Ex Parte Becker et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesOct 23, 200910787663 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 23, 2009) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte CRAIG HENRY BECKER and JIMMY MING-DER HSU ____________ Appeal 2008-005102 Application 10/787,663 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Decided: October 23, 2009 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JEAN R. HOMERE, and JAY P. LUCAS, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2008-005102 Application 10/787,663 2 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE A Patent Examiner rejects claims 1-27. The Appellants appeal therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6 (b). We reverse. A. INVENTION The invention at issue on appeal relates to methods, systems, and products that operate generally to support application developers other than an original look and feel designer to set up custom control with arbitrary additional aspects of look and feel. (Spec. 2.) Methods, systems, and products according to embodiments of the present invention typically render graphical user interface (“GUI”) widgets with generic look and feel by receiving in a display device a master definition of a graphics display. The master definition includes at least one graphics definition element. The graphics definition element includes a reference to a protowidget and one or more instance parameter values characterizing an instance of the protowidget. The protowidget includes a definition of a generic GUI object, and includes generic display values affecting overall look and feel of the graphics display. (Id.) B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1, which further illustrates the invention, follows. 1. A method for rendering a GUI widget with a generic look and feel, the method comprising: receiving in a display device a master definition of a graphics display, the master definition including at least one graphics definition element, the graphics definition element comprising a reference to Appeal 2008-005102 Application 10/787,663 3 a protowidget and one or more instance parameter values characterizing an instance of the protowidget, the protowidget comprising a definition of a generic GUI object, including generic display values affecting overall look and feel of the graphics display; and rendering at least one instance of the protowidget to a graphics display in dependence upon the generic display values and the instance parameter values. C. REFERENCE The Examiner relies on the following reference as evidence: Petty 6,342,907 B1 Jan. 29, 2002 D. REJECTIONS Claims 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b) as being unpatentable over Petty. II. ISSUE Have the Appellants shown error in the Examiner's initial showing of anticipation? III. PRINCIPLES OF LAW 35 U.S.C. § 102 "[A]nticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found only if the prior art reference discloses every element of the claim . . . ." In re King, 801 Appeal 2008-005102 Application 10/787,663 4 F.2d 1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). "[A]bsence from the reference of any claimed element negates anticipation." Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible, Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellants have the opportunity on appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, United States Patent and Trademark Office to demonstrate error in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir. 2006). IV. ANALYSIS From our review of the Examiner's stated rejection at page 4 of the Answer, the Examiner has repeated the claim language and set forth a brief correlation to the teachings of Petty. Therefore, the Examiner has set forth some minimal showing for a prima facie case of anticipation. Therefore, we look to Appellants’ Brief to show error in the Examiner’s proffered showing. Appellants set forth specific arguments for patentability for independent claims 1, 10, and 19 addressing the recited claim limitations. For example, Appellants contend that Petty does not teach the claimed “protowidget.” (App.Br. 7.) We agree with Appellants. Appellants argue that Petty's panel does not include generic display values affecting overall look and feel of a graphics display. Petty's panel is the basic display area of a graphical user interface and is defined in a markup language document that includes tags for components used in the basic display area of the graphical user interface. That is, instead of generic display values affecting overall look and feel of the graphics Appeal 2008-005102 Application 10/787,663 5 display, Petty's panel defined in a markup language document includes definite, specific, non-generic values for each component of the panel. Because Petty's panel does not include generic display values affecting overall look and feel of the graphics display, Petty's panel may not have multiple instances of a GUI component, each instance based on generic values. (App. Br. 6.) From our review of those specific relied upon portions of the teachings of Petty in the discussion of the Examiner’s rejection and the Examiner's limited discussion in the responsive arguments section of the Answer, we find the totality of the Examiner’s proffered showing for the claimed invention as recited in independent claims 1, 10, and 19 to be lacking regarding the claimed “protowidget comprising a definition of a generic GUI object, including generic display values affecting overall look and feel of the graphics display.” Moreover, the Appellants have specifically addressed the various portions of the Examiner’s rejection as set forth in the Final Rejection and the Examiner merely repeated the same statement of the rejection in the Answer. (Ans. 4-7.) We find the Examiner’s commentary in the “Response to Arguments” section of the Answer to merely be a rewriting of the commentary from the final rejection and the commentary does not specifically address the merits of the Appellants’ specific arguments for patentability. The Examiner has not responded to the Appellants’ specific arguments for patentability. We agree with Appellants’ contentions regarding the teachings of Petty and find no response for the Examiner to clarify the Examiner’s proffered showing. Therefore, we find that Appellants have shown error in the Examiner’s showing of anticipation, and Appeal 2008-005102 Application 10/787,663 6 we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 10, and 19 and their respective dependent claims. VI. CONCLUSION For the aforementioned reasons, the Appellants have shown that the Examiner has not set forth a proper initial showing of anticipation. VII. ORDER We reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 1-27. REVERSED llw INTERNATIONAL CORP (BLF) c/o BIGGERS & OHANIAN, LLP P.O. BOX 1469 AUSTIN, TX 78767-1469 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation