Obviousness

Obviousness Analysis of US Patent 9928044 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis will evaluate the obviousness of US Patent 9928044 by considering combinations of prior art references and the motivation a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have had to combine them, as of the priority date of April 7, 2008.

Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA)

A PHOSITA in the field of "Systems and methods for programming mobile devices" at the priority date of April 7, 2008, would likely possess:

• A bachelor's degree in computer science, software engineering, or a related field, or equivalent practical experience.
• Proficiency in programming languages commonly used for mobile and web development (e.g., Java, Objective-C, HTML, CSS, JavaScript).
• Familiarity with mobile operating systems and platforms prevalent around 2008 (e.g., Java ME, Windows Mobile, Symbian OS, early iOS concepts).
• Understanding of client-server architectures, network communication protocols (e.g., HTTP), and web services (e.g., SOAP, REST).
• Knowledge of graphical user interface (GUI) design principles and tools.
• Awareness of challenges in developing for diverse mobile device environments, including fragmentation in hardware, operating systems, and screen sizes.
• Ordinary creativity, meaning they can apply known techniques in predictable ways and fit together teachings from multiple patents like puzzle pieces. They are not an inventor or a genius.

Graham v. John Deere Co. Framework

To determine obviousness, we apply the four factual inquiries from Graham v. John Deere Co.:

1. Determining the scope and content of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. (Addressed above)
4. Evaluating secondary considerations of non-obviousness. (Not explicitly provided in the patent text, but would typically include commercial success, long-felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc.)

The analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 must be explicit and provide articulated reasoning with rational underpinning.

Scope and Content of Prior Art

The "Prior art keywords" listed on the Google Patents page for US9928044 include "web," "user," "player," "objects," and "input." The patent itself also references "co-pending U.S. Pat. No. 6,546,397 to Rempell ("Rempell")" as describing one embodiment for compacting data. This reference is incorporated by reference into US9928044, making it relevant prior art.

Given the priority date of April 7, 2008, relevant prior art would include:

• Rempell (U.S. Pat. No. 6,546,397): This patent describes a method for compacting data, with compressed data being a "database." The present patent explicitly states that the "internal database" of Rempell is equivalent to the "PDL" (Portable Description Language) of US9928044. Rempell's patent therefore teaches efficient code and data compaction, resulting in size reduction and providing virtual machine and operating system independence.
• General knowledge in mobile application development (prior to April 2008): At this time, mobile application development involved significant challenges due to platform fragmentation. Developers often had to write device-specific code for different operating systems (e.g., Java ME, Symbian, Windows Mobile). Web services were increasingly common for delivering dynamic content to various clients, including mobile devices. WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) authoring environments were known in general software development for creating user interfaces.
• Web technologies: HTML, CSS, JavaScript, and various web service protocols (e.g., XML, SOAP, REST) were established technologies for creating and delivering web content.
• Client-server architectures: The concept of thin clients interacting with central servers for processing was well-known.

Obviousness Combinations and Rationale

The independent claims of US9928044 focus on a system and method for programming mobile devices using an authoring tool to define objects, select web service components, associate them, and generate code. A key aspect is the use of a device-specific "Player" and device-independent "Applications" (PDL).

Combination 1: Rempell (U.S. Pat. No. 6,546,397) + General knowledge of web services + General knowledge of GUI authoring tools for varied clients

Claim elements addressed:

• Independent Claim 1 (System):
  • "A system for generating code to provide content on a display of a platform."
  • "A database of web services obtainable over a network."
  • "An authoring tool configured to define an object for presentation on the display, select a component of a web service included in said database, associate said object with said selected component, and produce code that, when executed on the platform, provides said selected component on the display of the platform."
• Independent Claim 13 (Method):
  • "Accepting a first code over the network, where said first code is platform-dependent."
  • "Providing a second code over the network, where said second code is platform-independent."
  • "Executing said first code and said second code on the platform to provide web components obtained over the network."
• Independent Claim 14 (Method):
  • "Defining an object for presentation on the display."
  • "Selecting a component of a web service included in said database."
  • "Associating said object with said selected component."
  • "Producing code that, when executed on the platform, provides said selected component on the display of the platform."

Rationale for combination:

Rempell teaches efficient data compaction and the use of a Portable Description Language (PDL) for virtual machine and operating system independence. The patent itself states that its PDL is equivalent to the "internal database" described in Rempell. This clearly lays out the concept of device-independent code for content delivery.

Prior to 2008, a PHOSITA would have been acutely aware of the challenges of mobile device fragmentation and the desire for more efficient and less costly development across multiple platforms. The use of web services to deliver dynamic content to various clients, including mobile devices, was already a common practice. Many web applications used a form of "thin client" (like a web browser) to render content from a server.

The motivation to combine Rempell's teachings with these general concepts would be to address the known problem of mobile application development fragmentation. A PHOSITA would understand that a device-independent application format (like Rempell's PDL) combined with a device-specific interpreter (a "Player" in US9928044) would significantly streamline content delivery to diverse mobile devices.

Furthermore, WYSIWYG authoring tools for designing user interfaces were well-known in general software development. Extending such a tool to manage the selection and binding of web service components to UI objects, and then generating the device-independent PDL (and associated device-specific Player) to render these on mobile devices, would have been a logical and desirable step for a PHOSITA. The idea of associating visual elements with dynamic data sources (like web services) in a visual design environment was a common feature in desktop publishing and early web development tools. Adapting this concept to the mobile space, particularly with the benefit of Rempell's PDL for platform independence, would be a predictable application of known techniques to a recognized problem.

Therefore, the combination of Rempell (U.S. Pat. No. 6,546,397) with the common knowledge of web services and GUI authoring tools would have rendered the core concepts of US9928044 obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of invention. The differences between the claimed invention and this combination of prior art would be a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions to solve a known problem in the art.