Ex Parte Billiard et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 24, 2012

10562821 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 24, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte JEAN FRANCOIS BILLIARD, BERTRAND LAPORTE,
PASCALE CARON, JEROME PETIT, and RICHARD MLENAAR
____________________

Appeal 2009-010615
Application 10/562,821
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13, 15-21,
and 24-31. Claims 1-12, 14, 22, and 23 have been canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.

Appeal 2009-010615
Application 10/562,821

2
Representative Claim
13. Method for graphic interfacing between a user and a
computer system in which the following operations are
performed:
- inputting a user request at a client terminal,
- transmitting the user request from the client terminal to
a server part for processing by the server part,
- receiving a response to the request at the client terminal,
the response generated by the server part,
- displaying the response at the client terminal,
wherein:
- the response comprises instruction data and display data
to be displayed;
- at the client terminal, the instruction data are interpreted
and forwarded to an association engine;
- at the client terminal, a visualization model is created
by the association engine according to the interpreted
instruction data through the association of construction
elements retrieved from storage at the client terminal, the
construction elements including a descriptive interface of
visualization model objects, a presentation layer, and logical
rules;
- display data of the response are merged, at the client
terminal, with the visualization model and displayed as a
merged result; and
- the logical rules applied at the client terminal to the
visualization model by a rules engine, providing event-operated
interface controls in the visualization model and script code to
manage the event-operated interface controls at the level of the
client terminal.
Appeal 2009-010615
Application 10/562,821

3
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 13, 15-21, and 24-31 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Davis (US Pat. Pub.
No. 2002/0130900 A1) and Sanderson (PCT WO 02/44897 A1).

ISSUE
Does the Examiner err in concluding that Davis and Sanderson
collectively would have taught or fairly suggested “logical rules applied at
the client terminal to the visualization model by a rules engine, providing
event-operated interface controls in the visualization model and script code
to manage the event-operated interface controls at the level of the client
terminal” as recited in claim 13?

ANALYSIS
With respect to representative claim 13, we agree with Appellants that
Davis and Sanderson collectively would not have taught or fairly suggested
a rules engine applying rules to provide “event-operated” interface controls
in a graphical user interface (“visualization model”) and script code for
managing the controls at a client terminal. (App. Br. 20-23; Reply Br. 5-6.)
Contrary to the Examiner's assertions, Davis does not teach interface
controls managed at a user terminal, and neither Davis nor Sanderson
describes rules and script code for managing such controls. (Ans. 6, 15-17.)
We provide the following for clarification and emphasis only. We
agree with the Examiner that Davis describes a “visualization model”
(Graphical User Interface – GUI) and various data which perform all of the
functionality described in claim 13 with respect to the model – i.e., the
Appeal 2009-010615
Application 10/562,821

4
model/interface is created according to interpreted instruction data utilizing
widgets (construction elements) retrieved from storage at the client terminal,
and display data are merged with the model to displayed a merged result.
(See Ans. 4-5, 14- 15). We also agree with the Examiner that Davis
describes interface controls (see Ans. 6, 15-16), as well as user interaction
with the GUI, such as moving mouse/cursor (Ans. 16 (citing Davis, ¶
[0034]).). We do not agree, however, with the Examiner’s finding that
Davis describes “event-operated” interface controls. Rather, Davis
expressly explains sending all user interaction with the interface controls to
the server. (See App. Br. 20-23; Reply Br. 5-6; Davis, ¶¶[0025], [0031-32].)
Further, neither Davis nor Sanderson describes utilizing scripts (script
code – e.g., JavaScript) to manage GUI controls. In fact, both references
explicitly teach that it is advantageous not to utilize scripts, generally. (See
App. Br. 21-22; Reply Br. 6; Davis, ¶[0032]; Sanderson, 3:23-24.) Thus, we
find no disclosure in Davis or Sanderson of utilizing scripts to manage GUI
controls, and we find no clear explanation, either in the references or the
Examiner’s discussion of the rejection, of the disputed features.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to conclude
that Davis and Sanderson would not have collectively taught or fairly
suggested “logical rules applied at the client terminal to the visualization
model by a rules engine, providing event-operated interface controls in the
visualization model and script code to manage the event-operated interface
controls at the level of the client terminal” as recited in claim 13. Therefore,
the rejection of claim 13 fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Appellants’ independent claims 21 and 31 include the limitations of
similar scope. Dependent claims 15-20, 25, and 26 (dependent on claim 13)
Appeal 2009-010615
Application 10/562,821

5
and 24, and 27-30 (dependent on claim 21) stand with their respective base
claims. Thus, based on the record before us and for the reasons set forth
with respect to claim 13, we find that the Examiner erred in concluding that
Davis and Sanderson would not have collectively taught or fairly suggested
the disputed limitations recited in Appellants’ claims 15-21 and 24-31.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 13,
15-21, and 24-31.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 13,
15-21, and 24-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 13, 15-21, and 24-31.

REVERSED

llw