Ex Parte Beaver et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2017

13110717 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2017)

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.
13/110,717 05/18/2011 Michael B. Beaver RSW920110028US1 4040
58139 7590
IBM CORP. (WSM)
c/o WINSTEAD P.C.
P.O. BOX 131851
DALLAS, TX 75313
EXAMINER
MUDRICK, TIMOTHY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2194
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/04/2017 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):
patdocket@winstead.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL B. BEAVER, JONATHAN D. COSTELLO,
JASON R. GARY, and RAVI SHAH
Appeal 2014-008813
Application 13/110,717
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the Final Rejection of claims 1—24 under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.
Introduction
The invention is directed to publish/subscribe systems, particularly “to
automatically updating the display state of a user interface of a client device
in a publish/subscribe system.” Specification 1:4—6.
Appeal 2014-008813
Application 13/110,717
Illustrative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A method for updating a display state of a user interface,
the method comprising:
inspecting a file containing definitions for one or more
macro components, wherein said file comprises a listing of one
or more events associated with each of said one or more macro
components',
creating an event callback function for each of said one
or more macro components listed in said file to update said
display state of said user interface to be a display state of a
macro component in response to having one of its associated
one or more events published;
detecting an event published by a publisher; and
executing, by a processor, said event callback function
associated with said macro component in response to said
detected event corresponding to said one of its associated one or
more events.
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1—24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Hagerott (US Patent Application Publication Number
2009/0210781 Al; published August 20, 2009). Final Rejection 3—11.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed February 6, 2014), the Reply Brief (filed
August 6, 2014), the Answer (mailed June 13, 2014), and the Final Rejection
(mailed October 24, 2013) for the respective details. We have considered in
this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs.
2
Appeal 2014-008813
Application 13/110,717
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. 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, except where
noted.
Appellants argue that Hagerott fails to disclose inspecting a file
containing definitions for one or more macro components, “[ijnstead,
Hagerott discloses that the state controller object contains application logic
to allow or disallow state changes, which includes which elements of a web
page (the JavaScript objects) are shown or hidden to a user of the web
browser.” Appeal Brief 6. Appellants contend, “There is no language in
Hagerott directed to inspecting a file, let alone, inspecting a file containing
definitions for one or more JavaScript objects (Examiner asserts that the
JavaScript objects correspond to the claimed macro components).” Appeal
Brief 6 (emphasis omitted).
The Examiner finds that Hagerott discloses the “inspecting a file”
limitation in paragraphs 15, 35, 39, 42 and Figure 2. Final Rejection 3. The
Examiner further finds Hagerott teaches the “inspecting a file” limitation in
paragraphs 50-59, which describe the process shown in Figure 2. Answer 4.
Appellants contend:
There is no language in the cited passages that discloses
inspecting a file, let alone, inspecting a file containing definitions
for one or more macro components. Instead, Hagerott simply
discloses loading a URL, where the URL is typically an address
that defines the route to a file on a web server.
Reply Brief 6 (emphasis omitted).
3
Appeal 2014-008813
Application 13/110,717
The Examiner finds that Hagerotf s webpage can be reasonably
construed to contain definitions for one or more macro components because
JavaScript objects (i.e., claimed one or more macro components) are
contained in the webpage. Answer 3 (citing Hagerott, paragraph 35). The
Examiner finds:
The objects 115, 120, 125, and 130 of Fig. 1 house and process
the presentation and business logic data are checked (i.e.,
claimed inspecting a file) to see if they have been created by the
application of the present invention at step box 206 labeled
“Render/Create Objects Layout?.” That is, the JavaScript
Objects (i.e., claimed one or more macro components) are
checked in step 206 (i.e., claimed inspecting a file) to see if they
have already been created.
Answer 3.
The Examiner finds that Hagerott also teaches the act of inspecting a
file containing definitions for one or more macro components by the process
step 202 (Load URL) shown in Figure 2 and described in paragraphs 50—59.
The Examiner finds Hagerott teaches in paragraph 51:
This URL typically is an address that defines the route to a file
on a web server (HTTP server), such as server 150. The invention
application fetches data from the web server that maintains the
URL, via Ajax, either through a single downloading or a delayed
downloading, preferably the latter, at step box 204 labeled ‘Fetch
Data From Server.
Answer 5.
The Examiner further finds, “The above passage [from Hagerott,
paragraph 51] illustrates that a web page (i.e., claimed file) has been loaded
and the contents of which have been looked at to determine (i.e., claimed
inspecting) how to download (lazy vs. full) the components of the web page.
Answer 5. Appellants contend:
4
Appeal 2014-008813
Application 13/110,717
The Examiner is ignoring claim language. Claims 1, 9 and 17
recite, in part, “wherein said file comprises a listing of one or
more events associated with each of said one or more macro
components.” Since the Examiner interprets a web page as
corresponding to the claimed file and interprets objects 115, 120,
125 and 130 of Hagerott as corresponding to the claimed macro
components, the Examiner must show that Hagerott discloses
that the web page (Examiner asserts that the web page
corresponds to the claimed file) comprises a listing of one or
more events associated with each of the one or more objects 115,
120, 125 and 130 (Examiner asserts that objects 115, 120, 125
and 130 correspond to the claimed macro components).
The use of delegates does not imply the teaching of a web page
comprising a listing of events, let alone the web page comprising
a listing of events associated with each of the one or more objects
115, 120, 125 and 130. Delegates can simply be used as callback
functions. See paragraph [0010] of Hagerott.
Appeal Brief 9.
The Examiner finds, “when an action occurs in the web page
(i.e., claimed file) (which contains a listing of source code (i.e., claimed
a listing) which prescribes the actions to take in response to the GUI
events that occur (i.e., claimed events) that are associated with
JavaScript objects (i.e., claimed one or more objects)) that action is
handled via a callback function as discussed in [Hagerott’s] paragraph
10.” Answer 7.
The Examiner further finds:
As shown in the cited paragraph 10, “in C# an event receiver (the
‘member function’) can subscribe to events published by an
‘instance’ object, e.g. a button click, and execute code in
response to the button click, so long as the instance and member
functions are linked by the delegate convention.” Paragraph 10
specifically describes how to use delegates as callback functions
as event handlers. As described by Hagerott, each of the
5
Appeal 2014-008813
Application 13/110,717
JavaScript objects must use the delegates as callback functions
in order for anything to happen when an event occurs. That is, if
a delegate callback function has not been created for a button,
nothing would occur when the button is clicked.
Answer 8.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and do not find Appellants’
arguments persuasive because it is evident that although Hagerott does not
use the same terminology Appellants employed in the claims, all the
limitations recited in claim 1 are disclosed by Hagerott. Therefore, we
sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 1, as well
as independent claims 9 and 17, which are commensurate in scope. We also
sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of dependent claims 2—8, 10—
16, and 18—24. Appellants argue the dependent claims separately, however,
the arguments center on Hagerott’s alleged failure to use the same
terminology employed in the dependent claims. See Appeal Brief 18—30.
We do not find the claim language argument persuasive in regard to the
dependent claims for the same reasons we did not find the argument
persuasive for the independent claims: that is, although Hagerott does not
employ the same terminology, it is evident that the recited limitations are
disclosed by Hagerott as the Examiner finds.
DECISION
The Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1—24 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(v).
AFFIRMED
6