Ex Parte GardnerDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesAug 17, 201010352196 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 17, 2010) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE __________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES __________ Ex parte STEVE GARDNER __________ Appeal 2009-010298 Application 10/352,196 Technology Center 2100 __________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, STEPHEN C. SIU, and JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges. SIU, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision. Appeal 2009-010298 Application 10/352,196 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was conducted on August 11, 2010. The Invention The disclosed invention relates generally to a user interface for a bioinformatics system (Spec. 1). Independent claim 1 is as follows: 1. A user interface comprising: a control panel that provides a user access to at least one of: a data sources portion that allows a user to select a type of data for which to search and to select a data source in which to search for said type of data, thereby enabling the user to receive a search result, a processes portion that allows a user to select a process to run against said search result, thereby enabling the user to receive a process result, and a results portion that presents at least one of said search result and said process result; a display panel that presents the user with at least one of said search result and said process result; and an explorer panel that presents the user with a hierarchical representation of at least one of said search result and said process result. The Reference The Examiner relies upon the following reference as evidence in support of the rejection: Li US 5,911,138 Jun. 8, 1999 Appeal 2009-010298 Application 10/352,196 3 The Rejection The Examiner rejects claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Li. ISSUE Appellant asserts that Li fails to disclose “a user selecting either a type of data or a data source for the selected data type” (App. Br. 6) or “‘a processes portion that allows a user to select a process to run against said search result’” (App. Br. 7). Did the Examiner err in finding that Li discloses at least one of a data sources portion that allows a user to select a type of data and data source and a process portion that allows a user to select a process? FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Facts (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. 1. Li discloses a user who “clicks on the query window 101 and is prompted for the name of the query statement” (col. 5, ll. 44-45) and “chooses the system default, Query1, 104 which includes search statements” (col. 5, ll. 45-46). 2. Li discloses a “graphical user interface (GUI)” (col. 4, ll. 59-60). In one example, a user “includes search statements for price and store location . . . [and] fills in the query parameters to find out how many Appeal 2009-010298 Application 10/352,196 4 units have sold at a high price (>$20) at a particular store” (col. 5, ll. 46-49). 3. Li discloses a query statement from a user that selects data from a “CD_Sales” database that match a desired price and name (Fig. 3A, query window). 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 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). ANALYSIS As described above, Li discloses a user who selects a query in a displayed window, the query including a data source (e.g., a database by the name of “CD_Sales”) from which to search data (FF 1-3). In addition, the user’s selection in Li includes a type of data which, in the example disclosed, includes data of a particular name or within a certain desired range (FF 3). Because the user, by selecting a desired query, selects a data source (e.g., a database named “CD_Sales”) and specific “data types” (e.g., data within a certain range or of a particular name) associated with the Appeal 2009-010298 Application 10/352,196 5 selected query, we agree with the Examiner that Li discloses selecting a data source and a data type. Appellant argues that “in Li there is only one data source” (Reply Br. 2). However, even assuming Appellant’s contention to be true, claim 1 merely requires selection of a data source but does not require more than one data source. In any event, the user in the Li system selects a query and a data source associated with that selected query, as described above. Appellant also contends that “there is not even an option for the user [in Li] to select a data source” (Reply Br. 2). We understand Appellant to argue that Li does not disclose a data sources portion that allows a user to separately select a data source. Appellant’s argument, however, is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. As set forth above, the user in Li selects a query which contains a particular data source (and data type to be searched). By selecting a query that contains a particular data source and data type, the user in Li also selects the particular data source and data type that are included in the query. While Appellant argues that the “assertion that by selecting a query, the user in Li is selecting a data source and a type of data constitutes legal error” (Reply Br. 7), Appellant fails to indicate how the user in Li selecting a data source and data types within a selected query differs from the claim limitation of selection of a data source and a data type. Appellant further argues that “Li also fails to disclose ‘a processes portion that allows a user to select a process to run against said search result,’ as recited in claim 1” (App. Br. 6). Claim 1 does not specifically Appeal 2009-010298 Application 10/352,196 6 require a “processes portion.” Rather, claim 1 merely requires “at least one of: a data sources portion . . . a process portion . . . and a results portion” (App. Br. 9, Claims Appx.) which means that either a data source portion, a process portion, or a results portion is required (i.e., only one of the data source portion, process portion, or results portion is required). As described above, we agree with the Examiner that Li discloses the claimed “data source portion.” Therefore, we do not reach Appellant’s arguments pertaining to the “processes portion” of claim 1. For at least the aforementioned reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. CONCLUSION OF LAW Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding that Li discloses at least one of a data sources portion that allows a user to select a type of data and data source and a process portion that allows a user to select a process. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). 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)(iv). Appeal 2009-010298 Application 10/352,196 7 AFFIRMED msc ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. Intellectual Property Department P.O. Box 10064 MCLEAN, VA 22102-8064 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation