Ex Parte Cifra

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 28, 2019

14058924 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/058,924 10/21/2013 Christopher G. Cifra
35690 7590 04/01/2019
MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C.
P.O. BOX 398
AUSTIN, TX 78767-0398
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.
6150-25003 2255
EXAMINER
LONG, ANDREA NATAE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2175
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/01/2019 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):
patent_docketing@intprop.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER G. CIFRA
Appeal2018-007618
Application 14/058,924
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and JENNIFER L.
McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges.
McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision reject claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is National Instruments
Corporation. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-007618
Application 14/058,924
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's disclosed and claimed invention "relates to the field of
graphical programming, and more particularly to a system and method for
multi-touch editing in a graphical programming language." Spec. ,r 2.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. A non-transitory computer-accessible memory
medium that stores program instructions executable by a
processor to implement:
displaying a graphical program on a display device,
wherein the graphical program comprises a plurality of
interconnected nodes that visually indicate functionality of the
graphical program, including a graphical case/switch node,
wherein the graphical case/switch node is not expanded, and
wherein the graphical case/switch node is expandable into a
plurality of frames, wherein each frame includes a block
diagram;
receiving multi-touch input to a multi-touch interface, the
multi-touch input comprising two or more touchpoints applied
simultaneously to the graphical case/switch node, wherein the
multi-touch input specifies expansion of the graphical
case/switch node;
in response to the multi-touch input, expanding the
graphical case/switch node to an expanded graphical case/switch
node wherein the expanded graphical case/switch node displays
each of the plurality of frames; and
displaying the graphical program on the display device
after said expanding, including displaying the expanded
graphical case/switch node, comprising displaying all frames of
the graphical case/switch node.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ohara (US 6,366,300 B 1; iss. Apr. 2, 2002), Pillans (US
2
Appeal2018-007618
Application 14/058,924
5,644,728; iss. July 1, 1997), and Elias (US 2007 /0177803 Al; publ. Aug. 2,
2007). Final Act. 2-8.
ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1-22 as unpatentable over Ohara, Pillars, and Elias.
Appellant contends that the combination of Ohara, Pillars, or Elias
does not teach or suggest "expanding the graphical case/switch node" or
"expanding the graphical case/switch node" "in response to [a] ... multi-
touch input." App. Br. 6-10. Appellant explains that
Ohara is not at all concerned with manipulation of a graphical
case/switch node (let alone "in response to the multi-touch input,
expanding the graphical case/switch node to an expanded
graphical case/switch node" as recited). The portion of Ohara
identified by the Examiner simply teaches prompting a user to
set a parameter for a behavioral characteristic.
App. Br. 7. Appellant further explains that Ohara's programming box 5625
in Fig 56 is not expandable, but "programming box 5625 is simply indicated
to the user because a parameter has not been set yet, and the user may select
these parameters by interacting with icons 5726 and 5727. See id. at 57:4-
16.,, A B 7 pp. r. .
The Examiner, however, explains that the Specification does not
define a "graphical case/switch node." The Examiner, using a broad but
reasonable interpretation, finds that "a graphical case/switch node is a
representative graphical program with a conditional control structure." Ans.
9. The Examiner then explains that Ohara's "programming box is
representative of a graphical program which allows the user to set
conditional controls." Ans. 9. While "Ohara never uses the word 'expand'
3
Appeal2018-007618
Application 14/058,924
[Ohara] teaches viewing a programming box in further detail ( characteristic
and behavior icons) upon selection, which is the same as the claimed
invention provided a detailed view upon selection." Ans. 9. The Examiner,
thus, concludes that Ohara" reasonably teaches expanding a graphical
case/switch node." Ans. 9.
We agree. As the Examiner explains, Ohara teaches a touch input a
user's touch input to select a programming box 5625 to expand the box and
allow for selection of additional functions. See Ans. 9; Compare Fig. 56
(programming box 5625) with Fig. 57. As the Examiner also points out, the
Specification lacks a clear definition of "a graphical case/switch node" (Ans.
9) and broadly refers to a node as "[i]n the context of a graphical program,
an element that may be included in a graphical program." Spec. ,r 53. As
such, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and
22 as unpatentable over Ohara, Pillans, and Elias.
We are similarly unpersuaded by Appellant's arguments with respect
to claim 13. Namely, Appellant argues that Ohara, Pillans, and Elias also do
not teach or suggest collapsing the expanded graphical case/switch node.
App. Br. 10. However, as discussed above, the Examiner interprets the
selection of programming box 5625 to add programming elements as the
expansion of the graphical case/switch node. Resetting the programming
box to the state when a parameter has not been set then resets the
programming box to a non-expanded state, or in other words, collapses the
programming box. See, e.g., Ans. 11. As such, we are not persuaded that
the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 13 as unpatentable over Ohara, Pillans,
and Elias.
4
Appeal2018-007618
Application 14/058,924
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-22
as unpatentable over Ohara, Pillans, and Elias.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-22.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
5