Ex Parte Farn

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 12, 2011

11121654 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 12, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte BRIAN G. FARN

____________________

Appeal 2009-014703
Application 11/121,654
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and CAROLYN D.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-014703
Application 11/121,654

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-6
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2007). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2007).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
According to Appellant, the invention relates to graphical user
interfaces (GUIs) and, more particularly, to the layout and design of GUIs
(Spec. 1, ll. 4-5).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claims 1 and 3 are exemplary and are reproduced below:
1. A method for graphical layout, comprising the steps of:

providing a design area for displaying a graphical layout;

providing a list of visual components capable of being
displayed in the design area, the list including a container
component capable of being displayed in a first size in the
design area, the list further including an element component
displayable within the boundaries of the container component;

selecting the container component;

enlarging the container component in response to the
selecting, the container component enlarged to a second size
greater than the first size, and displaying the enlarged container
component in the display area.

3. A method for graphical layout, comprising the steps of:
Appeal 2009-014703
Application 11/121,654

3
providing a design area for displaying a graphical layout;

providing a hierarchal list of visual components capable
of being displayed in the design area, the hierarchal list
including a container component capable of being displayed in
a first size in the design area, the list further including a child
component displayable within the boundaries of the container
component, the child component being a descendant of the
container component in the hierarchal list;

selecting the child component;

enlarging the container component in response to
selecting the child component, the container component
enlarged to a second size greater than the first size, and
displaying the enlarged container component in the display area
such that the child component is displayed within the
boundaries of the container component.

C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Bereiter US 5,917,492 Jun. 29, 1999
Cain US 6,014,138 Jan. 11, 2000
Underwood US 7,152,207 B1 Dec. 19, 2006
(filed on Aug. 30, 2000)

Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by the teachings of Underwood.
Claims 3 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the teachings of Cain in view of Bereiter.

Appeal 2009-014703
Application 11/121,654

4
II. ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in:
1) finding that Underwood discloses, for “a container component
capable of being displayed in a first size” and “enlarging the container
component in response to the selecting, the container component enlarged to
a second size greater than the first size” (claim 1); and
2) concluding that the combined teachings of Cain in view of Bereiter
would have suggested “selecting the child component,” “enlarging the
container component in response to selecting the child component” and
“displaying the enlarged container component in the display area such that
the child component is displayed within the boundaries of the container
component” (claim 3)?

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Underwood
1) Underwood discloses providing a universal interface for
managing content on large computer networks (col. 1, ll. 29-30), wherein a
template web page to be edited is displayed in a design area (col. 36, ll. 10-
11; Fig. 55A).

Appeal 2009-014703
Application 11/121,654

5
Underwood’s Figure 55A is reproduced below:

Underwood’s Figure 55A depicts the interface and functionality
of creating and editing a new web site provided by the Web
Definer module according to an embodiment of the invention (col.
10, ll. 52- 54).

2) Edit buttons allow the user to edit the cells (col. 36, ll. 27-28),
wherein a selected cell may be edited to change its dimensional ratio,
background color, vertical and horizontal alignments; its contents may be
cleared; or cells may be inserted adjacent to it (col. 36, ll. 31-35).
Cain
3) Cain discloses an Object Tree window which displays a
hierarchical tree listing the objects of the form (col. 17, ll. 7-9; Fig. 5A),
wherein the Object Tree demonstrates schematically that #Box3 is contained
Appeal 2009-014703
Application 11/121,654

6
within #Page1 (which in turn is contained within #Form 1) (col. 17, ll. 15-
21; Fig. 5B).
Bereiter
4) Bereiter discloses displaying a hierarchy within a primary display
window on the display screen when the user selects a node to be expanded
(Abstract), wherein a root 258 of the tree has spawned a first display
region/area having four subnodes 262, 264, 266, and 268 (col. 10, ll. 21-24;
Fig. 8A).
5) If the user then expands a subnode 262 or 266, the display region
270 or 272 is generated which may overlap one or more of the other
remaining subnodes in the parent frame 260 (col. 10, ll. 24-28; Fig. 8B-8C),
wherein the parent frame 260 is expanded along with the expanded subnodes
270 and 272 upon selection of subnodes 262 and 266 (Fig. 8C).

Appeal 2009-014703
Application 11/121,654

7
Bereiter’s Figures 8A -8C are reproduced below:

Bereiter’s Figures 8A-8C depict various display screens
generated as a user expands multiple nodes within the same
level of the tree hierarchy (col. 3, ll. 22-24).

