Ex Parte Gartner et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJan 11, 201010926661 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 11, 2010) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation