Ex Parte Beran et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 21, 2010

10822444 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 21, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ERIC BERAN
and MICHAEL FRUERGAARD PONTOPPIDAN
____________

Appeal 2009-007677
Application 10/822,444
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, and
JEAN R. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judges.

BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-007677
Application 10/822,444

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-31, which are all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a method of constructing a
representation of an object having at least one property. The method
includes identifying at least one property group associated with the object
which has been chosen to represent the object. At least one property of the
object belongs to each property group identified as being associated with the
object. The method further includes identifying any other object that the
object references within a property of an identified property group. An
object representation engine retrieves data corresponding to each of the
properties belonging to the at least one property group. The engine then
represents the object using the retrieved data. Abstract.

Representative Claim
1. A method of constructing a representation of an object
having at least one property, the method comprising:

identifying at least one property group associated with
the object which has been chosen to represent the object, at
least one property of the object belonging to each property
group associated with the object;

identifying any other object that the object references
within a property of an identified property group;
Appeal 2009-007677
Application 10/822,444

3

retrieving data corresponding to each of the properties
belonging to the at least one property group;

storing the retrieved data on a tangible computer storage
medium; and

representing the object by using the retrieved data to
generate a user interface.

Examiner’s Rejection
Claims 1-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Chang (US 5,627,979).

Claim Grouping
In view of Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ISSUE
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Chang
anticipates claim 1?

FINDINGS OF FACT
We rely on the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final
Rejection and the Examiner’s Answer.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“Anticipation requires the presence in a single prior art reference
disclosure of each and every element of the claimed invention, arranged as
Appeal 2009-007677
Application 10/822,444

4
in the claim.” Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GmbH v. American Hoist &
Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that the name of a table does not describe a
property group as recited in claim 1. Br. 7. The Examiner finds that the
employee table described by Chang, which is an object, contains several
properties such as a name and associated classes. Ans. 9. Appellants have
not demonstrated error in the Examiner’s finding.
Appellants contend that salary employee 1920 and regular employee
1930 as shown in Figure 19 of Chang are two classes, not two properties.
Br. 7. The Examiner finds that these two classes are properties of the
employee table. Ans. 9-10. We agree with the Examiner.
Appellants contend that mapping an employee table to a person class
as shown in Figure 16 of Chang does not describe “identifying any other
object that the object references within a property of an identified group.” In
particular, Appellants contend that it is inconsistent to consider classes to
which a table is mapped to be both properties of a property group and
objects referenced within a property of an identified property group. Br. 7-8.
The Examiner finds that classes to which a table is mapped can be both
properties of a property group and objects referenced within a property.
Ans. 10-11. We agree with the Examiner.
Appellants contend that Chang does not describe the “retrieving data”
and “representing the object” limitations of claim 1. Br. 8-9. The Examiner
finds that Chang describes icons representing tables can be displayed by a
pulldown menu selection process, which is “retrieving data” within the
Appeal 2009-007677
Application 10/822,444

5
meaning of claim 1. The Examiner further finds that the employee table
name and icon of Chang describes “representing the object” within the
meaning of claim 1. Ans. 11. We agree with the Examiner.
We sustain the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Appellants have not provided arguments for separate patentability of
claims 11-31. Instead, Appellants quote the Examiner’s Final Rejection,
quote language from independent claims 11 and 22, and allege that Chang
does not anticipate these claims based on the asserted lack of the reference
teaching “property groups.” Br. 9-12. The Examiner finds that Appellants
have not addressed the merits of the rejection. Ans. 12-13. We agree with
the Examiner. In any event, to the extent that Appellants’ remarks could be
considered arguments for separate patentability, we are not persuaded of
error in the Examiner’s finding that Chang anticipates that which is claimed.
We sustain the rejection of claims 11-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Chang anticipates claim 1.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Chang 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.
§ 41.50(f).

Appeal 2009-007677
Application 10/822,444

6
AFFIRMED

msc

MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND WA 98052