Ex Parte Gartner et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 11, 2010

10926661 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 11, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte JASON MICHAEL GARTNER and
MARK MAURICE MEZOFENYI
__________

Appeal 2009-006062
Application 10/926,661
Technology Center 2100
__________

Decided: January 11, 2010
__________

Before LEE E. BARRETT, STEPHEN C. SIU, and
DEBRA K. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2009-006062
Application 10/926,661

2
Invention
The invention relates to accessibility testing for data processing
system programs (Spec. 1, ll. 4-5). A data processing system identifies at
least one user interface object of the data processing system program (id.,
ll. 17-21). The system then examines an accessibility description in the
object (id., ll. 21-22). Using this accessibility description, the system
determines whether the object satisfies accessibility criteria (id.). Finally,
the system outputs the result of this determination (Spec. 1, l. 22 to Spec. 2,
l. 1). These steps automate a process for testing whether a software program
is accessible to all individuals irregardless of any disabilities (Spec. 1,
ll. 8-13).
Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A data processing system implemented method of testing
accessibility of a data processing system program according to
accessibility criteria, the data processing system program
comprising a plurality of objects, at least one object of the
plurality of objects usable as a user interface between the data
processing system program and a user, the data processing
system implemented method comprising:
identifying the at least one object of the data processing
system program pertaining to the user interface;
determining if the identified at least one object satisfies
the accessibility criteria by examining an accessibility
description for the identified at least one object; and
outputting results of the determining.
Appeal 2009-006062
Application 10/926,661

3
References
The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence in
support of the rejection:
Lakis US 5,864,865 Jan. 26, 1999
Chan US 6,505,300 B2 Jan. 7, 2003
Poston US 7,080,059 B1 Jul. 18, 2006
Rejections
Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lakis and Poston.
Claims 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lakis, Poston, and Chan.
ISSUE 1
Appellants argue that “[t]he claim language does not condition the
outputting of the results of the determining on the actual value of the results
of the determining” (App. Br. 15).
Issue: Did Appellants demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding
that Appellants’ claims encompass non-statutory subject matter?
ISSUE 2
Appellants argue that “Lakis fails to disclose or suggest identifying
the at least one object of the data processing system program pertaining to
Appeal 2009-006062
Application 10/926,661

4
the user interface” (App. Br. 20). “Poston . . . is unrelated to accessibility
criteria and examining an accessibility description of the object” (id. at 21).
Issue: Did Appellants demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding
that the Lakis and Poston references teach or suggest identifying an object of
a data processing system program pertaining to a user interface and
determining if the identified object satisfies accessibility criteria by
examining an accessibility description of the object?
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
1. Appellants disclose that
[s]oftware programs are being developed to take into
consideration accessibility to the program for all
individuals regardless of any disabilities. To provide a
standard against which accessibility can be determined,
accessibility checklists containing accessibility standards
have been created. The accessibility of a software
program is tested against these accessibility checklists.
In the case of Java-based software programs this testing
is often performed by a manual process using standard
accessibility programs.
(Spec. 1, ll. 8-13) (Background of the Invention).
2. Appellants disclose that “[t]he classes on which the
[claimed] objects are based include classes that are used to
create various components of the user interface (e.g. button,
scroll bar, etc.)” (Spec. 5, ll. 15-17).
Appeal 2009-006062
Application 10/926,661

5
3. Lakis teaches that
[i]n [an] SNMP [Simple Network Management Protocol]
environment, a[n] MIB [Management Information Base]
listing defines the objects which are implemented in an
SNMP agent. Objects typically are described in terms of
attributes, such as an object name, an object identifier, an
object syntax, an object access, an object status, and an
object description. This is conventionally referred to as
Abstract Syntax Notation one (ASN.1). The word
objects, as used herein, refers to scalar objects, group
objects, table objects, objects which compose a sequence,
or rows of a table object, trap objects and other entities
defined in ASN.1 syntax as objects.
(Col. 4, ll. 2-12).
4. Lakis teaches that
MIB [Management Information Base] viewer 22 allows
selection by a user of the various types of object names to
display, such as the names of scalar objects, group
objects, table objects, and trap objects, via buttons 32, 34,
36 and 38, respectively. Upon user selection of a
particular child object name in list box 40, such as object
name 42, MIB viewer 22 displays in list box 44 the
attribute information associated with the object
corresponding to that object name.
(Col. 6, ll. 26-33).
5. Poston teaches that “[w]hen a user enters a search query
including at least one Attribute, an object is tested to determine
whether it has Attributes of the Kind corresponding to the Kind
of the at least one specified Attribute before function testing is
performed” (Abstract, ll. 5-9).
Appeal 2009-006062
Application 10/926,661

6
6. Chan teaches that
[i]n the security descriptor of the object 72, the ACL 80
has a number of security IDs [identifiers] listed therein
along with the type of access allowed for each ID,
wherein “RO” indicates that read only access is allowed,
“WR” indicates read/write access and “SYNC” indicates
that synchronization access is allowed.
(Col. 11, ll. 39-45).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claim interpretation
“In the patentability context, claims are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretations.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed.
Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). A claim meaning is reasonable if one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim, read in light of the
specification, to encompass the meaning. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Any special meaning assigned
to a term “must be sufficiently clear in the specification that any departure
from common usage would be so understood by a person of experience in
the field of the invention.” Multiform Desiccants Inc. v. Medzam Ltd., 133
F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Patentable subject-matter
Claimed inventions must have substantial and specific utility. “[T]o
satisfy the ‘substantial’ utility requirement, an asserted use must show that
that claimed invention has a significant and presently available benefit to the
Appeal 2009-006062
Application 10/926,661

