Ex Parte Barton et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2012

11007536 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte EDWARD M. BARTON, SEEMA GURURAJ, DELBERT B.
HOOBLER III, and CARLOS R. PEREZ
____________

Appeal 2010-000343
Application 11/007,5361
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and THOMAS S. HAHN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 8, 9, 11, and 13-16.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 The real party in interest is International Business Machines Corporation.
2 Claims 1-7, 10, 12, and 17-23 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2010-000343
Application 11/007,536

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention concerns a system for configuring an
application without prior knowledge of the application. The system includes
(1) means for receiving page layout information indicative of a page layout
of a configuration wizard page for configuring the application wherein the
page layout information excludes executable instructions for rendering and
displaying the configuration information and (2) rendering and displaying
the configuration wizard page based on the page layout information (Spec.
2).
Independent claim 8, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
8. A system comprising:

at least one processor;

at least one memory storing instructions operable with
the at least one processor

for configuring an application without any prior
knowledge of the application, the instructions being
executed for:

receiving page layout information indicative
of a page layout of a configuration wizard page for
configuring the application, wherein the page
layout information excludes executable
instructions for rendering and displaying the
configuration wizard page;

rendering and displaying the configuration
wizard page based on the page layout information;

Appeal 2010-000343
Application 11/007,536

3
receiving configuration option data detailing
an option of the configuration wizard page,
wherein the configuration wizard page is rendered
and displayed based on the page layout
information and the configuration option data; and

receiving and verifying user input data
responsive to a display of the configuration wizard
page.

REFERENCES
Bybee US 2003/0222908 Al Dec. 04, 2003

REJECTIONS
Claims 8, 9, 11, and 13-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Bybee.

ISSUES
Appellants argue that Bybee does not teach page layout information
excluding executable instructions for rendering and displaying the
configuration wizard page (App. Br. 8).3 Appellants further argue that
Bybee fails to teach rendering and displaying pages based on the page layout
information (App. Br. 9). Appellants contend that Bybee does not teach
receiving and verifying user input data (App. Br. 9).

3 Appellants’ argument that Bybee does not teach configuring an application
“without any prior knowledge of the application” appears for the first time in
the Reply Brief (pp. 4-5). In the absence of good cause why this argument
was not earlier presented, it is not considered. See Ex parte Borden, 93
USPQ2d 1473, 1473-74 (BPAI 2010).
Appeal 2010-000343
Application 11/007,536

4
With respect to dependent claim 9, Appellants assert that Bybee does
not teach a callback to the application for a configuration wizard definition
file (App. Br. 10).
With respect to dependent claim 13, Appellants assert that Bybee does
not teach transmitting the at least one verified user option value to the
application (App. Br. 10).
Appellants’ contentions present us with the following issues:
1. Does Bybee teach page layout information excluding executable
instructions for rendering and displaying the configuration wizard page?
2. Does Bybee teach rendering and displaying the configuration
wizard page based on the page layout information?
3. Does Bybee teach receiving and verifying user input data
responsive to a display of the configuration wizard page?
4. Does Bybee teach executing a callback to the application for a
configuration wizard definition file?
5. Does Bybee teach verified user input data including at least one
verified user option value?

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that each and
every limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed in a single prior art
reference.” In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In
re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
Appeal 2010-000343
Application 11/007,536

5
ANALYSIS
CLAIMS 8, 11, 15, AND 16
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Bybee does not
teach page layout information excluding executable instructions for
rendering and displaying the configuration wizard page (App. Br. 8). The
Examiner finds that layout transformation subroutine 1200, in which XGL
layout data is examined to position user interface components, meets this
limitation (Ans. 4; Bybee ¶¶ [0092], [0093]). We agree with the Examiner
that “if packages are retrieved from a server, then the information is
received” (Ans. 7).
Appellants’ contention that Bybee teaches a wizard page display
subroutine but does not appear to teach rendering and displaying pages
based on the page layout information (App. Br. 9) is also unpersuasive.
Appellants assert that Bybee instead teaches passing containers of packages
to a client “that presumably included executable instructions for rendering
and displaying the wizard pages” (App. Br. 9). Appellants fail to provide
any evidence that Bybee’s containers of packages actually include
executable instructions. We do not adopt Appellants’ unsupported
allegation.
We are likewise unpersuaded by Appellants’ further argument that
Bybee does not teach receiving and verifying user input data (App. Br. 9).
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Bybee teaches such verification
in subroutine 1700 (Ans. 9; Bybee Fig.17). Bybee teaches verification at
decision block 1730, “where a determination is made whether more input is
required or whether there was an error in the user’s input” (¶ [0100]).
Appeal 2010-000343
Application 11/007,536

6
We find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 8, 11, 15,
and 16 under § 102. We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection.
CLAIM 9
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Bybee does not
teach a callback to the application for a configuration wizard definition file
(App. Br. 10).
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that subroutine 1300, where
objects in the XGL package are transformed into user interface components
as laid out according to the layout components previously transformed in
subroutine block 1200 (Ans. 10), corresponds to the recited application
callbacks (Ans. 11).
We find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 9 under
§ 102. We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection.
CLAIMS 13 AND 14
We find Appellants’ argument that Bybee does not teach transmitting
the at least one verified user option value to the application (App. Br. 10) to
be unpersuasive to show that the Examiner erred.
We disagree with Appellants that Bybee is silent with regard to
verified user option values. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that
Bybee teaches that “if the user signs up for an account, the XGL server 400
might check all the account information received from the user and, once
validated, provide a confirmation 740 back to client device 300” (Ans. 11,
Bybee ¶ [0080]).
We find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 13, or claim
14 dependent thereon, as anticipated by Bybee. We will sustain the § 102
rejection.
Appeal 2010-000343
Application 11/007,536

7
CONCLUSIONS
1. Bybee teaches page layout information excluding executable
instructions for rendering and displaying the configuration wizard page.
2. Bybee teaches rendering and displaying the configuration wizard
page based on the page layout information.
3. Bybee teaches receiving and verifying user input data responsive to
a display of the configuration wizard page.
4. Bybee teaches executing a callback to the application for a
configuration wizard definition file.
5. Bybee teaches verified user input data including at least one
verified user option value.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 8, 9, 11, and 13-16 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)(iv)(2010).

AFFIRMED

peb