Ex Parte BELOTTI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 18, 2018

14190339 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/190,339 02/26/2014
27350 7590 09/20/2018
LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP
Box SA
P.O. BOX 2480
HOLLYWOOD, FL 33022-2480
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
SIMONE BELOTTI
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.
2012P21594 1500
EXAMINER
BASOM, BLAINE T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2173
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/20/2018 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):
boxsa@patentusa.com
docket@patentusa.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SIMONE BELOTTI and STEFANO NOFERI
Appeal2018-001287
Application 14/190,339 1
Technology Center 2100
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1---6, which are all of the claims pending in the application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Siemens
Aktiengesellschaft (App. Br. 1 ).
Appeal2018-001287
Application 14/190,339
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellants, the claims are directed to customizing a
graphical user interface with a configurable graphic control which itself has
an additional configurable graphic control (Abstract). Claim 1, reproduced
below, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for customizing a user-interface of a screen of a
general purpose MES [ (Manufacturing Enterprise Solutions)]
software application taking into account a set of customer
requirements, the screen being a web-page, hereinafter called a
page-screen, which method comprises the steps of:
a) providing within the general purpose MES software
application at least one page-screen containing at least one
configurable graphic control having at least one area that can be
customized via at least one plug-in, the one area being a custom
area;
b) providing a graphic configuration tool for enabling a
configuration of the configurable graphic control of a page-
screen user-interface in the at least one custom area;
c) enabling the at least one plug-in to be configured, the
plug-in being a configurable plug-in;
d) enabling the graphic configuration tool to configure the
configurable plug-in;
e) at engineering time, through the graphic configuration
tool, exploring the page-screen so that, a tree is presented in
which there is at least one node representing the configurable
graphic control;
f) at engineering time, selecting a given node representing
a given configurable graphic control and at least one associated
custom area to be customized according to a given customer
requirement thorough the configurable plug-in;
g) at engineering time, providing the configurable plug-in,
wherein the configurable plug-in having software code with at
2
Appeal2018-001287
Application 14/190,339
least one additional configurable graphic control containing a
custom area customizable via a nested plug-in;
h) at engineering time, specifying, through the graphic
configuration tool, information of the configurable plug-in for
linking the configurable plug-in to the custom area of the
configurable graphic control;
i) at engineering time, through the graphic configuration
tool, exploring the page-screen so that, under the node
representing the configurable graphic control, a tree is presented
in which there is at least one node representing the configurable
plug-in having, underneath, at least one node representing the at
least one additional configurable graphic control;
j) at engineering time, selecting a specific node
representing a specific additional configurable graphic control
containing at least one associated custom area to be customized
according to an additional given customer requirement;
k) at engineering time, providing the nested plug-in which
meets the additional given customer requirement; and
1) at engineering time, specifying, through the graphic
configuration tool, information of the nested plug-in for linking
it to the custom area of the additional configurable graphic
control.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Fukazawa
Sullivan
Wilson
Marathe
US 2002/0198964 Al
US 2009/0259950 Al
US 2010/0169805 Al
US 2012/0331488 Al
3
Dec. 26, 2002
Oct.15,2009
July 1, 2010
Dec. 27, 2012
Appeal2018-001287
Application 14/190,339
REJECTIONS
Claims 1---6 stand provisionally rejected under the judicially-created
doctrine of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1,
8, 9, and 10 of co-pending Application No. 13/724,877 and Marathe (Final
Act. 9-14).
Claims 1---6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wilson, Fukazawa, Sullivan, and Marathe (Final Act. 2-
9).
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and
the issues raised by Appellants. Arguments not made are waived. See
MPEP § 1205.02; 37 C.F.R. §§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) and 4I.39(a)(l).
ISSUE 1
Obviousness-Type Double Patenting
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-6 for
obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1, 8, 9, and 10 of co-pending
Application No. 13/724,877 and Marathe?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1---6 are provisional rejected on the ground of non-statutory
obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1, 8, 9, and 10 of co-pending
Application No. 13/724,877 and Marathe (Final Act. 9-14). Appellants do
not challenge the merits of the double patenting rejection (App. Br. 11);
accordingly, we summarily sustain the Examiner's provisional obviousness-
type double patenting rejection of claims 1-6.
4
Appeal2018-001287
Application 14/190,339
ISSUE 2
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellants contend their invention as recited in claims 1---6 is
patentable over Wilson, Fukazawa, Sullivan, and Marathe (App. Br. 10-11).
The issue presented by the arguments is:
Issue 2: Has the Examiner shown the combination of Wilson,
Fukazawa, Sullivan, and Marathe teaches or suggests "under the node
representing the configurable graphic control, a tree is presented in which
there is at least one node representing the configurable plug-in having,
underneath, at least one node representing the at least one additional
configurable graphic control," as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in
claims 5 and 6?
