Ex Parte Farn

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 17, 2016

11217057 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111217,057 08/3112005
25259 7590 02/19/2016
RSWIPLaw
IBM CORPORATION
3039 CORNWALLIS RD.
DEPT. T81 I B503, PO BOX 12195
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27709
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Brian Gin Farn
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.
CA920050004US 1 7886
EXAMINER
KRETZMER, ERIKA A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2196
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/19/2016 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):
RSWIPLA W@us.ibm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRIAN GIN F ARN
Appeal2013-009328
Application 11/217 ,057
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, STEPHEN C. SIU, and BRETT C. MARTIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 23-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention displays graphically instances of fields with
different values for use in networked computer applications. See generally
Abstract. Claim 23 is illustrative:
Appeal2013-009328
Application 11/217 ,057
23. A web page display method comprising:
instantiating multiple different instances of a single user interface
component in a Web page in a Web browser executing in memory by a
processor of a computer;
assigning a different index to each of the different instances of the
single user interface component in the Web page, wherein a value can be
obtained from and set to each of the multiple different instances of the single
user interface component using the different index, wherein the index has an
initial value of zero and an increment of one;
determining which instance is active when a property getter or setter
method is invoked; and
getting the value from or setting a value to the determined active
instance using the index of the determined active instance.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 23-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lee (US 6,880, 129 B 1; Apr. 12, 2005), Rosenstein (US
2006/0248442 Al; Nov. 2, 2006), and LeToumeau (US 5,787,432; July 28,
1998). Final Act. 5-8. 1
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed
September 27, 2012 ("Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief filed February 14,
2013 ("Br."); and (3) the Examiner's Answer mailed April 24, 2013
("Ans.").
2
Appeal2013-009328
Application 11/217 ,057
CONTENTIONS
Regarding claim 23, the Examiner finds that Lee's web page display
method, among other things, (1) instantiates multiple different instances of a
single user interface component, namely text controls 408A and 408B in
Figures 4A and 4B; (2) assigns a different index to each of the different
instances via name spaces nS 1 and nS2, respectively; and (3) determines
which instance is active when a property getter or setter method is invoked
by using the namespaces. Final Act. 5-7; Ans. 4--7. Although the Examiner
acknowledges that Lee does not teach explicitly (1) obtaining a value from,
and setting to, each different instance, and (2) a zero-based integer index, the
Examiner cites Rosenstein and LeToumeau for teaching these respective
features in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Final Act.
7-8; Ans. 7-9.
Appellant argues that the cited prior art does not teach or suggest ( 1)
assigning a different index to each different instance of a single user
interface component, where the index has an initial value of zero and an
increment of one, and (2) determining which instance is active when a
property getter or setter method is invoked. Br. 5-11. According to
Appellant, Lee's text controls are not instances of a single Java Bean
component, let alone a single user interface component as claimed. Br. 9-
10. As such, Appellant contends, Lee's name space refers to different text
control components, whereas the claimed invention's index refers to
different instances of the same user interface component. Br. 11. Appellant
adds that LeToumeau is non-analogous because it is in a different field of
endeavor and predates web-related inventions. Id.
3
Appeal2013-009328
Application 11/217 ,057
ISSUES
(1) Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by
finding that Lee, Rosenstein, and LeToumeau collectively would have
taught or suggested (a) assigning a different index to each different instance
of a single user interface component, where the index has an initial value of
zero and an increment of one, and (b) determining which instance is active
when a property getter or setter method is invoked?
(2) Is the Examiner's combining the teachings of these references
supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
justify the Examiner's obviousness conclusion? This issue turns on whether
LeToumeau is analogous art.
ANALYSIS
We begin by construing a key disputed limitation of claim 22, which
recites, in pertinent part, a "user interface component." Appellant's
Specification does not define this term, but does define the term
"component," namely software code that can be reused across multiple
applications. Spec. i-f 3. According to Appellant's Specification, a
component is standard software that can be pulled off a server and
incorporated into new applications using a tool by software developers. Id.
In light of this definition, we broadly, but reasonably, interpret a user
interface component as software code for a user interface that can be reused
across multiple applications.
Based on this interpretation, we see no error in the Examiner's
reliance on Lee's text control for at least suggesting a user interface
component, namely an object-oriented text control that is displayed in a web
4
Appeal2013-009328
Application 11/217 ,057
page and, therefore, is reusable software code for a user interface. See Ans.
6; see also Lee, col. 5, 11. 30-48; col. 6, 1. 51- col. 7, 1. 33 (describing
controls). Because Lee's text control is a particular object class and a
particular Java Bean object as the Examiner indicates (Final Act. 5---6; Ans.
5-7), this unique type of control, namely a text control, is a single user
interface component at least in that respect. Appellant's contention, then,
that Lee's text controls are not instances of a single user interface
component (Br. 10) is unavailing and not commensurate with the scope of
the claim.
Nor do we find error in the Examiner's position that Lee assigns a
different "index," or name space, to each instance of this single user
interface component, namely by assigning name spaces "nS 1" and "nS2" to
text control instances 408A and 408B, respectively, as shown in Figures 4A
and 4B. See Final Act. 6; see also Ans. 5; Lee, col. 7, 1. 64- col. 8, 1. 58.
We also see no error in the Examiner's position that Lee determines
which instance is active when a property getter or setter method is invoked.
Final Act. 6-7; Ans. 7. As the Examiner indicates, Lee's name space
designations distinguish different instances of the same user interface
component, namely a text control, and are needed when transferring data to
or from a particular control. Ans. 7. Appellant's contention that Lee assigns
unique names to each control, but not to each different instance of a single
control (Br. 10) is unavailing for the reasons noted previously and by the
Examiner.
Lastly, Appellants' argument that LeToumeau is non-analogous
because LeToumeau (1) is in a different field of endeavor due to a different
patent classification, and (2) predates, for the most part, web-related
5
Appeal2013-009328
Application 11/217 ,057
inventions (Br. 11) is unavailing. First, even assuming, without deciding,
that LeToumeau predated most web-related inventions when it was filed in
1995, it does not predate them all as Appellant's emphasized qualifier
implicitly acknowledges. Second, patent classification is not dispositive
regarding whether prior art is analogous. See In re Ellis, 476 F.2d 1370,
1372 (CCPA 1973) (noting that although USPTO classification may provide
some evidence of "non-analogy," the similarities and differences in structure
and function of the inventions disclosed in the references carry far greater
weight).
Nevertheless, prior art is analogous if it is (1) from the same field of
endeavor regardless of the problem addressed, or (2) reasonably pertinent to
the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. In re Bigio, 381
F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As the Examiner indicates, LeToumeau
pertains to creating, manipulating, and displaying data structures used in
digital computers. Ans. 8 (citing LeToumeau, col. 1, 11. 10-14). This
functionality is not only in the same field of endeavor of displaying data
graphically on a computer, but also reasonably pertinent to Appellant's
problem, which involves displaying data fields (i.e., data structures)
graphically in networked computer applications. See Abstract; Spec. i-f 1.
We, therefore, see no error in the Examiner's finding that LeToumeau is
analogous art.
Lastly, to the extent that Appellant's arguments challenge the
Examiner's reliance on LeToumeau for teaching an index with an initial
value of zero and an increment of one (see Br. 5), such arguments are
unavailing for the reasons indicated by the Examiner. Ans. 8-9.
6
Appeal2013-009328
Application 11/217 ,057
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 23, and claims 24 and 25 not argued separately with particularity.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 23-25 under§ 103.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 23-25 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
lv
7