VI. ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5
As for independent claim 1, though Appellant admits that
“Underwood depicts a template web page displayed in a design area 5510”
and “[a] user may select a portion o[f] the template to edit” (App. Br. 3),
Appeal 2009-014703
Application 11/121,654

8
Appellant contends that “the selected portion is not enlarged in response to
the selecting” (id.). The Examiner, however, finds that Underwood “teaches
selecting a table of a template and changing its dimensions” wherein
“selecting a table directs a user to a feature page (fig. 58) in which a user
may increase the width and height of a table, thereby enlarging said selected
table” (Ans. 5). The Examiner explains that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the
art would readily understand that changing the dimensions of a table
includes making said table larger” (id.).
To determine whether Underwood teaches “a container component
capable of being displayed in a first size” and “enlarging the container
component in response to the selecting, the container component enlarged to
a second size greater than the first size” as required by claim 1, we give
“first size” and “enlarging” their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the Specification. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324
(Fed. Cir. 2004). Claim 1 does not specify as to what a “first size” is to be,
include or represent other than that the container component is capable of
being displayed in such first size. Similarly, claim 1 does not define the
term “enlarging” other than that the container is “enlarged to a second size
greater than the first size [that it is capable of being displayed].”
Thus, we broadly but reasonable interpret “first size” as any size in
which a container component is able to be displayed and, thus, define
“second size” as any size that is greater than a size in which container
component is able to be displayed as specifically defined in claim 1.
Accordingly, we define “enlarging” as producing a container component of
Appeal 2009-014703
Application 11/121,654

9
any size that is greater than a size, such as the smallest size, in which
container component is able to be displayed in response to the selecting.
Underwood discloses displaying a template in a design area (FF 1),
wherein a selected cell may be edited to change its dimensions (FF 2). We
find Underwood to disclose a container component that is able to be
displayed in any size, including a smallest size. Thus, in view of the claim
interpretation above, we find Underwood to disclose a “container component
capable of being displayed in a first size” as required by claim 1.
Further, since Underwood’s cell may be changed, we find Underwood
to disclose a displayed cell that is produced upon selection with a size
greater than the smallest size in which the cell is able to be displayed. Thus,
we find that Underwood discloses “a second size greater than the first size”
as required by claim 1. That is, upon selection, a displayed cell is produced
that is larger than “the first size.” In view of our claim interpretation above,
we find Underwood to also disclose “enlarging the container component in
response to the selecting, the container component enlarged to a second size
greater than the first size” as required by claim 1.
We thus find no error with the Examiner’s finding claim 1 anticipated
by Underwood. Since Appellant does not provide arguments for claims 2, 4,
and 5 separate from those of claim 1, claims 2, 4, and 5 fall with claim 1.
Claims 3 and 6
As to independent claim 3, Appellant contends that “Figures 8A
through 8C of Bereiter fail to disclos[e] enlarging of a container as recited
by Claim 3” because “[s]election of element 266 as depicted in Figure 8C
results in display of element 272 outside of the boundaries of element 266,
Appeal 2009-014703
Application 11/121,654

10
not ‘within the boundaries of the container component[’] as recited by Claim
3” (App. Br. 4-5). However, the Examiner points out that “Appellant
confuses element 266 with the container element [of Bereiter]” since, in
Bereiter, “the element that contains element 272 is represented by the box
surrounding element 270 and 272” wherein “[s]aid box is clearly labeled as
element 260 of figure 8A” (Ans. 6). Thus, the Examiner finds that “Bereiter
clearly teaches” such features of claim 3 (id.).
Cain discloses displaying a hierarchical list of visual components
capable of being displayed in a design area (FF 3). Furthermore, Bereiter
discloses displaying a hierarchy within a primary display window on the
display screen that allows a user to select a node to be expanded (FF 4),
wherein, if the user then expands a subnode, the parent frame is expanded
along with the expanded subnode (FF 5). That is, Bereiter discloses
selecting a subnode, expanding the parent frame when selecting the subnode
and displaying the enlarged parent frame such that the subnode is displayed
within the parent frame. Accordingly, we find Cain in view of Bereiter at
the least suggests “selecting the child component,” “enlarging the container
component in response to selecting the child component” and “displaying
the enlarged container component in the display area such that the child
component is displayed within the boundaries of the container component”
as required by claim 3.
Though Appellant argues that “Figures 8A through 8C of Bereiter fail
to disclos[e] enlarging of a container as recited by Claim 3” (App. Br. 4), as
the Examiner points out, “Appellant confuses element 266 with the container
element [of Bereiter]” since, in Bereiter, “the element that contains element
Appeal 2009-014703
Application 11/121,654

11
272 is represented by the box surrounding element 270 and 272” wherein
“[s]aid box is clearly labeled as element 260 of figure 8A” (Ans. 6). That is,
though Appellant is correct in that element 266 in Figures 8A-8C of Bereiter
does not expand, the Examiner finds claim 3’s “container component” to
read to Bereiter’s parent frame 260, wherein the “container component” is
expanded upon selection of subnodes 262 and 266 (FF 5).
We thus find no error with the Examiner’s finding claim 3 obvious
over Cain in view of Bereiter. Since Appellant does not provide arguments
for claim 6 separate from those of claim 3, claim 6 falls with claim 3.

VI. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) and of claims 3 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

peb