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Wilson and Sullivan teaches or suggests the disputed limitation (App.
Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 2-5). Specifically, Appellants argue that neither
Sullivan nor the combination of Wilson and Sullivan teaches a tree "in
which there is at least one node representing the configurable plug-in"
(Reply Br. 3--4; App. Br. 10).
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds (Final Act. 3; Ans. 15),
and we agree, Wilson's "user interface element," which "may be extended in
terms of functionality" (Wilson ,r,r 22, 32), teaches a "configurable graphic
control." We further agree with the Examiner's finding that (Ans. 15; Final
Act. 3--4) Wilson's user interface element is "extended," i.e., functions are
added, via "extension points ... allow[ing] other components or plug-ins to
5
Appeal2018-001287
Application 14/190,339
extend or customize portions of the functionality" (Wilson ,r 36 (emphasis
added)), and therefore, teaches a "configurable plug-in." The Examiner
further finds (Final Act. 6; Ans. 14), and we agree, Sullivan describes "a
user interface that includes a plurality of components organized as a tree
structure" such that those "components may be editable by a user" (Sullivan
,r 4; see Sullivan ,r,r 21-23, 26-38, Figs. 6-8).
Appellants' argument that Sullivan's "tree does not have at least one
node representing a configurable plug-in" (App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 4)
unpersuasively attacks Sullivan individually when the rejection is based on
the combination of Wilson and Sullivan (In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426
(CCPA 1981) (citation omitted)). In particular, the Examiner's combination
relies on the combination of Wilson's configurable graphic controls and
associated configurable plug-ins for customizing a UI, and Sullivan's use of
a tree with nodes representing customized UI elements, to teach "a tree ...
in which there is at least one node representing the configurable plug-in"
(Final Act. 6; Ans. 15-16).
Appellants' argument that the "modification" of Wilson and Sullivan
"would only have changed the way in which the button 221, link 222 and/or
tab 223 of Sullivan is implemented," but "one would not know whether the
components were implemented with a plug-in or some other type of software
code" (Reply Br. 3--4 ), addresses a combination the Examiner does not
make. In particular, Appellants' proffered combination of Wilson and
Sullivan, which "still ha[ s] nodes representing the actual button 221, link
222 and/or tab 223 of Sullivan" (id.), unpersuasively requires the bodily
incorporation of features taught by Sullivan but not relied upon in the
Examiner's combination, i.e., the particular types of components represented
6
Appeal2018-001287
Application 14/190,339
in Sullivan's tree (In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 425 ("The test for obviousness is
not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily
incorporated into the structure of the primary reference .... ")).
Specifically, the Examiner's combination does not incorporate those asserted
components from Sullivan but rather "modif1ies] the graphic configuration
tool taught by Wilson ... such that it presents the nodes representing the
configurable graphic controls in a tree structure" (Ans. 15).
Additionally, Appellants' argument that "there would not have been a
node or any information relating to any plug-ins that are called by (i.e.
underneath) the highest level plug-in that implements a component" in the
combination of Wilson and Sullivan (Reply Br. 4--5 ( emphasis omitted);
App. Br. 10-11) does not address the Examiner's combination of Wilson,
Sullivan, and Marathe. The Examiner relies on Marathe to teach "at least
one plug-in to be configured by a nested plug-in" (Final Act. 6 (citing
Marathe ,r,r 28, 30-31, Fig. 4); Ans. 16), i.e., components which are nested
"underneath" other components. In particular, Marathe describes extending
UI components with "components [that] may also be embedded or otherwise
nested within other components" (Marathe ,r 28) by using an "extension
structure that is ... hierarchical, such as a tree structure" (Marathe ,r 31,
Fig. 4). The Examiner's combination of Marathe's "nested" hierarchy of
components with the tree taught by the combination of Wilson and Sullivan
teaches "the configurable plug-in having, underneath, at least one node
representing the at least one additional configurable graphic control" (Final
Act. 7; Ans. 17).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner fails to show the
combination of Wilson, Fukazawa, Sullivan, and Marathe teaches or
7
Appeal2018-001287
Application 14/190,339
suggests the limitations as recited in independent claim 1 and independent
claims 5 and 6, not separately argued. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of
claims 1, 5, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Wilson, Fukazawa, Sullivan, and Marathe. We likewise sustain the
Examiner's rejections of claims 2--4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because
Appellants offer no additional persuasive arguments for patentability (see
App. Br. 10-11).
DECISION
The Examiner's provisional rejection of claims 1---6 under the
judicially-created doctrine of non-statutory obviousness-type double
patenting over claims 1, 8, 9, and 10 of co-pending Application
No. 13/724,877 and Marathe is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1---6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wilson, Fukazawa, Sullivan, and Marathe 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) (see 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.50(f)).
AFFIRMED
8