Ex Parte Aurenz

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 2, 2011

11140398 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 2, 2011)

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.
11/140,398 05/27/2005 Scot Alan Aurenz LOT920040049US2 (007) 5056
46321 7590 06/02/2011
CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
950 PENINSULA CORPORATE CIRCLE
SUITE 2022
BOCA RATON, FL 33487
EXAMINER
HEFFINGTON, JOHN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2172
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2011 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SCOT ALAN AURENZ
____________

Appeal 2009-009679
Application 11/140,398
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, JAY P. LUCAS, and CAROLYN
D. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-19, which are all the claims in the application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2009-009679
Application 11/140,398

2
Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to extensible markup language (XML)
files which specify graphical user interface (GUI) controls and interactions
with the controls. See Spec. ¶ [0006].

Representative Claim
1. A data-driven data processing system comprising:

a data-driven application comprising a user interface comprising a
plurality of controls disposed in said user interface;

a plurality of properties configured to accept data input;

markup defining a mapping between said controls and corresponding
ones of said properties; and

markup processor and user interface generation logic comprising
programming to store interactivity with said controls in said corresponding
ones of said properties.

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Shah (US 2004/0010776 A1).
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shah and Bentwich (US 6,289,513 B1).
Claims 6-9, 11-16, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Shah and Rajarajan (US 2002/0156865 A1).
Claims 10 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shah, Rajarajan, and Bentwich.

Appeal 2009-009679
Application 11/140,398

3
FINDINGS OF FACT
We rely on the findings set out by the Examiner in the Final Rejection
and the Answer.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
To anticipate, each and every element of the claimed invention must
be “arranged or combined in the same way as in the claim,” but the reference
need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334
(Fed. Cir. 2009)(citations omitted).

ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Appellant argues that Shah does not disclose two limitations of instant
claim 1, which we will address in turn.

I. A plurality of properties configured to accept data input
Appellant submits (App. Br. 4) that the “plurality of properties
configured to accept data input” is described at paragraph [0018] of the
Specification. According to the Specification, a property “can be thought of
as a general-purpose container capable of holding one or more strings.”
Spec. ¶ [0018].
Claim 3, which depends from claim 1, recites that “each of said
properties comprises a container configured to store string data.” A
“property” of claim 1 thus must be broader than the further limitation of a
“container configured to store string data.”
Appeal 2009-009679
Application 11/140,398

4
In light of the breadth of claim 1, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s finding that the property names in Shah, which contain “value
sources” that are used in dialogs, fields, and other places where dynamic
data is required, are “properties configured to accept data input” consistent
with the requirements of the claim. See Shah ¶¶ [0059] - [0060].

II. Markup defining a mapping between said controls and
corresponding ones of said properties
Appellant submits (App. Br. 4) that the “markup defining a mapping
between said controls and corresponding ones of said properties” is
described at paragraph [0018] of the Specification. However, we do not find
any definition for “controls” in the indicated paragraph.
Claim 2, which depends from claim 1, recites that “each of said
controls comprises a control selected from the group consisting of an edit
field, a checkbox, a checklist control, a radio button group, a push button
control, a tree control and a combo box.” The “controls” of base claim 1
thus must be broader than the named “controls” in further limiting claim 2.
In view of the breadth of claim 1, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s finding that Shah’s description of an XML file that contains the
property names (¶¶ [0059] - [0060] and advanced forms/dialogs, labels,
captions, validation logic, conditional displays, and other advanced user
interface features (¶ [0061]) is a markup that defines “a mapping between
said controls and corresponding ones of said properties” as claimed. That is,
the data to be input is mapped to the proper user interface features; else, the
data could not be properly entered and the system would be inoperative.

Appeal 2009-009679
Application 11/140,398

5
Claim 6
The Examiner rejects claim 6 over the combination of Shah and
Rajarajan under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appellant’s argument in response to
the rejection (App. Br. 9-10) is founded on the allegation that Shah fails to
teach the mapping of properties and components, which we find not
persuasive for the reasons discussed in our review of the claim 1 rejection.1

Conclusion
In view of Appellant’s arguments and representative claims 1 and 6
(see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)), we are not persuaded that any claim on
appeal has been rejected in error. We sustain the Examiner’s rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and 103(a).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s determination that claims 1-19 are not
patentable.

1 Appellant’s Reply Brief contains new arguments for claim 6 that could
have been presented earlier. In particular, Appellant could have presented
the new arguments in the Appeal Brief, such that we would have had benefit
of the Examiner’s evaluation of the arguments in the responsive Answer.
Appellant does not explain what good cause there might be to consider the
belated arguments. Appellant’s new arguments are thus untimely and have,
accordingly, not been considered. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473
(BPAI 2010) (informative).

Appeal 2009-009679
Application 11/140,398

6
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

pgc