Obviousness

Obviousness Analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103

To establish obviousness, it must be shown that the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA). This requires identifying a motivation to combine prior art references and a reasonable expectation of success. Prior art includes any evidence that the invention was already known or available to the public before the effective filing date of the patent application. The effective filing date for US9063755 is April 6, 2009.

Claim 1 (System Claim):
A system for generating code to provide content on a display of a platform, comprising:
(a) a database of web services obtainable over a network; and
(b) an authoring tool configured to:
(i) define an object for presentation on the display;
(ii) select a component of a web service included in said database;
(iii) associate said object with said selected component; and
(iv) produce code that, when executed on the platform, provides said selected component on the display of the platform.

Combination of Prior Art References:

A strong argument for obviousness of Claim 1 can be made by combining the teachings of several prior art references, particularly those related to WYSIWYG web development, mobile application development platforms, and web service integration.

1. US5845299A (Draw-based editor for web pages): This patent, filed in 1997, discloses a method and apparatus for easily generating web pages on a "What You See is What You Get" (WYSIWYG) basis. It describes displaying page display elements on a screen, allowing a user to add new display elements, and generating HTML that reflects the displayed layout. This directly addresses elements (a) and (b)(i) of Claim 1, demonstrating an authoring tool for defining objects for presentation on a display in a visual manner. The patent further describes a "history" of execution for page draw editors and generating HTML for web pages. While it focuses on traditional web pages, the underlying principles of a visual editor for layout are clearly established. The concept of WYSIWYG editors was well-established in web development during the period of 1995-2005.

2. US6647260B2 (Method and system facilitating web based provisioning of two-way mobile communications devices): This patent, with an effective filing date no later than June 15, 2000, describes a system and method for provisioning two-way mobile communication devices. It details presenting a user with input and choice screens to input user information and select device features and services. This patent clearly addresses mobile devices and their interaction with web-based services for provisioning. It implies the ability to display content on mobile device screens based on user interaction and server-side responses, laying the groundwork for how web services could be presented on mobile devices.

3. US8261231B1 (Systems and methods for a mobile application development and development platform): This patent explicitly describes a mobile application development platform that allows users to build and compile applications capable of running on multiple mobile operating systems and devices. It highlights the ability for non-technical users to develop mobile applications without extensive programming knowledge, and for applications to access features specific to mobile devices and operating systems. Crucially, it discusses mobile devices accessing application data such as content, layouts, templates, modules, or other components associated with the app, often through a web-based service or web server. This reference directly addresses the "platform" and the "code that, when executed on the platform, provides said selected component on the display of the platform" aspects of Claim 1. It also discusses the use of a database server for application data, which aligns with "database of web services obtainable over a network."

Motivation to Combine:

A PHOSITA in 2008-2009, faced with the increasing popularity of Internet-connected mobile devices and the desire for easier mobile application development, would have been highly motivated to combine these existing technologies.

• Motivation for a WYSIWYG editor for mobile applications: The convenience and accessibility of WYSIWYG editors for web page creation (as taught by US5845299A and widely known in the art) would naturally lead a PHOSITA to apply similar visual authoring principles to the emerging field of mobile application development. The goal would be to empower non-technical users to create mobile content without needing to write code, as explicitly noted in US8261231B1.
• Motivation to integrate web services into mobile applications: Mobile devices, as described in US6647260B2, were already communicating with servers to provision services and access information over networks. The burgeoning ecosystem of web services (e.g., search, maps, social networking, weather, RSS feeds mentioned in US9063755 itself) would present a clear motivation to allow easy integration of these services into mobile applications. US8261231B1 further supports this by discussing how mobile applications access components and content via a network.
• Motivation to enable visual binding of objects to web services: Combining the visual design capabilities of a WYSIWYG editor with the ability to integrate web services would lead directly to the concept of visually associating (binding) objects on the display with components of web services. This would streamline the development process and make it accessible to a broader audience, directly addressing the problem of creating applications for devices that "generally do not have the capabilities of non-mobile devices including computing, input and output capabilities" as stated in the background of US9063755. A PHOSITA would recognize the efficiency of allowing a user to "select a component of a web service" and "associate said object with said selected component" rather than requiring manual coding for each interaction.

Reasonable Expectation of Success:

The combination would have had a reasonable expectation of success because:

• Established WYSIWYG technology: The principles and implementation of WYSIWYG editors were mature by 2008. Applying these to a mobile context, albeit with screen size and input constraints, would be a matter of adaptation rather than invention.
• Existing mobile device capabilities: Mobile devices were already capable of network communication and displaying various forms of content as demonstrated by US6647260B2.
• Evolution of development platforms: The development of platforms enabling non-technical users to create cross-platform mobile applications, as described in US8261231B1, indicates that the technical hurdles for such systems were being overcome. The concept of device-independent code (PDL in US9063755) and device-dependent "Players" was a known approach to address platform fragmentation in mobile development.

Therefore, a PHOSITA in 2008-2009, seeking to simplify mobile application development and enhance content presentation, would have been motivated to combine the established WYSIWYG editing paradigm for web pages with mobile device provisioning and content access, and the emerging mobile application development platforms that facilitated integration of web services. This combination would lead to a system as described in Claim 1, with a reasonable expectation of success.

Claim 9 (Method Claim - Two Codes):
A method for providing information to platforms on a network, comprising:
(a) accepting a first code over the network, where said first code is platform-dependent;
(b) providing a second code over the network, where said second code is platform-independent; and
(c) executing said first code and said second code on the platform to provide web components obtained over the network.

