Ex Parte Cowan et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 28, 2011

11313903 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 28, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/313,903 12/21/2005 Scott D. Cowan LOT920050129US1 (022) 6514
46322 7590 11/28/2011
CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
950 PENINSULA CORPORATE CIRCLE
SUITE 2022
BOCA RATON, FL 33487
EXAMINER
RIEGLER, PATRICK F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2173
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/28/2011 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte SCOTT D. COWAN, KIM D. LETKEMAN, MOHAMMED M.
MOSTAFA, FREDERIC PLANTE, and VISHWANATH RAMASWAMY
____________________

Appeal 2010-000168
Application 11/313,903
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAY P. LUCAS,
and THU A. DANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-000168
Application 11/313,903

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-9 (App. Br. 2). Claims 10-19 have been canceled (id.). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to a method, a system, and a
computer program product for multi-contextual navigation of deltas
(editorial changes) in a version control system for management of one or
more documents edited in succession and/or parallel by one or more editors;
wherein, a different contextual view is provided for at least a portion of the
objects in response to inward navigation (movement from a parent node to a
child node) (Abstract; Spec. ¶¶ [0005], [0007], [0008], and [0016]).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method for multi-contextual navigation, the method
comprising:

rendering a plurality of objects for an artifact utilizing a
default contextual view of the objects;

selecting an object in the default contextual view and
directing an inward navigation to a different object in the
default contextual view; and,

providing a different contextual view for at least a
portion of the objects defined by the different object responsive
to the directing of the inward navigation to the different object.
Appeal 2010-000168
Application 11/313,903

3

C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Zinda US 6,393,437 B1 May 21, 2002
Huang US 2003/0159136 A1 Aug. 21, 2003
McKee US 2005/0091667 A1 Apr. 28, 2005
Wong US 2006/0242603 A1 Oct. 26, 2006
(filed Apr. 22, 2005)
Mason US 7,278,106 B1 Oct. 02, 2007
(filed Jul. 14, 1998)

Claims 1-3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wong in view of McKee.
Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wong in view of McKee and Zinda.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wong in view of McKee and Huang.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wong in view of McKee and Mason.
Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wong in view of McKee, Huang, and Zinda.

II. ISSUE
The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in
determining that the combination of Wong and McKee teaches or would
have suggested “providing a different contextual view for at least a portion
of the objects defined by the different object responsive to the directing of
the inward navigation to the different object” (claim 1, emphasis added).
Appeal 2010-000168
Application 11/313,903

4

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
The Invention
1. An inward navigation is the transition from a parent node to a
child node (¶ [0016]).
Wong
2. Wong is directed to a dynamic multi-dimensional scrolling user
navigation display having a hierarchical view of a folder tree; wherein a user
may select a node of the folder tree to expand the node, revealing the
contents of the folder in the hierarchical view (Fig. 2; ¶ [0022]).
McKee
3. McKee discloses that the My Pictures folder of Windows®
XP™ is an example of an enhanced environment for contextual presentation
using custom codes, as opposed to a conventional shell browser that is
operable to display items only in the hierarchical view; wherein, in response
to the selection of the My Pictures folder, a different contextual view of
images of the photos contained within the folder are displayed (¶¶ [0009]-
[0011]). Particularly, the display transitions from a hierarchical view to an
iconic view of photographs when the My Pictures folder is selected (¶
[0011]).
Appeal 2010-000168
Application 11/313,903

