to obtain context data from
any compatible parent widget in which the contextual widget is
nested, wherein software functionality of the contextual widget
performs differently depending on which parent widget nests
the contextual widget;
determining that the particular instance of the contextual
widget is nested in a particular instance of a parent widget,
wherein the particular instance of the parent widget supplies
particular context data;
retrieving the particular context data from the particular
instance of the parent widget; and
Appeal 2019-000032
Application 13/794,464

3

rendering the particular instance of the contextual widget
having software functionality that is based at least in part on the
particular context data, wherein placement of the particular
instance of the contextual widget is based at least in part on the
particular instance of the parent widget.
App. Br. 8 (Claims App.).
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 4, 6–12, 14–16, 18, 19, and 21 are rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fairweather (US 2003/0188004 A1;
published Oct. 2, 2003). Final Act. 3–9.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fairweather and Moore (US 2008/0195483 A1; published
Aug. 14, 2008). Final Act. 9–10.
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellant could have
made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). On the record before us, Appellant has not persuaded us
of error. We adopt the Examiner’s reasoning and analysis as our own, and
provide the following for highlighting and emphasis.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding Fairweather teaches or
suggests a “contextual widget comprising code to obtain context data from
any compatible parent widget in which the contextual widget is nested,” and
“rendering” the contextual widget based on that context data, as recited in
claim 1. App. Br. 4–6; Reply Br. 2–4. Appellant asserts that the Examiner
Appeal 2019-000032
Application 13/794,464

4

appears to rely on “inherency” in Fairweather, but that “nothing in
Fairweather [] suggest[s] . . . that functionality based on a widget’s nesting
level is equivalent to a widget [as in claim 1] having software functionality
based at least in part on the particular context data retrieved from the
instance of the parent widget in which it is nested.” Reply Br. 4 (emphasis
in original); see also App. Br. 4. On the record before us, however, we are
unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments.
As the Examiner finds, Fairweather discloses a “functional” software
architecture comprised of “widgets,” utilizing an “ancestry chain” in which
widgets may be “nested” within one another. Ans. 15-19; Fairweather
¶¶ 23, 25–27; see also id. Abstract, ¶¶ 11, 12. According to Fairweather, the
“ancestry chain closely matches the perceived visual context of any given
widget,” and the nesting of widgets as “defined by the ancestor chain” will
“configure[] the behaviors and resultant appearance of invoked functions
into the context from which they are invoked.” Id. ¶ 27 (emphases added);
see also id. ¶¶ 50, 57. Thus, as the Examiner finds, each widget in
Fairweather has “executable functions/code including parameters to obtain
data from the calling widget,” which means that a “child widget has
executable functions/code to obtain data from a parent widget.” Ans. 18.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Fairweather
discloses, or at least suggests, a widget obtaining contextual data from a
parent widget in which it is nested. Contrary to Appellant’s argument, the
Examiner has not relied on inherency to support this finding, but rather has
relied on the teachings of Fairweather.
Further, as the Examiner finds, Fairweather’s description of
“configur[ing] the . . . resultant appearance . . . into the context” teaches or
Appeal 2019-000032
Application 13/794,464

5

suggests the “rendering” of the contextual widget based on the context data,
as recited in claim 1. Fairweather ¶ 27. Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds,
and we agree (based on the foregoing disclosures of Fairweather), that:
[i]t would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made . . . [that] ‘nesting of
widgets defining an ancestor chain to configure the behaviors
and resultant appearance of invoked functions’ . . . means at
least a partial functionality or context data of an instance of a
nested/child widget is based on or invoked from a functionality
or context data of a parent widget instance.

Ans. 6 (emphasis omitted).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claim 1. For the same reasons, we also sustain the obviousness rejections of
the remaining claims, which were not argued separately. App. Br. 7.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–4, 6–12, 14–16,
18, 19, and 21.
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED