Ex Parte Aurenz

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 14, 2018

11140398 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 14, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
11/140,398 05/27/2005
46321 7590 08/16/2018
CRGOLAW
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, FL 33434
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Scot Alan Aurenz
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
LOT920040049US2 (007) 5056
EXAMINER
HEFFINGTON, JOHN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2172
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/16/2018 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@crgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SCOT ALAN AURENZ 1
Appeal2018-002704
Application 11/140,398
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-19, all the pending claims in the
present application. (See Claims Appendix). We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
The present invention relates generally to specifying user interface
interactions in a data-driven system (see Spec., Abstract).
1 Appellant names International Business Machines Corporation as the real
party in interest (App. Br. 2).
Appeal2018-002704
Application 11/140,398
Claim 6 is illustrative:
6. A method for specifying user interface interactions for
controls disposed in a user interface for a data-driven application, the
method comprising:
parsing markup that includes a properties portion and a
page portion and obtaining from the properties portion a reference to a
declared property;
identifying in the page portion a mapping between said
declared property and one of a plurality of graphical user interface
(GUI) controls;
mapping said declared property to said one of the
plurality of GUI controls;
and,
storing data entry interactivity with said one of the
plurality of GUI controls in said mapped declared property.
Appellant appeals the following rejection:
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Shteyn (US 6,434,447 Bl, Aug. 13, 2002) andXAIL
Element Forms: Building Blocks of XAIL-Based Applications, 428095
RESEARCH DISCLOSUREâ„¢ (December 1999),
http://www.researchdisclosure.com
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010) (precedential).
ANALYSIS
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Shteyn teaches or suggests
storing data entry interactivity with said one of the plurality of GUI controls
in said mapped declared property, as set forth in claim 6?
2
Appeal2018-002704
Application 11/140,398
Appellant contends that in Shteyn "the representation merely exposes
the nature of the "GUI device (element 112) itself rather than any GUI
control displayed therein .... [T]he 'abstract representation' is not a
representation of a GUI control, but a representation of a 'CE' device" (App.
Br. 7).
In response, the Examiner finds that "Shteyn discloses that a floating-
point value can be mapped onto a GUI element that is graphically
represented by a slider ... and this GUI is comprised of GUI elements"
(Ans. 4), and "[t]he graphical representation itself of GUI element 202 can,
but need not, be part of abstract representation 108" (id. at 5). We agree
with the Examiner.
We refer to, rely on, and adopt the Examiner's findings and
conclusions set forth in the Answer. Our discussions here will be limited to
the following points of emphasis.
In essence, Appellant emphasizes in the Appeal Brief that Shteyn fails
to teach an abstract representation of the individual GUI control elements,
but instead the GUI device itself. However, in line with the Examiner's
findings, Shteyn discloses "[t]he Boolean control property can then be
mapped onto a UI element . . . . When the user then interacts with this
element, the functionality mapped onto it is put into one of the two states. In
an HA Vi system, the abstract representation gets uploaded" (Shteyn, 5:57-
63). Shteyn further discloses "GUI device 112 has an abstract representation
114 that specifies the modal capabilities of control device 112 . ... The
graphical representation itself of GUI element 202 can, but need not, be part
of abstract representation 108" (10:4--23). In other words, Shteyn describes
an "abstract representation" that can include the graphical representation of
3
Appeal2018-002704
Application 11/140,398
individual GUI elements, not merely the overall device itself. Thus,
contrary to Appellant's contention that in Shteyn "the 'abstract
representation' is not a representation of a GUI control" (App. Br. 7), we
find that the Examiner has shown that Shteyn teaches an abstract
representation that can include a representation of a GUI control element.
As for Appellant's new arguments/emphasis in the Reply Brief, e.g.,
"[t]he mapping of a Boolean control property onto a UI element is not the
mapping of 'data entry interactivity' into a GUI controf' (Reply Br. 6), we
note that Appellant could have presented the new argument in support of the
claims in the Appeal Brief, such that we would have had benefit of the
Examiner's evaluation of the argument in the responsive Answer. Appellant
does not explain what good cause there might be to consider the new
argument. Appellant's new argument is thus untimely and has, accordingly,
not been considered. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.41(b)(2); see also Ex parte Borden,
93 USPQ2d 1473 (BPAI 2010) (informative).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of representative
claim 6. Appellant's arguments regarding the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 1 and 13 rely on the same arguments as for claim 6, and
Appellant does not argue separate patentability for the dependent claims (see
App. Br. 3-7). We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1-5 and 7-19.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection and claims 1-19.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
4
Appeal2018-002704
Application 11/140,398
AFFIRMED
5