Ex Parte Deggelmann et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 18, 2016

11523548 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111523,548 0912012006
131475 7590 02/18/2016
Dilworth IP - SAP
2 Corporate Drive, Suite 206
Trumbull, CT 06611
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Martin Deggelmann
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.
247-047US 6198
EXAMINER
CHUANG, TIJNG-MUT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2179
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
02/18/2016 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARTIN DEGGELMANN, THOMAS SCHIRA, and
NICOLE UNSER
Appeal2014-003246
Application 11/523,548
Technology Center 2100
Before HUNG H. BUI, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and JON M. WRGOV AN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
WRGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 filed this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-14 and 16-21, which constitute all
the claims pending in this application. 2 We have jurisdiction under 3 5
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm. 3
1 Appellants identify SAP AG as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 2).
2 Claim 15 was canceled and is not before us on appeal.
3 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed Sept. 20, 2006 ("Spec."), the
Final Office Action mailed Jan. 28, 2013 ("Final Act."); the Appeal Brief
filed Aug. 13, 2013 ("App. Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed Oct. 29,
2013 ("Ans."); and the Reply Brief filed Dec. 24, 2013 ("Reply Br.").
Appeal2014-003246
Application 11/523,548
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claimed invention is directed to a graphical user interface
comprising tab panel elements with input fields for independent parameters
of a process. (Abstract). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method for providing a graphical user interface for
defining parameters for a process to be executed by a computer,
the method comprising:
rendering concurrently on a display device a plurality of
tab panel elements, the tab panel elements including at least one
user input field, and the tab panel elements being associated
with mutually independent sub-processes of a computer-
executed process;
receiving, by a computer, user inputs for selecting at least
one of the tab panel elements;
indicating the selection by modifying an appearance of
the selected tab panel element; and
receiving, by the computer through the user input field of
the selected tab panel element, a plurality of parameters for use
by the computer to carry out a sub-process associated with the
selected tab panel element, only the parameters received
through the selected tab panel element being used for the sub-
process associated with the selected tab panel element and
controlling a processing result of only the sub-process
associated with the selected tab panel element;
wherein the parameters received through the selected tab
panel element are different from and independent of parameters
received through other tab panel elements.
REJECTIONS
RI. Claims 1, 6-8, 10, 11, 16, 18, 19, and 21 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Bach et al. (US 2003/0227482 Al, published Dec.
2
Appeal2014-003246
Application 11/523,548
11, 2003) ("Bach") and Tuominen (US 2005/0015726 Al, published Jan. 20,
2005). (Final Act. 3-9).
R2. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Bach,
Tuominen, and Douglas et al. (US 5,604,861, issued Feb. 18, 1997)
("Douglas"). (Final Act. 9-10).
R3. Claims 3 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
on Bach, Tuominen, and Bocioned et al. (US 2002/0093537 Al, published
July 18, 2002) ("Bocioned"). (Final Act. 10-12).
R4. Claims 4, 5, 9, 13, 14, 17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based on Bach, Tuominen, and Hibbetts et al. (US 5,787,418,
issued July 28, 1998) ("Hibbetts"). (Final Act. 12-15).
ANALYSIS
1. CONCURRENT RENDERING OF TAB PANEL ELEMENTS
Appellants argue Bach does not show rendering "concurrently a
plurality of tab panel elements ... including at least one user input field," as
recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 7 and 8). The Examiner finds this limitation is
taught inter alia by the tabbed elements "Opportunities," "Products,"
"Accounts," and "Sales and Service" in Figures 9, 13A, and 13B of Bach.
(Ans. 17-20).
The disagreement between Appellants and the Examiner centers on
what each regards as the claimed "concurrent rendering of tab panel
elements." Appellants' view appears to be either that the tab panel elements
must each be rendered in their entirety, unobstructed by the other elements,
or must be rendered together with each showing a user input field. (App. Br.
3, citing Bach, Fig. 2d). The Examiner views the limitation as only
3
Appeal2014-003246
Application 11/523,548
requiring parts of two or more tabs of tab panel elements to be concurrently
rendered, and that one of the tab panel elements has a user input field. (Ans.
17, 18, and 25).
We find no definition in the Specification for what is meant by
concurrent rendering of a plurality of tab panel elements, and neither
Appellants nor the Examiner have pointed to any definition. The words
"concurrent" and "render" do not appear in the Specification. Figure 2( d) of
Appellants' Specification shows different tab panel elements rendered
together in separate places of a display, each having user input fields. We
view this teaching as exemplary of what is meant by the claimed limitation,
but we find this drawing insufficient to define what is meant by concurrent
rendering of tab panel elements.
In its unabridged language, claim 1 recites "rendering concurrently on
a display device a plurality of tab panel elements, the tab panel elements
including at least one user input field." Claims App 'x. As the Examiner
does (Ans. 17, 18, 25), we interpret this recitation as two phrases, the first
requiring tab panel elements to be rendered concurrently, and the second
phrase requiring at least one of the elements has a user input field. Bach,
Figure 9, shows concurrently-rendered tabs for each of the tab panel
elements "Opportunities," "Products," "Accounts," and "Sales and Service."
