Ex Parte Fildebrandt

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 5, 2011

10793108 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 5, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte ULF FILDEBRANDT
_____________________

Appeal 2009-013683
Application 10/793,108
Technology Center 2100
_____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-013683
Application 10/793,108
2

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-35. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This invention is drawn to a method, computer program product and
system for providing and using design time support for application elements.
An extension point is provided to receive a definition of a user interface
element to be included in an application. Additional extension points are
provided which are operable to receive additional support items, such as
rendering information, independently of the receipt of the initial definition of
the user interface element. Abstract.
Claim 13, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
13. A computer-implemented method of developing applications in an
integrated development environment, the method comprising:

specifying for a user interface element one or more properties and a data
type for each of the one or more properties wherein the one or more
properties and the data type are specified external to said integrated
development environment;

receiving the one or more properties and the data type for each of the one or
more properties in a first extension point of the integrated development
environment;

specifying rendering information to be used with said user interface element,
wherein the rendering information is specified external to said integrated
development environment;

receiving the rendering information in a second extension point of the
integrated development environment independently of and subsequent to
Appeal 2009-013683
Application 10/793,108

3

receiving the one or more properties and the data type for each of the one or
more properties; and

integrating the user interface element into an application in said integrated
development environment, wherein integrating the user interface element
includes:
if the one or more properties and the data type have been received in
said first extension point and if the rendering information has not been
received in said second extension point, then rendering the user
interface element in a preview area in said integrated development
environment using default rendering information; and

if the one or more properties and the data type have been received in
said first extension point and the rendering information has been
received in said second extension point, then rendering the user
interface element in a preview area in said integrated development
environment using the rendering information received in the second
extension point, if rendering information has been specified.

The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Timbol US 6,237,135 B1 May 22, 2001

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Timbol. Ans. 3-15. 1
The Examiner finds that Timbol discloses a method that allows a user
to define a user interface element in a first extension point within an
integrated development environment and, independently of receiving that
definition, receive rendering information and modification information

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Reply Brief filed July 1, 2009, the
Appeal Brief filed February 27, 2009 and the Examiner’s Answer mailed
May 7, 2009.
Appeal 2009-013683
Application 10/793,108

4

subsequently at a second and third extension point. The Examiner also finds
that Timbol discloses a display system for displaying the user interface
element as initially defined, and as subsequently modified. Ans. 3-15.
Appellant argues that Timbol fails to disclose multiple extension
points within an integrated development environment, but rather only
discloses that a user can install a third-party component in a development
environment, and “provides no disclosure on how the installation is done.”
App. Br. 10. Appellant also urges that Timbol fails to disclose rendering a
user interface element utilizing default rendering information before the
receipt of rendering information. Id. at 15-16.
Appellant argues that all of the development of “Java beans” within
Timbol takes place entirely inside an integrated development environment,
and that Timbol lacks any disclosure of adding multiple “components”
across multiple extension points from outside the development environment.
Reply Br. 4-5.

ISSUE
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1-35 as anticipated by Timbol by finding that Timbol discloses a method and
system for permitting a user to define a user interface element at a first
extension point in a development environment and subsequently receive
rendering data and modification information at a second and third extension
point?

Appeal 2009-013683
Application 10/793,108

5

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
35 U.S.C. § 102
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art
reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a
claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm.
Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375-76 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).
Anticipation of a patent claim requires a finding that the claim
at issue ‘reads on’ a prior art reference. In other words, if
granting patent protection on the disputed claim would allow
the patentee to exclude the public from practicing the prior art,
then that claim is anticipated, regardless of whether it also
covers subject matter not in the prior art.

Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
(internal citations omitted).
However, “[a] reference does not fail as an anticipation merely
because it does not contain a description of the subject matter of the
appealed claim in ipsissimis verbis.” In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 1090
(CCPA 1978) (citing In re Schaumann, 572 F.2d 312, 317 (CCPA 1978).

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Appellant’s disclosure teaches adding multiple components of a
user interface element across multiple “extension points” where
“extension points” are defined by the Appellant as “interfaces in a
development environment (e.g., in a tool in the development
environment) to which plug-ins or other extension modules can be
Appeal 2009-013683
Application 10/793,108

6

attached in order to enhance the functionality of the development
environment.” Spec. 11, ¶ [0042].2
2. Timbol teaches a development system allowing developers to
create Java Bean-compatible components which, once created, can
be placed in the user’s current project and subsequently modified
by adding or modifying properties of the bean. Col. 4, lines 6
through 65.
3. Timbol teaches that in certain “Visual” development environments,
a user may “paint” an object on one or more forms, and then the
attributes and properties of those objects may be modified. Col. 3,
lines 24 through 27.
4. Timbol teaches that component palette 264 displays available
components which include all visible parts of an application. Col.
8, lines 64 through 66.

ANALYSIS
Appellant’s contention that Timbol fails to disclose adding multiple
aspects of components from outside the development environment utilizing
“extension points” (Reply Br. 2-5) is not persuasive. Nothing within the
claims on appeal requires that the definition of components, rendering
information or specifications for modifying a component must be added
from outside the development environment.

2 Although Appellant does generally define “extension point” in his
Specification, we note the absence of any detailed written description of
first, second or third extension points or any illustration of such within the
figures as required by 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a)
Appeal 2009-013683
Application 10/793,108

7

Appellant argues that Timbol fails to disclose receiving a definition
or one or more properties and a data type for each of the one or more
properties for a user interface element at a first extension point of an
integrated development environment, while receiving rendering information
or specifications for modifying the user interface element at a second or
third extension point. However, we are persuaded by the Examiner’s
position that the Java Bean Wizard (dialog) 300, which permits a user to
initially define a component (Java Bean), constitutes an “interface in a
development environment,” as defined by Appellant, sufficient to anticipate
a first extension point at which definition of the user interface element is
received. Ans. 19. Similarly, we adopt the Examiner’s position that
Property Designer Interface 450 constitutes a second “interface in a
development environment” which could also be invoked a third time. Id. at
16. We note that Timbol also discloses a BeanInfo Designer 600 (Fig. 6)
which, in our opinion, constitutes yet another “interface in a development
environment.”
We adopt the Examiner’s position (Ans. 19) that Timbol teaches
integrating a user interface element into the integrated development
environment as soon as it is defined, as described at Column 11, lines 15
through 18, wherein Timbol teaches “[i]n response to the foregoing input
[initial Java Bean definition], the system creates a Java Bean with the name
the user specified, places it in the user’s current project, and displays the
source code generated for the bean.”
Finally, we concur with the Examiner’s observation (Ans. 20-21) that
Timbol describes the ability to display a defined Java Bean with initial or
default rendering information which may be updated with modified
Appeal 2009-013683
Application 10/793,108

8

rendering information and displayed again. See Findings of Fact 3 and 4
above.
We therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13 as
anticipated by Timbol under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and dependent claim 14 for
similar reasons. Claims 1-12, claims 15-23, and claims 24-35 are argued
separately by Appellant. We have reviewed those arguments and note that
those arguments are based upon variations in the type of data applied to each
of several extension points and the ability of the claimed invention to display
the user interface element initially and at various intermediate stages in
development. App. Br. 11-17. Given the lack of detailed description of
“extension points” within Appellant’s specification and our adoption of the
Examiner’s findings regarding the display within Timbol of a Java Bean at
various stages of development, we are unpersuaded by those arguments and
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of those claims for the reasons noted above.

CONCLUSION
Under § 102, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-35 as
anticipated by Timbol.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-35 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action on connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. §1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Appeal 2009-013683
Application 10/793,108

9

llw