Ex Parte Clee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2016

11462059 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111462,059 08/03/2006
75532 7590 07/05/2016
LEE LAW, PLLC
IBM SVLIP
P.O. BOX 189
PITTSBORO, NC 27312
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Scott John Clee
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.
GB920050029US 1 4676
EXAMINER
NANO, SARGON N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2457
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/05/2016 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):
docketing@leelawpllc.com
docketing_archive@leelawpllc.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SCOTT JOHN CLEE, PETER BRIAN MASTERS, and
DANIEL EDWARD WOULD
Appeal2013-005482
Application 11/462,059
Technology Center 2400
Before MARC S. HOFF, STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, and
JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEivIENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1-22, which constitute all the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellants' invention is concerned with identifying remote user
interface objects on a computer system. Appellants' method includes the
steps of establishing a connection at a client system to a remote system, to
access an operational component on the remote system; providing a user
interface object at the client system representing an interface to the
operational component on the remote system; and applying a graphical
Appeal2013-005482
Application 11/462,059
theme to the object, the theme distinguishing the object as representing the
interface to the remote operational component. See Spec. 2.
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. A method for distinguishing user interface objects that
represent remote interfaces on a client system comprising:
establishing a connection at the client system to a remote
system to access a remote operational component on the remote
system;
providing a user interface object at the client system that
represents an interface to the remote operational component on
the remote system; and
applying a graphical theme to the user interface object, the
graphical theme distinguishing the user interface object as
representing the interface to the remote operational component.
Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Paulsen et al. ("Paulsen") US 2005/0268279 Al Dec. 1, 2005
Pahud US 2006/0059431 Al Mar. 16, 2006
Claims 1--4, 6---16, and 18-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Pahud.
Claims 5 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pahud and Paulsen.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
("App. Br.," filed Sept. 26, 2012), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Mar.
7, 2013), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Jan. 10, 2013) for
their respective details.
2
Appeal2013-005482
Application 11/462,059
ISSUES
Appellants argue, inter alia, that Pahud does not disclose providing a
user interface object at the client system that represents an interface to the
remote operational component on the remote system. App. Br. 13.
Appellants characterize Pahud as disclosing drawing objects or shapes in a
drawing created using a collaborative graphics application, and that these
drawing objects are not disclosed to have remote operational capabilities.
See App. Br. 14.
Appellants further contend that Pahud discloses only drawing objects,
rather than a user interface object representing an interface to a remote
operational component, as claimed. App. Br. 15.
Appellants assert that Pahud does not disclose applying a graphical
theme to a user interface object as is claimed, again because Pahud is argued
to disclose drawing objects, rather than user interface objects. App. Br. 17.
Appellants argue that Pahud discloses a collaborative graphics
application, and a collaborative networking environment that uses a peer-to-
peer network, but does not disclose establishing a connection at the client
system to a remote system to access a remote operational component on the
remote system. App. Br. 16 (emphasis added).
Appellants' contentions present us with the following issues:
1. Does Pahud disclose a user interface object at the client system that
represents an interface to the remote operational component on the remote
system?
2. Does Pahud disclose establishing a connection at the client system
to a remote system to access a remote operational component on the remote
system?
3
Appeal2013-005482
Application 11/462,059
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The claims, of course, do not stand alone. Rather, they are part of
a 'fully integrated written instrument' ... consisting principally of
a specification that concludes with the claims. For that reason,
claims 'must be read in view of the specification, of which they are
a part.' . . . . [T]he specification 'is always highly relevant to the
claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single
best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.'
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Our reviewing court states that "claims must be interpreted as broadly
as their terms reasonably allow." In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir.
1989). Our reviewing court further states that "the words of a claim 'are
generally given their ordinary and customary meaning."' Phillips v. A WH
Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)(intemal citations
omitted). The "ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the
meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in
question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the
patent application." Id. at 1313. The description in the specification can
limit the apparent breadth of a claim in two instances: (1) where the
specification reveals a special definition given to a claim term by the
patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess; and (2),
where the specification reveals an intentional disclaimer, or disavowal, of
claim scope by the inventor. Id. at 1316.
ANALYSIS
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
Exemplary claim 1 recites "establishing a connection at the client
system to a remote system to access a remote operational component on the
remote system" and "providing a user interface object at the client system
4
Appeal2013-005482
Application 11/462,059
that represents an interface to the remote operational component on the
remote system." Claims 11 and 22, the other independent claims under
appeal, recite highly similar limitations.
The originally filed claims recited a "component on the remote
system." The claims were amended during prosecution to recite a "remote
operational component." Neither Appellants' Brief nor the Examiner's
Answer have suggested a proposed construction for "operational."
We begin by looking to Appellants' Specification, because it is the
"single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term." Phillips, 415 F.3d at
1315. While the Specification does not use the term "operational," or
"remote operational component," it explains that the invention concerns
working on a remote system . . . . A client may use a windowing
environment with multiple windows provided by a graphical user
interface (GUI) on a display screen. Some of the windows may
represent components, for example, applications, data, etc.
which are local to the client system. Other windows may
represent a remote connection to a component on a ser\rer
system.
