Ex Parte Dinges et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 29, 2010

10432431 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 29, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte CLEMENS DINGES, JOACHIM FELD, RONALD LANGE, and
MICHAEL SCHLERETH
____________

Appeal 2009-005105
Application 10/432,431
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: June 29, 2010
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, and JAY P.
LUCAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-005105
Application 10/432,431

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 11-21, which are all the claims remaining in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Invention
Appellants teach an object processing system 1 (Fig. 1) that has four
tools 2 to 5 that can access a data structure 6, using an administrative
program 7. The tools include a user interface display tool 3 (basic tool) and
a user interface creation tool 5 (supplementary tool). Spec. 3:36 - 4:6.

Representative Claim
11. An object processing system to control a technical installation,
comprising:
at least one storage unit storing a common object model having a data
structure with a control program and an administrative program, and at least
one basic tool and a supplementary tool to access the data structure using the
administrative program, the basic tool having read access to a first subregion
of the data structure and the supplementary tool having read and write access
to a second subregion of the data structure, the first and second subregions
differing from one another at least in part and containing information items
corresponding to one another, the administrative program checking whether
an updating is required and mandatorily updating the first subregion of the
data structure, if appropriate, when the supplementary tool writes to the
second subregion of the data structure;
at least one input/output unit; and
a process control unit, coupled to said storage unit and said at least
one input/output unit, to execute the control program to control the technical
installation using said at least one input/output unit, the data structure
containing information about variables used by said process control unit
Appeal 2009-005105
Application 10/432,431

3
when executing the control program and storage locations of the variables in
said process control unit.

Prior Art
Palevich 5,652,884 July 29, 1997
Stack 6,636,861 B1 Oct. 21, 2003

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 11-18, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being unpatentable over Palevich.
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Palevich and Stack.

FINDINGS OF FACT
Palevich
Palevich describes user interface (UI) objects that are created with a
“constructor” program and stored in an archive. Each user interface object is
contained in an “escort” object that interfaces with the constructor program.
Fig. 5; Abstract; col. 17, ll. 46 - col. 18, l. 8.
The main components of the constructor program are viewer objects,
inspector objects, and editor objects, which allow the constructor program to
view, create, and edit UI objects. Col. 21, l. 60 - col. 22, l. 31.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The claims measure the invention. See SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec.
Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). During prosecution
before the USPTO, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
Appeal 2009-005105
Application 10/432,431

4
interpretation, and the scope of a claim cannot be narrowed by reading
disclosed limitations into the claim. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054
(Fed. Cir. 1997) (citations omitted); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir.
1989); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05 (CCPA 1969). Our reviewing
court has repeatedly warned against confining the claims to specific
embodiments described in the specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
“Giving claims their broadest reasonable construction ‘serves the
public interest by reducing the possibility that claims, finally allowed, will
be given broader scope than is justified.’” In re Amer. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Yamamoto, 740
F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). “An essential purpose of patent
examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and
unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be
removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.” Zletz, 893
F.2d at 322. “Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to
the applicant . . . because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the
claims to obtain more precise claim coverage.” Amer. Acad., 367 F.3d at
1364.

ANALYSIS
Claim 11 recites a storage unit storing a common object model having
a data structure with a control program and an administrative program, and
at least one basic tool and a supplementary tool to access the data structure
using the administrative program. The Examiner reads the “administrative”
program on the “constructor” program in Pavelich. The Examiner further
Appeal 2009-005105
Application 10/432,431

5
reads the “basic tool” and “supplementary tool” on a viewer object and
editor object, respectively, as described by Pavelich.
However, Appellants contend that Pavelich describes the reverse of
what claim 11 requires. Because the constructor program of Pavelich does
not directly access objects, but relies on the escort object to access an object,
Appellants submit that claim 11 distinguishes over the prior art. Appellants
refer to the amended Specification in support of the argument. As shown in
Figure 1 and described at pages 3 and 4 of the disclosure, access to data
structure 6 by tools 2, 3 (basic tools) and 4, 5 (supplementary tools) is
effected using an administrative program 7.
We agree with the Examiner that claim 11, as broadly drafted, does
not require that access to the data structure is through, or “using,” the
administrative program. The claim does not recite or limit what may be
“using” the administrative program. The administrative program is not
limited to being used by the basic tool and supplementary tool, and thus does
not distinguish over a human being using the administrative (constructor)
program as described by Pavelich.
Appellants also contend that Palevich does not disclose an
administrative program checking whether an updating is required, and
“mandatorily” updating the first subregion of the data structure, if
appropriate, when the supplementary tool writes to the second subregion of
the data structure. The Examiner finds, however, that use of the Pavelich
administrative (constructor) program, in particular as described in material at
columns 17, 22, 31, and 33 of the reference, meets the argued feature.
We agree with the Examiner that the claim 11 “updating” requires no
more than a program for editing objects retrieved from an archive, and
Appeal 2009-005105
Application 10/432,431

6
presenting a view of the edited, archived object to a user. Pavelich,
particularly at column 22, describes an interaction of editor objects and
viewer objects. A user may use viewer objects to view an archived object.
However, editing an object requires the use of other objects such as an
editor, which may generate an editable screen display. Pavelich col. 22, ll.
38-57. The viewer object presentation to the user would be updated to
reflect any changes made by an editor object; else, the object as displayed to
the user would not reflect a true and accurate representation of the archived
object. We are not persuaded that the Examiner errs in finding that the
reference discloses everything that claim 11 requires.
To the extent that Appellants argue that the first subregion (containing
the viewer copy of the archived object) and the second subregion (containing
the archived object) in Pavelich are not part of the same “data structure,”
Appellants have not provided a definition for “data structure” that would
distinguish over the physical arrangement of separate object copies in
separate portions of memory. Further, the first and second subregions in
Pavelich differ from one another “at least in part,” and contain information
items “corresponding to one another,” as recited in claim 11, for the simple
reason that different copies (viewed and archived) of the same object are in
separate portions of memory but share the same type of information (UI)
items. The viewed version of an object is in separate memory from the
archived version of the object, as the viewed versions may be presented in
different ways (e.g., graphically). See Pavelich col. 22, ll. 15-40.
Appellants argue claim 11 as representative in response the § 102(b)
rejection over Palevich. Appellants rely on the alleged lack of a “basic tool
and a supplementary tool to access the data structure using the
Appeal 2009-005105
Application 10/432,431

7
administrative program” in the applied prior art in response to the § 103(a)
rejection of claim 19. Because we find the arguments for base claim 11 to
be not persuasive, we sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and
103(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

DECISION
The rejection of claims 11-18, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being unpatentable over Palevich is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Palevich and Stack 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). See 37 C.F.R. §
41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

erc

STAAS & HALSEY LLP
SUITE 700
1201 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON DC 20005