Ex Parte CareDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 6, 201512347159 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 6, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE __________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD __________ Ex parte JEFFREY EATON CARE1 __________ Appeal 2012-005469 Application 12/347,159 Technology Center 2100 __________ Before ERIC B. GRIMES, JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, and ULRIKE W. JENKS, Administrative Patent Judges. GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a method, system, and computer program product, which have been rejected as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 According to Appellant, the Real Party in Interest is IBM Corporation (Appeal Br. 1). Appeal 2012-005469 Application 12/347,159 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Specification discloses a method of displaying the progress of a hierarchical operation, such as copying directory trees, on a GUI (see Spec. 1:25–30, 16:10–16). In the disclosed method, progress indicators for items at different hierarchical levels (e.g., subdirectories or individual files) are displayed with Z-order layering, i.e., layering along the Z-axis that extends perpendicular to the plane of the screen displaying the GUI (see id. at 20:1– 14, Figs. 5A through 5E). Claims 1–16 and 27–30 are on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as follows (emphasis follows): 1. A method, in a data processing system, for presenting status information associated with a hierarchical operation, comprising: displaying a first status indicator and a second status indicator in a view; and arranging, separately, the first and second status indicators in a Z- order layering in said view, wherein the first and second status indicators respectively indicate a status of first and second portions of the hierarchical operation, and the second portion of the hierarchical operation status being a subset of the first portion of the hierarchical operation. DISCUSSION The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 2, 4–12, 14, 15, and 27–30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious based on Perttunen2 and Dove3 (Ans. 5). The Examiner has rejected claims 3, 13, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as 2 Perttunen, US 7,171,628 B1, Jan. 30, 2007. 3 Dove, US Pub. 2001/0047435 A1, Nov. 29, 2001. Appeal 2012-005469 Application 12/347,159 3 obvious based on Perttunen, Dove, and Moromisato4 (Ans. 12). The same issue is dispositive for both rejections. The Examiner finds that Perttunen discloses a method meeting most of the limitations of claim 1, but without Z-order layering, and that Dove discloses a Z-order status monitor indicator (id. at 5–6). Most pertinent to the present appeal, the Examiner finds that Perttunen discloses first and second status indicators respectively indicat[ing] a status of first and second portions of the hierarchical operation (status indicator 40 and 42 in Fig. 5 of Perttunen), and the second portion of the hierarchical operation status being a subset of the first portion of the hierarchical operation. (As shown in Fig. 4 of Perttunen, D2 (item 42 in Fig. 5 of Perttunen) is a subset of D1 (item 40 in Fig. 5 of Perttunen)). (Id.) Appellant argues that “although region 42 (see Figures 5 and 6) represents D2, region 40 does not represent the entirety of directory D1” (Appeal Br. 12). Appellant notes that Perttunen describes region 40 as having “an area based on an amount of space either occupied on or to be occupied on the computer-readable medium by all files in the directory D1 non-inclusive of all subdirectories of the directory D1” (id., quoting Perttunen 5:38–44). Appellant argues that, based on this description, “region 40 does not include the subdirectories of directory D1. Thus, region 40 does not include directories D2 and D2 [sic, D3]. Instead, referring to the second underlined portion of the above-reproduced passage, region 40 only includes the space occupied by the files F1, F3, F4.” (Id.) 4 Moromisato et al., US 7,734,690 B2, June 8, 2010. Appeal 2012-005469 Application 12/347,159 4 We agree with Appellant that the evidence does not support the Examiner’s finding that Perttunen discloses the disputed limitation. Perttunen’s Figure 4 is reproduced below: Figure 4 shows an “example relationship between files and directories stored in a computer-readable medium. Files F1, F3 and F4 are all of the files in a directory D1. Directories D2 and D3 are all of the subdirectories of the directory D1.” (Perttunen 5:16–20.) Perttunen’s Figure 5 is reproduced below: Figure 5 shows “an embodiment of a user interface to represent the directories D1, D2 and D3 of FIG. 4” (id. at 5:28–29). Region 40 represents directory D1, region 42 represents directory D2, and region 44 represents directory D3 (id. at 5:30–33). Appeal 2012-005469 Application 12/347,159 5 Perttunen states: The first annulus sector region 40 has an area based on an amount of space either occupied on or to be occupied on the computer-readable medium by all files in the directory D1 non- inclusive of all subdirectories of the directory D1. Thus, the area of the first annulus sector region 40 is based on the amount of space either occupied on or to be occupied on the computer- readable medium by the files F1, F3 and F4. (Id. at 5:38–44, emphasis added.) Thus, Perttunen expressly describes region 40 as including only the files, not the subdirectories, of directory D1. Region 42 therefore does not represent a subset of area 40, as found by the Examiner. The Examiner’s response to Appellant’s argument on this point is that “Perttunen describes that region ‘40’ of Perttunen does not include all subdirectories of the directory D1 and that D1 includes FILES F1, F3 and F4, yet Perttunen does not exclude D1 from including all the subdirectories of the directory D1” (Answer 15). This reasoning, however, is not supported by Perttunen, which expressly states that region 40 excludes any subdirectories of D1. Because the Examiner has not provided evidence showing that the disputed limitation is disclosed by Perttunen, and has not provided a sound basis for concluding that it would nonetheless have been obvious, we reverse the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–12, 14, 15, and 27–30 as obvious based on Perttunen and Dove. The rejection of claims 3, 13, and 16 as obvious based on Perttunen, Dove, and Moromisato relies on the same erroneous fact- finding (see Answer 12), and is reversed for the same reason. Appeal 2012-005469 Application 12/347,159 6 SUMMARY We reverse both of the rejections on appeal. REVERSED mat Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation