Ex Parte Fernando et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 27, 2012

10219222 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte JOSEPH P. FERNANDO, MEHUL Y. SHAH, and
ANTONIO W. FERNANDO

________________

Appeal 2010-004046
Application 10/219,222
Technology Center 2100
________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
JOHN G. NEW, Administrative Patent Judges.

NEW, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-004046
Application 10/219,222

2
SUMMARY
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 13-16, 18-25, 53, and 57, which stand rejected as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Austin (US
6,971,065 B2, November 29, 2005) (“Austin”) and Graser et al. (US
6,275,979 B1, August 14, 2001) (“Graser”). Claims 1-12, 17, 26-52, 54-56,
58, and 59 have been cancelled.
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Examiner rejected independent claim 13 and dependent claims
14-16, 18-25, 53, and 57 for substantially the same reasons. We therefore
select independent claim 13 as representative of the invention:

Claim 13. One or more computer-readable storage media
having computer-executable modules for implementing an
extensible application program framework, said modules
comprising:

one or more view extension objects accessible by an
application program associated with a first computing device,
said extension objects for extending functionality of the
application program having a first user interface upon request
by said application program and during execution of said
application program on the first computing device connected to
a communications network, said view extension objects
extending said functionality by defining a message type of a
communication message, said application program sending the
message having the defined message type via the
communications network to a corresponding view extension
object of at least one peer application executing on a second
computing device, said second computing device being
Appeal 2010-004046
Application 10/219,222

3
connected to the communications network, wherein the defined
message type has a structure associated therewith such that the
corresponding view extension object of the peer application is
adapted to render the communication message, wherein the
defined message type specifies a second user interface for
display by the peer application on the second computing device,
said second user interface corresponding to the first user
interface for display by the application program on the first
computing device, and wherein said request is initiated in
response to input from a user of the first computing device; and

an application manager module for execution on the first
computing device, said application manager module integrating
said extended functionality with said application program
during execution of said application program on the first
computing device, said application manager module integrating
said extended functionality with said application program in
response to the request from said application program, wherein
the view extension objects of the application program
communicate with the corresponding view extension object of
the peer application via at least one communication message
having the defined message type to transmit state information
associated with the first user interface to the second user
interface.

App. Br. 15-16.

ISSUES
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 13 as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Austin and Graser.
Specifically, the issues before us are based on Appellants’ arguments that
the Examiner erred with respect to three of the limitations of claim 13.
First, Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Austin and Graser teaches view extension objects that
extend functionality of an application program during execution of the
Appeal 2010-004046
Application 10/219,222

4
application program and integrate the extended functionality during
execution of the application program. App. Br. 6. Second, Appellants
contend that the Examiner erred in finding that Austin discloses or suggests
that the view extension objects extend functionality by defining a message
type of a communication message. App. Br. 8. Third, Appellants contend
that the Examiner erred in finding that Austin teaches view extension
objects that send messages to corresponding view extension objects of at
least one peer application executing on a different computing device. App.
Br. 9. Additionally, Appellants argue that the Examiner impermissibly
employed hindsight reconstruction to combine Austin with Graser. App.
Br. 10. We address each of these arguments in turn.

ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of
Austin and Graser teaches view extension objects that extend functionality
of an application program during execution of the application program and
integrating the extended functionality during execution of the application
program.

Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Austin and Graser teaches view extension objects that
extend functionality of an application program during execution of the
application program and integrate the extended functionality during
execution of the application program. App. Br. 6. According to
Appellants, nothing in Austin discloses adding view extension objects
which extend functionality of the application program to the application
program during execution (i.e., after compilation) of the application
program. App Br. 6-7. Furthermore, argue Appellants, Austin “fails to
Appeal 2010-004046
Application 10/219,222

5
teach view extension objects for extending the functionality of an
application program during execution of the application program and
integrating the extended functionality during execution of the application
program.” App. Br. 7 (emphases in original). Moreover, Appellant argue,
Graser is also silent with respect to the same limitation.
The Examiner points out that claim 13 does not recite “adding” a
view extension object. Ans. 12. Furthermore, the Examiner finds that the
limitation of claim 13 reciting “extending functionality of the application”
is disclosed or suggested by Austin’s adaptation of the graphic user
interface (“GUI”) to make use of a new GUI element providing the
application with new or different functionality. Ans. 13-14. The Examiner
further finds that making use of a “predetermined group of elements,” as
disclosed by Austin, does not represent a distinction over claim 13’s
recitation of “view extension objects accessible by an application program,”
because including the extension objects in an initial deployment of the
application, but not as a part of the application code, is one way of making
them “accessible” to the application. Ans. 14.
The Examiner also finds that, in at least one embodiment, Austin
discloses or suggests automatic selection and implementation of the GUI
element required for a particular data type, and automatic selection and
implementation during program execution. Ans. 12 (“[T]he decision of
which GUI element to include in the program’s GUI may be deferred until
the program is executed, or the GUI element may be changed to a new type
during program execution.” (citing Austin, col. 27, ll. 58-61)).
Finally, the Examiner finds that, although Graser does not explicitly
suggest or disclose extending a “view” or a GUI, the extension disclosed by
Appeal 2010-004046
Application 10/219,222

6
Graser applies to application objects in general. Ans. 16. Consequently,
the Examiner concluded that a combination of Graser and Austin disclosed
or suggested claim 13’s limitations reciting “view extension objects that
extend functionality of an application program during execution of the
application program” [and] “integrating said extended functionality with
said application program during execution of said application program. ”
We find the Examiner’s reasoning persuasive and adopt it as our
own. Consequently, the Examiner did not err in concluding that it would
have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the contemporary art to
combine the disclosures and suggestions of Austin and Graser to arrive at
the limitations of claim 13 reciting “view extension objects that extend
functionality of an application program during execution of the application
program” [and] “integrating said extended functionality with said
application program during execution of said application program.”

Issue 2: Whether the Examiner erred in finding that Austin discloses or
suggests that the view extension objects extend functionality by defining a
message type of a communication message.

Appellants argue that the Examiner erred because Austin fails to
teach view extension objects that both extend functionality during execution
and define a message type of a communication message as required by the
limitation of claim 13. App. Br. 8. Appellants contend that the DataSocket
components disclosed by Austin are separate components, operating in
separate layers of the system from the GUI elements. According to
Appellants, a GUI element and a DataSocket component cannot be
combined into a view extension object as claimed in the present application
Appeal 2010-004046
Application 10/219,222

7
if they are by Austin’s definition separate components. App. Br. 9.
Furthermore, Appellants argue, Austin fails to teach a view extension object
which defines a message type and sends a communications message having
the defined type to a corresponding extension object of a peer application.
Id.
The Examiner finds that the limitation in question only recites
“extending said functionality by defining a message type” and does not
recite any details identifying how this definition is provided. Ans. 17. The
Examiner further finds that Austin disclose or suggests that view extension
objects define a message type (col. 26, lines 15-19 “a protocol that supports
self-describing data”; col. 27, lines 5-20 “the configuration information for
the GUI block diagram element”) using a view extension object sub-
component (col. 27, lines 5-20 “a DataSocket node may be
programmatically connected to the GUI block diagram element”). Thus,
the Examiner finds that because the claims do not indicate how the
definition should be performed, Austin’s use of such a sub-component
meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
We find the Examiner’s reasoning persuasive and adopt it as our
own. Consequently, the Examiner did not err in concluding that it would
have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the contemporaneous art
to combine the disclosures and suggestions of Austin and Graser to arrive at
claim 13’s limitation reciting the “view extension objects extending said
functionality by defining a message type of a communication message.