Spec. 1. The invention seeks to overcome the problem of the user making
"the mistake of thinking a window is running locally when it is actually
running remotely" by enabling "the distinguishing of user interface objects
by themes to provide a mechanism for easily identifying objects that
represent components running on remote systems." Spec. 1, 2. The
Specification further states that such "window-based remote connection
applications" can include the X 11 system on Linux, under which a user has
"the ability to run any X 11 window based application via a remote
connection . . . . This means the user has the power to run applications that
were not designed or even considered to run remotely."
5
Appeal2013-005482
Application 11/462,059
Our construction of the term "operational" is further informed by
pertinent case law. The Federal Circuit, in Cross Medical Prods. Inc. v.
Medtronics Sofamor Danek Inc., 424 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005), construed
the claim term "operatively joined," in light of the particular facts of the
case, to mean connection and contact such that the patented device is
effective to perform posterior stabilization. Cross, 424 F.3d at 1303(?). In
Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381F.3d1111,
1118 (Fed. Cir. 2004), the court found that ["operatively connected"] "is a
general descriptive term frequently used in patent drafting to reflect a
functional relationship between claimed components."
The claim construction found in these cases suggests that the "remote
operational component" claimed in this appeal should be a component at a
remote computer that is effective to perform a function. Combining that
construction with the Specification's description of the invention under
appeal, in which a "local" user executes remote application programs, each
running in its own window, we construe a "remote operational component"
to be an application program running on a remote computer to perform some
function.
ANTICIPATION REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1--4, 6-16, AND 18-22
The Examiner finds that Pahud discloses a connection from a client
system to a remote system to access a remote operational component, and
providing a user interface object at the client system that represents an
interface to the remote operational component on the remote system. Final
Rej. 2-3; Pahud i-fi-137, 39, 41, and 59. Pahud i139 discloses a real-time
collaborative graphics application system in a collaborative networking
environment. Each of computing devices 1 to N runs the graphics
6
Appeal2013-005482
Application 11/462,059
application. See Pahud if 41. The graphics application displays "local
objects" created by a "local" user as well as "remote objects" created by
"remote" users. Pahud if 12.
Applying the claim construction discussed supra, for Pahud to
anticipate the subject matter of the appealed claims, the connection to a
remote system must access an application program running on that remote
computer to perform some function. Further, the user interface object at the
client in Pahud must represent an interface to an application program
running on a remote computer to perform some function. We agree with
Appellants, however, that "the cited paragraph [0037] of the Pahud reference
makes clear that the cited objects are drawing objects or shapes." App. Br.
14. These drawing objects, distinguished by color so as to indicate locally or
remotely created drawing objects, do not constitute interfaces to remotely
executing application programs, and so "are not disclosed to have remote
operational capabilities." Id. We agree with Appellants that "the disclosed
drawing objects in the graphics application do not disclose Appellant's
claimed 'remote operational component' to which a graphical theme is
claimed to be applied." Id. "Because the drawing objects of the Pahud
reference are not remote operational components, no 'interface' to such
components is possible using a user interface object as claimed by Appellant
within the evidence of record." App. Br. 15.
We further agree with Appellants that as a consequence of Pahud
failing to disclose a remote operational component within the scope of our
claim construction, Pahud does not disclose "applying a graphical theme to
the user interface object, the graphical theme distinguishing the user
interface object as representing the interface to the remote operational
7
Appeal2013-005482
Application 11/462,059
component." App. Br. 17. "The Patent Otlice has admitted that the
disclosed objects are drawing objects." App. Br. 16.
Because we find that Pahud does not disclose the "remote operational
component" claimed, we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claims 1, 11, and 22 under § 102 as being anticipated by Pahud.
We further find that the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claims 2--4,
6-10, 12-16, and 18-21 under§ 102 as being anticipated by Pahud, for the
same reasons. We do not sustain the Examiner's§ 102 rejection of claims
1--4, 6-16, and 18-21.
OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 5 AND 17
Claim 5 depends from independent claim 1, and claim 1 7 depends
from independent claim 11. As discussed supra, Pahud does not disclose the
"remote operational component" recited in these claims. We have reviewed
Paulsen, and we find that Paulsen also does not disclose a "remote
operational component."
Because the combination of references applied by the Examiner fails
to disclose all the elements of claims 5 and 1 7, we conclude that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 5 and 17 under § 103 as being
unpatentable over Pahud and Paulsen. We do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Pahud does not disclose a user interface object at the client system
that represents an interface to the remote operational component on the
remote system.
8
Appeal2013-005482
Application 11/462,059
2. Pahud does not disclose establishing a connection at the client
system to a remote system to access a remote operational component on the
remote system.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-22 is reversed.
REVERSED
9