We agree with the Examiner's finding that rendering parts of the tab panel
elements amounts to concurrent rendering of the tab panel elements. (Id.).
Furthermore, as the Examiner explains, "Find" is a user input field in the
"Opportunities" tab panel element of Bach, Figure 9. These teachings of
Bach disclose the claimed limitation.
4
Appeal2014-003246
Application 11/523,548
2. MUTUALLY INDEPENDENT SUB-PROCESSES
Appellants argue Bach's tabs and sub-controllers interoperate with
one another and are, thus, not "associated with mutually independent sub-
processes," as recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 8). Appellants further argue that
because Bach's tabs and sub-controllers are not mutually independent, Bach
also fails to disclose or suggest that "only the parameters received through
the selected tab panel element [are] used for the sub-process associated with
the selected table panel element and [control] a processing result of only the
sub-process associated with the selected tab panel element," as recited in
claim 1 (emphasis in original).
The Examiner finds Bach teaches the claimed limitation. (Ans. 20).
We agree with the Examiner that Bach, Figure 9, and paragraph 62, describe
an SAP process with tabs labeled "Opportunities," "Products," "Accounts,"
and "Sales and Service." These tabs are associated with different
applications that are mutually independent. For example, the Examiner
indicates the "Opportunities" tab shown in Figure 9 and the "Account" tab
shown in Figures 13A and 13B are two different applications that are
mutually independent of one another. Id. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner's finding that Bach teaches "tab panel elements being associated
with mutually independent sub-processes of a computer-executed process"
as claimed. Id.
Because Appellants' remaining argument is predicated on the
assertion that Bach does not teach tab panel elements associated with
mutually independent sub-processes, we are likewise not persuaded by
Appellants' argument that Bach fails to teach "'only the parameters received
through the selected tab panel element being used for the sub-process
5
Appeal2014-003246
Application 11/523,548
associated with the selected tab panel element and controlling a processing
result of only the sub-process associated with the selected tab panel
element,' as recited in claim 1". (Reply Br. 4, emphasis Appellants'). In
any case, in the cited paragraphs of Bach, we find no indication one of
ordinary skill in the art would have considered parameters entered in the
fields for any particular one of the applications would be also used for, or
control the result of, any other application. Thus, we are not persuaded of
Examiner error.
3. MOTIVATION TO COMBINE
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the motivation to
combine Bach and Tuominen as coming from Tuominen's similar teaching
of preconfigured layout shells that are independent of the software programs
for code reuse. (App. Br. 9; Final Act. 7). Although the foregoing is one
motivation cited by the Examiner, it is not the only reason to combine the
references the Examiner relies upon.
Specifically, the Examiner indicates Tuominen teaches the obvious
feature of highlighting or emphasizing a selected tab in a tabbed user
interface (Ans. 23). The Examiner finds Bach and Tuominen are in the same
field of endeavor, and concludes that it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill to modify Bach's tabbed user interface to include
Tuominen's highlighting of a selected tab feature to indicate an active
navigation tab (Final Act. 6).
Even if there is no express motivation to combine in Tuominen's
alleged teaching of preconfigured layout shells, this does not negate the
Examiner's other findings of motivation to combine. Specifically, the
Examiner's findings that Bach and Tuominen are in the same field of
6
Appeal2014-003246
Application 11/523,548
endeavor, and that it would have been obvious to modify Bach's tabbed
interface to highlight a selected tab feature to indicate an active navigation
tab, are not rebutted. Because Appellants provide no showing that all of the
reasons to combine are improper, we are not persuaded of error.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has stated "[ 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 Intern. Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Here, combining Bach and Tuominen yields
the predictable result of indicating an active navigation tab according to
Tuominen in conjunction with other claimed features of Bach. As the
Examiner's finding in this regard is reasonable and unrebutted, and the
conclusion of obviousness is supported by preponderance of the evidence,
we are not persuaded of Examiner error.
4. REMAINING CLAIMS
No separate arguments are presented for the dependent claims and,
therefore, we sustain the rejection for the reasons previously stated. In re
King, 801F.2d1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989,
991 (Fed. Cir. 1983); 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
5. CONCLUSION
In order to sustain a rejection under§ 103(a), "there must be some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness." KSR at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F .3d 977,
988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). In this case, the Examiner has provided the necessary
reasoning and underpinning in the cited references and, thus, we sustain the
rejections.
7
Appeal2014-003246
Application 11/523,548
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1, 6-8, 10, 11, 16, 18, 19, and 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Bach and Tuominen.
We affirm the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Bach, Tuominen, and Douglas.
We affirm the rejection of claims 3 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Bach, Tuominen, and Bocioned.
We affirm the rejections of claims 4, 5, 9, 13, 14, 17, and 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Bach, Tuominen, and Hibbetts.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8