Ex Parte Glein et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 30, 201311320668 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte CHRISTOPHER A. GLEIN, DAVID ETHAN ZOLLER, DAVID R. FULMER, FRANCIS M. HOGLE, JOHN E. ELSBREE, MARK J. FINOCCHIO, and MICHAEL E. CREASY ____________ Appeal 2011-005679 Application 11/320,668 Technology Center 2100 ____________ ERRATUM The Decision on Appeal for the above identified application mailed on August 30, 2013, contains a typographical error. The Decision incorrectly lists on page 1 the authoring judge as “SNEDDEN, Administrative Patent Judge.” Page 1 is changed to list the authoring judge as “JENKS, Administrative Patent Judge.” A corrected Decision reflecting this change is attached. All other portions of this Decision remain unchanged. Any time periods established by the original Decision, mailed August 30, 2013, also remain unchanged. If there any questions pertaining to this Erratum, please contact the Patent Trial and Appeal Board at 571-272-9797. UWJ/cdc UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte CHRISTOPHER A. GLEIN, DAVID ETHAN ZOLLER, DAVID R. FULMER, FRANCIS M. HOGLE, JOHN E. ELSBREE, MARK J. FINOCCHIO, and MICHAEL E. CREASY ____________ Appeal 2011-005679 Application 11/320,668 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before FRANCISCO C. PRATS, ULRIKE W. JENKS, and SHERIDAN K. SNEDDEN, Administrative Patent Judges. JENKS, Administrative Patent Judge DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a method of generating a graphical user interface. The Patent Examiner has rejected the claims as anticipated. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellants state that the real party in interest is Microsoft Corporation. (App. Br. 2.) Appeal 2011-005679 Application 11/320,668 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Specification provides that: [D]evelopers write code associated with data interactions and transformation, and designers write code associated with display and layout of elements or data on the graphical user interface. The designers and developers communicate frequently about the visual aspects of the graphical user interface because the underlying data may drastically affect the layout of elements on the graphical user interface. The delays associated with the communications between designers and developers may increase the cost associated with generating the graphical user interface of an application. Furthermore, the graphical user interface for the applications designed utilizing conventional methods are not reusable by remote applications that communicate with the applications. (Spec., 1: ¶0003.) Claims 1-16 and 18-20 are on appeal, and can be found in the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 18-22). Claims 1, 6, and 13 are illustrative of the claims on appeal, and read as follows (emphasis added): 1. A computer-implemented method to generate a graphical user interface, the method comprising: generating a plurality of graphical user interfaces (GUIs) based upon a respective plurality of application programming interfaces (APIs), wherein some of said GUIs are associated with a plurality of primary applications and others of said GUIs are associated with a plurality of third party applications; receiving a declarative description defining a collection of elements utilized by each of said plurality of GUIs; parsing the declarative description to detect rules associated with the collection of elements, wherein the rules are utilized to manipulate the elements of each of said plurality of GUIs, and wherein the rules represent logic that controls a state of each of said plurality of GUIs; utilizing said APIs to coordinate concurrent communication and display of said plurality of GUIs associated Appeal 2011-005679 Application 11/320,668 3 with said respective plurality of primary and third party applications; and rendering multimedia content of said plurality of primary and third party applications via said APIs for display on a display device, wherein said plurality of APIs control a layout and data associated with each respective said plurality of GUIs. 6. A computer-implemented method to generate a graphical user interface for a secondary application, the method comprising: receiving a declarative page from a secondary application, wherein the declarative page includes a description of a view that defines the behavior of elements included on the graphical user interface and provides control of the layout, animation, painting, and multimedia integration, and wherein the secondary application is designed to interface with a primary application through an application program interface; parsing the declarative page to determine where graphical user interface elements should be generated; utilizing the application program interface to coordinate concurrent communication and display the graphical user interface associated with each of the primary and the secondary applications; and rendering multimedia content of the primary and the secondary applications for display on a display device, wherein the application program interface controls a layout and data of the graphical user interface. 13. A computer readable medium having an application program interface for generating graphical user interfaces, the application program interface comprising: a model to represent values for elements on a graphical user interface, wherein the model provides the logic behind the graphical user interfaces and services that enable communications between the model and a view; Appeal 2011-005679 Application 11/320,668 4 said view to define the behavior of the elements included on the graphical user interface, wherein the view utilizes rules to control the elements on the graphical user interface, and wherein the view provides control of the layout, animation, painting, and multimedia integration; and a renderer to display the combined elements based on the model and the view. The Examiner has rejected claims 1-16 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Dewa.2 I. The Issue: Anticipation Does the preponderance of the evidence of record support the Examiner’s finding that Dewa anticipates the claims? Findings of Fact FF 1. Dewa disclosed: [A] display controlling method that can easily generate various interface displays. A user generates a program including: nodes n1 to n9, for example, each serving as a data group indicating a static attribute of a link to referential data or actual referential data and each serving as a constitutive unit of a drawing; and views v1 to v4, for example, each serving as a data group for specifying the node carrying out the drawing and a drawing style on a screen of the node, and in accordance with the program, the view is automatically selected, and an image corresponding to the node specified by the selected view is displayed on a screen in the drawing style specified by the view. (Dewa, Abstract; Ans. 4, 5, 13.) 