Ex Parte Becker et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 23, 2009

10787663 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 23, 2009)

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