Appeal 2010-004046
Application 10/219,222

8
Issue 3: Whether the Examiner erred in finding that Austin teaches view
extension objects that send messages to corresponding view extension
objects of at least one peer application executing on a different computing
device.

Appellants next argue that Austin teaches away from this limitation
of claim 13, because Austin describes a system in which separate control
programs each include elements that are designed to publish data to and
subscribe to data from a common data source/target such that if one of the
control programs changes the data in the data source, the second is updated
and vice versa. App. Br. 10. The control programs are thus unaware of one
another (i.e., do not send messages addressed to one another), which is in
direct contravention to aspects of the claims. Id.
The Examiner responds by stating that the claims make no mention
of “direct” communication or of the peers being “aware” of and addressing
messages to each other. Ans. 19. Accordingly, the claims do not exclude
the use of an intermediate structure (e.g. Austin’s “DataSocket server”)
when sending messages from/to corresponding view extension objects of at
least one peer application executing on a different computing device. Id.
Moreover, the Examiner finds that Austin does not disclose that the
“DataSocket” server is necessary for communication but is merely one
embodiment of the invention (See Austin, col. 31, lines 22-24 “the
coordination of data exchange between the writer and reader programs may
be implemented in any of various other ways”). Thus, the Examiner finds
that Austin does not actually teach away from the unclaimed direct
communication between the peer applications, but at most teaches one
embodiment using different communication methods while simultaneously
Appeal 2010-004046
Application 10/219,222

9
explicitly teaching that it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill to
use any other known methods. Id.
We find the Examiner’s reasoning persuasive and adopt it herein as
our own. Consequently, the Examiner did not err in concluding that it
would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
contemporaneous art to combine the disclosures and suggestions of Austin
and Graser to arrive at claim 13’s recitation of view extension objects that
send messages to corresponding view extension objects of at least one peer
application executing on a different computing device.

Issue 4: Whether the Examiner impermissibly employed hindsight to
combine Austin with Graser.

Finally, Appellants argue that the Examiner improperly used
hindsight reconstruction to combine Austin and Graser. App. Br. 11.
Appellants contend that Austin and Graser are not analogous art, but rather
solve unrelated problems. Id. Austin, according to Appellants, discloses an
application developer that defines an application by manipulating graphical
elements within an editor interface and which later compiles the defined
application into an executable application program. App. Br. 11-12. Graser
uses object-oriented programming to enable updates to an application
program framework which reduce the memory footprint of the application
program framework. App. Br. 12. Therefore, Appellants maintain, Austin
and Graser are non-analogous art. Id.
The Examiner asserts that implementing Austin's view extension
objects using, at least some of the techniques discussed in Graser would
result in a more efficient method, and that a person of ordinary skill in the
Appeal 2010-004046
Application 10/219,222

10
art would therefore have been motivated to combine their teachings and
would have produced only the expected results. Ans. 20, 21. The
Examiner also points to the Appellants’ brief, finding that Appellants in fact
contemplate the combination of Austin and Graser. Ans. 21-22 (citing App.
Br. 12; “Appellants submit that the framework of Graser could be applied to
the graphical programming environment of Austin to reduce the memory
footprint of Austin and improve the performance of Austin as asserted by
the Examiner”).
We find the Examiner’s reasoning persuasive and adopt it as our
own. Contrary to Appellants’ argument, the initial test for analogous art
inquires not only whether Austin or Graser address the same problem as the
claimed invention, but also whether they are both from the same field of
endeavor as the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed.
Cir. 2004). By Appellants own admission supra, Austin and Graser are
evidently both from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention.
We therefore conclude that the Examiner did not improperly apply
hindsight in combining Austin and Graser.

CONCLUSION
We conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 13-16,
18-25, 53, and 57 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Austin and
Graser.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 13-16, 18-25, 53, and 57 is
affirmed.
Appeal 2010-004046
Application 10/219,222

11
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010).

AFFIRMED

tj