7
public.” In re Fisher, 421 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005). An application
must also “disclose a use which is not so vague as to be meaningless.” Id.
Obviousness
The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and
(3) the level of skill in the art. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17
(1966).
ANALYSIS
Issue 1
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, we will decide the
appeal with respect to issue 1 on the basis of claim 1 alone. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
The Examiner contends that the claimed outputting step is contingent
on the result of the determining step (Ans. 4). “[C]laim 1 has no further
processing after the if condition that is not met and, therefore[,] the claim is
incomplete and has no useful result” (id.). This finding is erroneous.
Reaching the Examiner’s result requires interpreting the claim as two
steps: (1) identifying an object and (2) outputting a result if the identified
object satisfies a test. However, this interpretation incorrectly combines
steps listed separately in the claims. The claims recite three separate steps:
(1) identifying an object, (2) determining if the object satisfies a test, and
(3) outputting the result of the test. A semi-colon separates each step. The
Appeal 2009-006062
Application 10/926,661

8
Examiner mistakenly discounts the importance of the semicolon separating
the second and third steps.
Contrary to the Examiner’s finding, Appellants’ claims include
always outputting a result. In some cases, the output shows a positive result
from the test. In other cases, the output shows a negative result. Thus,
Appellants’ claims express substantial and specific utility.
For at least these reasons, we find that Appellants have sustained the
requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or evidence persuasive of
error in the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1-30 with
respect to this issue.
Issue 2
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, we will decide the
appeal with respect to issue 2 on the basis of claim 1 alone. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
The Examiner improperly relies on Lakis to teach or suggest
identifying an object of a data processing system program pertaining to a
user interface (Ans. 7). Lakis teaches objects in an SNMP environment
(FF 3). MIB viewer users select objects, which the MIB viewer displays in a
user interface (FF 4). But this is insufficient.
It is not enough that the objects in Lakis pertain to the user MIB user
interface (Ans. 18). Appellants’ claimed object pertains to a user interface
because it is “at least one object of [a] plurality of objects usable as a user
interface between [a] data processing system program and a user” (claim 1)
(emphasis added). Examples of objects usable as a user interface include
Appeal 2009-006062
Application 10/926,661

9
buttons and scroll bars (FF 2). The objects of Lakis are scalars, groups,
tables, sequence components, table rows, traps, and other ASN.1 entities
(FF 3). The Examiner does not show how an ASN.1 entity is usable as a
user interface or how ASN.1 entities are similar to objects such as buttons
and scroll bars.
The Examiner finds that Poston teaches determining if an identified
object satisfies accessibility criteria by examining an accessibility
description of the object (Ans. 7). The Examiner’s finding is erroneous.
Poston teaches that a user enters a search query including an attribute
(FF 5). This attribute has a kind (id.). An object is tested to determine
whether the object has attributes with the same kind (id.). Yet, the Examiner
does not show that the object tested in Poston has an accessibility
description. Nor does the Examiner show that the search query teaches
accessibility criteria. Instead, the Examiner argues that “searching implicitly
and inherently involves accessing” (Ans. 19).
Reliance on the implicit and inherent concept of accessing stretches
the meaning of accessibility too far in light of the Specification. Here,
accessibility means whether the program can be accessed by “individuals
regardless of any disabilities” (FF 1). Accessibility in objects that are usable
as a user interface means that the objects accommodate users with
disabilities. The Examiner does not show how Poston’s objects can be used
as a user interface. Therefore, the Examiner has not shown that the
attributes of Poston’s objects include accessibility descriptions.
Furthermore, accessibility criteria must relate to determining whether an
Appeal 2009-006062
Application 10/926,661

10
object usable as a user interface accommodates users with disabilities.
Poston’s search criteria relate to attributes having a kind (FF 5). Therefore,
Poston does not teach or suggest testing objects based on accessibility
criteria.
The Examiner does not show that the objects of either Lakis or Poston
are usable as user interfaces or contain accessibility descriptions. Therefore,
Lakis and Poston do not cure each others’ deficiencies. Furthermore, Chan
relates to security (FF 6), not accessibility of objects usable as user
interfaces. Therefore, Chan also does not cure the deficiencies of Lakis and
Poston.
For at least these reasons, we find that Appellants have sustained the
requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or evidence persuasive of
error in the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1-30.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
Appellants have demonstrated:
1. that the Examiner erred in finding that Appellants’ claims
encompass non-statutory subject-matter (Issue 1); and
2. that the Examiner erred in finding that the Lakis and Poston
references teach or suggest identifying an object of a data processing system
program pertaining to a user interface and determining if the identified
object satisfies accessibility criteria by examining an accessibility
description of the object (Issue 2).
Appeal 2009-006062
Application 10/926,661

11
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decisions rejecting claims 1-30 under 35
U.S.C. § 101 and rejecting claims 1-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

REVERSED

msc

SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON DC 20037