Ex Parte Falkner et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 25, 2016

11950440 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111950,440 12/05/2007 James H. Falkner
51344 7590 02/29/2016
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. /Oracle America/ SUN I STK
1000 TOWN CENTER, TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
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.
SUNM070616PUS 6560
EXAMINER
PAN, YONGJIA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2171
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/29/2016 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@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES H. FALKNER and MANPREET SINGH OBEROI
Appeal2014-002696 1
Application 11/950,440
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JASON V. MORGAN, and
DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-18. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants' Invention
Appellants' invention is directed to a method and system for
dynamically generating a configuration interface for software installation
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Sun Microsystems, Inc.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-002696
Application 11/950,440
and configuration at runtime on a target computer having a particular
interface type. Spec. 2:6-8. In particular, upon receiving a view definition
file (24) specifying a user interface control, a format converter (26) converts
the view definition file (24) into a plurality of description fragments so that a
template engine (28) can merge one of the fragments with a corresponding
page template to generate a merged page (80) based on the interface type of
the target computer. Id. at 2:8-14. A generation engine (30) with an
interface matching the interface type of the page template is subsequently
selected to display the information contained in the merged page. Id. at
2:14--19.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 is illustrative and reads as follows:
1. A system for dynamically generating a configuration
interface for software installation and configuration at run time
on a target computer having a particular interface type, the
particular interface type one of a plurality of different user
interface types, the system comprising: licensing information,
a plurality of view definition files, each view definition
file specifying at least one user interface control independent of
information relating to any of the plurality of different user
interface types;
a format converter operative to convert each of the
plurality of view definition files to at least one description
fragment describing at least one interface control property;
a template engine in communication with the format
converter, the template engine generating a merged page by
merging at run time the at least one description fragment with
one of a plurality of page templates selected based on the
particular interface type of the target computer; and
2
Appeal2014-002696
Application 11/950,440
at least one of a plurality of generator engines in
communication with the template engine, each generator engine
corresponding to a particular one of the plurality of different
user interface types for software installation and configuration,
a particular interface being generated based on system
information, the system information including at least one of
user preference, operating system information, security
information, and other programs loaded on the target computer
each generator engine operative to display the information
contained in the merged page if the generator engine interface
type matches the interface type of the page template used to
generate the merged page.
Prior Art Relied Upon
Steichen US 2002/0118223 Al Aug. 29, 2002
Myers US 6,996,781 Bl Feb. 7,2006
Anderson US 2007/0157078 Al July 5, 2007
Antos US 2008/0256495 Al Oct. 16, 2008
Saikaly US 7,734,995 Bl June 8, 2010
Chad Bumstead, How to ModifY Add to Cart/Wish List Buttons (July
6, 2007). Hereinafter "Buttons."
Rejections on Appeal
Appellants request review of the following Examiner's rejections:
Claims 1--4, 6-10, 12-16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Anderson, Saikaly,
Antos, Steichen, and Buttons.
3
Appeal2014-002696
Application 11/950,440
Claims 5, 11, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Anderson, Saikaly, Antos, Steichen,
Buttons, and Myers.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 4--9, and the Reply Brief, pages 1-2.2
Dispositive Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, did the Examiner err in
finding the combination of Anderson, Saikaly, Antos, Steichen, and Buttons
teaches or suggests upon receiving a view definition file specifYing a user
interface control, a format converter converts the file into a plurality of
description fragments such that a template engine can merge one of the
fragments with a corresponding page template to thereby create a merged
page, which a generator engine subsequently displays on a similar type
interface, as required in independent claim l?
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments. We are unpersuaded by Appellants' contentions. We adopt as
our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejections from which
appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants'
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 1, 2013), the Reply Brief (filed
December 16, 2013), and the Answer (mailed October 15, 2013) for their
respective details. We have considered in this Decision only those
arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments
Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed
to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
4
Appeal2014-002696
Application 11/950,440
Appeal Brief. See Ans. 2-9; Final Act. 2-32. However, we highlight and
address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows.
Appellants argue the combination of Anderson, Saikaly, Antos,
Steichen, and Buttons does not teach or suggest the disputed limitations
emphasized above. App. Br. 4--8, Reply Br. 1-2. Appellants' arguments are
not persuasive. As correctly noted by the Examiner, Appellants' arguments
are tantamount to an individual attack against the cited references. Ans. 3--4.
One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking the references individually
where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck
& Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
First, we agree with the Examiner Anderson's disclosure of a user
interface for selecting one of a plurality of XML packages (305, 315, 325)
containing a configuration file, which is customized to include runtime/
defined parameters before the configured file is converted into a plurality of
document segments (310, 320, 330), teaches converting a selected view
definition file into a plurality of description segments. Ans. 4--5 (citing
Anderson i-fi-155---63, Figs. 2-3). Thus, although Anderson's XML packages
are capable of containing queries for performing searches, we do not agree
with Appellants that they are so limited. App. Br. 4--5. Instead, each of the
disclosed XML packages relates to a corresponding interface control, which
can be selected to specify a related XML file associated therewith that can
be configured on a target computer. Anderson i120. We further echo the
Examiner's finding that Buttons' disclosure of adding buttons to XML
5
Appeal2014-002696
Application 11/950,440
packages to facilitate the selection of a package shows that the disclosed
XML packages were well-known in the art for use as user control interfaces
for installing and configuring software. Ans. 7-8 (citing Buttons).
Likewise, the Examiner's reliance upon the disclosures of Antos and
Steichen of generating and customizing user interfaces to install and
configure software based upon a user's preferences and operating system
information supports the Examiner's finding that customizing a user
interface to configure and install software was an endeavor within the
purview of the ordinarily skilled artisan. Ans. 6-7 (citing Antos i-fi-121-25,
Steichen i127).
Second, we agree with the Examiner that Saikaly's disclosure of
merging into a single file a defined segment with a corresponding template
file teaches the claimed template engine, which would complement
Anderson's teaching by allowing users to utilize the disclosed XivIL
configuration interface to merge a description fragment with a corresponding
page template to yield a single merged page. Ans. 5---6 (citing Saikaly 9:42-
47, 12:20-27, Figure 5B). Because the Examiner does not rely upon Saikaly
to teach the interface, Appellants' attack against Saikaly on this point is
unavailing. App. Br. 7.
Accordingly, because Anderson, Antos, Saikaly, Steichen, and
Buttons disclose known elements that perform their ordinary functions to
predictably result in an interface that can be customized at runtime according
to a target computer to thereby allow a user to configure or install software,
we agree that the proposed combination is proper. Ans. 8 (citing KSR Int 'l
6
Appeal2014-002696
Application 11/950,440
Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007)). Likewise, we concur with
the Examiner's conclusion that modifying the resulting system to generate
an interface based on security information as well as other programs on the
target computer would have also been within the purview of the ordinarily
skilled artisan in light of the combined teachings of the cited references.
Ans. 8-9. Therefore we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Anderson, Antos, Saikaly, Steichen, and Buttons teaches or suggests the
disputed limitations. It follows Appellants have not shown error in the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Regarding the rejection of claims 2-18, because Appellants have
either not presented separate patentability arguments or have reiterated
substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for
patentability of claim 1 above, claims 2-18 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
7
Appeal2014-002696
Application 11/950,440
DECISION3
We affirm the Examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
claims 1-18.
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
3 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner may wish to consider
whether claims 13-18 are directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35
U.S.C. § 101 because the cited claims recite a computer-readable storage
medium, which is not defined in the Specification to exclude transitory
media. Ex parte Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857 (PTAB 2013)
(precedential).
8