Combination of Prior Art References:

The concept of using both platform-dependent and platform-independent code for content delivery on mobile devices would have been obvious given existing mobile development practices.

1. US9063755 (Background and detailed description, itself as prior art for common knowledge): The patent itself acknowledges the problem of "different device platforms" and different operating systems/virtual machines, and proposes the "Player" (device- or device-platform specific) and "Application" (device-independent) architecture as a solution. This description within the patent establishes that the problem and this general approach were known or obvious at the time of the invention (priority date April 7, 2008). While not a prior art reference against the patent in the traditional sense, the problem it solves and the general approach it outlines are part of the common knowledge of a PHOSITA.
2. GLBasic (as discussed in "Any Prior Art on Mobile App Code Generators?"): GLBasic, a platform for game and app development, generates native applications for desired platforms (e.g., Windows, Mac OSX, iOS, Android) from a proprietary Basic dialect. This demonstrates the concept of a single, higher-level, platform-independent source (the Basic dialect) being compiled or interpreted into platform-dependent native code. The "proprietary Basic dialect" acts as the platform-independent "second code," and the "native application for the desired platform" acts as the platform-dependent "first code." The date of the current release for GLBasic was September 13th, 2011, but the platform existed much longer. This shows the concept of device-independent input leading to device-dependent execution.
3. W3C Mobile Web Application Best Practices (2008): This document, published in December 2008, specifies best practices for the development and delivery of web applications on mobile devices. While not explicitly detailing a two-code architecture as described in the patent, it reflects the prevailing understanding of developing for diverse mobile environments, which implicitly involves managing platform differences to deliver content effectively. This document supports the notion that optimizing content delivery for various mobile platforms was a known challenge.

Motivation to Combine:

A PHOSITA would be motivated to combine the general knowledge of addressing platform fragmentation (as presented in US9063755's own problem statement) with established approaches for generating platform-specific code from a common source (as shown in GLBasic).

• Addressing platform fragmentation: The challenge of developing applications for a multitude of mobile device platforms with varying operating systems, virtual machines, and capabilities was a well-known problem in 2008-2009. The patent itself highlights this issue.
• Efficiency in development: A PHOSITA would seek efficient ways to deploy applications across diverse mobile platforms without rewriting the entire application for each device. The GLBasic approach of a single source (platform-independent code) being processed into multiple native (platform-dependent) executables offers a clear motivation for the two-code architecture.
• Web service delivery: Combining this with the need to deliver web components over a network (as central to US9063755) would naturally lead to a system where platform-dependent code handles the specifics of the device's interaction with the network and display, while platform-independent code defines the core application logic and content, including calls to web services.

Reasonable Expectation of Success:

The success of such a combination would be reasonably expected because:

• Proven compilation/interpretation models: The computer science principles behind compilers and interpreters, which translate higher-level or platform-independent code into lower-level or platform-dependent instructions, were well-established.
• Existing cross-platform tools: Tools like GLBasic demonstrated the feasibility of generating platform-specific executables from a single codebase, indicating that the technical challenges were surmountable.
• Modular design: Separating device-specific functionality (e.g., display rendering, hardware interaction) into a "Player" (first code) and application logic/content (second code) is a standard software engineering practice for managing complexity and achieving portability.

Therefore, the method of Claim 9, involving platform-dependent and platform-independent code for delivering web components to mobile devices, would have been obvious to a PHOSITA in 2008-2009, motivated by the need to efficiently develop for diverse mobile platforms and supported by existing software development paradigms.

Claim 16 (Method Claim - Authoring):
A method for displaying content on a platform utilizing a database of web services obtainable over a network, comprising:
(a) defining an object for presentation on the display;
(b) selecting a component of a web service included in said database;
(c) associating said object with said selected component; and
(d) producing code that, when executed on the platform, provides said selected component on the display of the platform.

Combination of Prior Art References:

Claim 16 is essentially the method counterpart to Claim 1, focusing on the steps performed during the authoring process. Therefore, the same combination of prior art references and motivations for Claim 1 apply here.

1. US5845299A (Draw-based editor for web pages): This patent teaches "defining an object for presentation on the display" through a WYSIWYG editor.
2. US6647260B2 (Method and system facilitating web based provisioning of two-way mobile communications devices): This patent demonstrates mobile devices interacting with server-side services and displaying information based on user choices, thereby implying "utilizing a database of web services obtainable over a network" and "providing web components obtained over the network."
3. US8261231B1 (Systems and methods for a mobile application development and development platform): This patent teaches the use of a mobile application development platform for non-technical users to develop applications, accessing application data (including content, layouts, components) from a database server, and producing code for execution on various mobile platforms. This directly supports "selecting a component of a web service included in said database," "associating said object with said selected component," and "producing code that, when executed on the platform, provides said selected component on the display of the platform."

Motivation to Combine (for Claim 16):

The motivation for combining these references for Claim 16 is identical to that for Claim 1:

• The desire to extend user-friendly WYSIWYG web page creation to mobile application development.
• The growing demand to integrate dynamic web services into mobile experiences.
• The efficiency gained by visually binding display elements to web service components, eliminating the need for manual coding.

Reasonable Expectation of Success (for Claim 16):

The expectation of success for Claim 16 is also the same as for Claim 1, as the underlying technical capabilities and development paradigms were already present in the prior art.

In summary, the core inventive concept of US9063755 — a visual authoring tool for mobile devices that enables users to easily integrate web services through a platform-dependent/independent code architecture — appears to be an obvious combination of existing technologies and widely recognized needs in the mobile development space prior to the patent's effective filing date.