5

IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3
Appellants argue the patentability of independent claim 1 without
separately providing similar arguments for dependent claims 2 and 3 (App.
Br. 4-10). Accordingly, we select independent claim 1 as being
representative of the claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellants contend that the “Examiner has not adequately articulated
a finding that the prior art included each element claimed” (App. Br. 6).
Appellants argue that “no where in paragraphs [0007] and [0011] is it taught
that a different contextual view is provided from the default contextual view
in response to the directing of an inward navigation for a selected node”;
“[r]ather, as described in the content of paragraph [0011], no inward
navigation of a node is possible as the My Pictures folder as described in
paragraph [0011] is just a collection [of] iconic thumbnails in a window”
(App. Br. 8). Appellants argue that the “Examiner attempts to ‘shoehorn’
the teaching of McKee into the critical claim limitation of Appellants’ claim
1 by equating the ‘accessing’ of the data store as the direction of an inward
navigation to the different object” (App. Br. 9, Reply Br. 2-3).
However, the Examiner finds that “Wong is relied upon for teaching
an explorer’s typical functions include inward and outward navigation of
displayed objects”; wherein, “[w]hen a node is expanded (inward
navigation) the nested nodes hierarchically under the currently selected node
are shown” (Ans. 13). The Examiner notes that McKee discloses “a file
system browser which enables users to navigate through the file system and
locate and open files and folders”; wherein, when a user selects “the My
Appeal 2010-000168
Application 11/313,903

6
Pictures folder, a user can view images at different sizes, rotate them, view a
slide show (different contextual views), print images, or copy images to a
CD” (Ans. 5).
To determine whether the combination of Wong and McKee teaches
or would have suggested a method for multi-contextual navigation that
includes “providing a different contextual view for at least a portion of the
objects defined by the different object responsive to the directing of the
inward navigation to the different object” as recited in claim 1, we give the
claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification.
See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). However, we will
not read limitations from the Specification into the claims. In re Van Geuns,
988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 1 does not place any limitation on what “different contextual
view” means, includes, or represents; other than it is a view that differs from
the initial default contextual view in which the objects are render. Further,
claim 1 does not place any limitation on what “inward navigation” means,
includes, or represents. Thus, we give “different contextual view” its
broadest reasonable interpretation as a context-dependent view that differs
from the default contextual view, as consistent with the Specification and as
specifically defined in claim 1. We also give “inward navigation” its
broadest reasonable interpretation as movement from a parent object to a
child object, as consistent with the Specification (FF 1) and as specifically
defined in claim 1.
Wong is directed to a dynamic multi-dimensional scrolling user
navigation display having a hierarchical view of a folder tree; wherein a user
may select a node of the folder tree to expand the node, revealing the
Appeal 2010-000168
Application 11/313,903

7
contents of the folder in the hierarchical view (FF2). We find that the user’s
selection of a node within the folder tree for expansion of the node
represents inward navigation in response to user selection of an object (FF
2). Particularly, we find that “responsive to the directing of the inward
navigation to the different object” reads on Wong’s system that enables a
user to select a node of the folder tree to expand the node.
In addition, McKee discloses that, in response to the selection of the
My Pictures folder of Windows® XP™, a different contextual view of
images of the photos contained within the folder are displayed; wherein, the
display transitions from a hierarchical view to an iconic view of photographs
(FF 3). We find that the display transitions from a hierarchical view to an
iconic view in response to the user’s selection of the My Pictures folder
(parent node) to view photographs (child nodes) within the folder to be the
“providing a different contextual view for at least a portion of the objects
defined by the different object responsive to the directing of the inward
navigation to the different object” (FF 3).
In view of our claim construction above, we find that the combination
of Wong and McKee teaches “providing a different contextual view for at
least a portion of the objects defined by the different object responsive to the
directing of the inward navigation to the different object,” as specifically
required by claim 1.
The Supreme Court has stated that “[t]he combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Appeal 2010-000168
Application 11/313,903

8
Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding that the combination
of Wong’s user navigation display having a hierarchical view of a folder tree
with the My Pictures folder of Windows® XP™, with an example of an
enhanced environment for contextual presentation using custom codes, as
disclosed in McKee, produces a method that provides a different contextual
view in response to user selection of an object which would be obvious
(Ans. 5-6; FF 1 and 2).
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Wong in
view of McKee; and claims 2 and 3 depending from claim 1 which have
been grouped therewith.
Claims 4-9
Appellants argue that claims 4-9 are patentable over the cited prior art
for the same reasons asserted with respect to claim 1 (App. Br. 10-11).
As noted supra, however, we find that the combination of Wong and
McKee teaches or fairly suggests all the features of claim 1. We therefore
affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the
same reasons expressed with respect to parent claim 1, supra.

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1- 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED
Appeal 2010-000168
Application 11/313,903

9

peb