2 Yoshiharu Dewa et al., US 2002/0122047 Al, published Sep. 5, 2002. Appeal 2011-005679 Application 11/320,668 5 FF 2. Dewa disclosed “a display controlling method, a program and a display controlling apparatus, which can easily carry out centralized management of menu screens or the like for a plurality of electronic apparatuses.” (Dewa, 1: ¶ 0010; Ans. 11.) FF 3. Dewa disclosed: [A] display controlling method . . . carries out a process in which a view is selected and an image corresponding to a node specified by the selected view is processed in the drawing style specified by the view. This view selection is done based on a program including a plurality of nodes each serving as a data group indicating a static attribute of a link to referential data or actual referential data and each serving as a constitutive unit for a drawing; and a plurality of views each serving as a data group for specifying: the node carrying out the drawing and a drawing style corresponding to the node. (Dewa, 1: ¶ 0012; Ans. 5, 9, 10, 12.) FF 4. Dewa disclosed that “the display controller 52 shown in FIG. 5 generates the display information to display the image corresponding to the node specified by the view selected by the view selector 51, in accordance with the tree structure information, on the GUI screen in the drawing style specified by the view.” (Dewa, 5: ¶ 0097; Ans. 11.) FF 5. Dewa disclosed that: [A]part from the node for specifying the link to the referential data or the actual referential data, the concept of the view serving as the data group for specifying the node carrying out the drawing and the drawing style on the screen of the node is introduced. In addition, based on the program including (describing) the view, the views are selected in sequence in order to, accordingly, displaying the image corresponding to the node. As a result, the user can easily generate various interface displays. Appeal 2011-005679 Application 11/320,668 6 (Dewa, 1: ¶ 0013.) FF 6. The Specification provides that “third-party applications may utilize the application-programming interfaces to generate graphical user interfaces that have the ‘look and feel’ of a primary application.” (Spec., 4: ¶ 0014.) FF 7. The Specification provides that “third party applications . . . such as, remote or add-in applications that increase the functionality associated with [the] primary application. . . . The third-party application 122 may be stored locally on the client device 130 or remotely on the server device 150.” (Spec., 5: ¶ 0018.) Principle of Law “[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In order for a prior art reference to serve as an anticipatory reference, it must disclose every limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). To anticipate, every element and limitation of the claimed invention must be found in a single prior art reference, arranged as in the claim. Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Analysis With respect to claims 1, 2, 4, and 5, Appellants contend that “Dewa is completely silent regarding some GUIs associated with primary applications and other GUIs associated with third party applications” (App. Appeal 2011-005679 Application 11/320,668 7 Br. 11), and that “a third party application implies that the application is provided or offered by an entity other than the primary application entity.” (Reply Br. 5.) The Examiner takes the position that Dewa disclosed the use of a third party application. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Dewa disclosed that: [S]ome GUIs associated with primary applications and other GUIs associated with third party applications (such as, a user performs operation of a menu screen of an application program currently in execution through a keyboard, a mouse and/or the like (primary applications) so that execution of another, new application program, such as, a process in which a view is selected and an image corresponding to a node specified by the selected view is processed in the drawing style specified by the view (third party applications), paragraph [0012]. (Ans. 8-9.) We agree with the Appellants’ position. “[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The Examiner appears to interpret “third party” or “third party application” to be “a user [that] performs operation of a menu screen of an application program currently in execution through a keyboard, a mouse and/or the like (primary applications)” (Ans. 8-9). Although claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation during examination proceedings, this interpretation should be consistent with the Specification. Here, the Specification provides that third-party applications are applications, such as remote or add-on applications, that increase the functionality of the primary application (FF7). Additionally, the Specification provides that the third-party application is stored on a device (id.). The term third-party application in the Specification is consistent with Appeal 2011-005679 Application 11/320,668 8 Appellants’ argument that a third-party application is offered by an entity that is different from the primary application (Reply Br. 5). Because a third- party application can be stored on a device, we find the Examiner’s interpretation of “a user” as a third party is unreasonable in light of the Specification. Accordingly we interpret a third-party application to be a program that can be used to further the functionality of a primary application. The Examiner is relying on paragraph [0012] of Dewa as providing support for the use of third-party applications. The Examiner asserts that “a node specified by the selected view is processed in the drawing style specified by the view (third party applications)” (Ans. 8-9; FF 2). Paragraph ¶ 0012 provides that the view selection is done based on “a program including a plurality of nodes each serving as a data group indicating a static attribute of a link to referential data or actual referential data and each serving as a constitutive unit for a drawing” (FF 3). We find that the Examiner has not adequately explained how the referential data is necessarily associated with a third-party application or a plurality of third- party applications. The “very essence of inherency is that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a reference unavoidably teaches the property in question.” Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc., 567 F.3d 1366, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (emphasis added). Because the Examiner has not adequately explained how Dewa meets the claimed limitation that “GUIs are associated with a plurality of primary applications and others of said GUIs are associated with a plurality of third party applications,” we reverse the rejection with respect to independent claim 1. We are not persuaded that the preponderance of evidence on this record as explained by Appeal 2011-005679 Application 11/320,668 9 the Examiner supports a finding that Dewa teaches Appellants’ claimed invention. The rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Dewa is reversed. With respect to claims 6-11, Appellants contend that “Dewa does not describe the cited features of a secondary application designed to interface with a primary application through an application program interface.” (Reply Br. 6.) Appellants contend that “Dewa does not describe a declarative page from a secondary application, which describes a view that defines the behavior of elements on the GUI and provides control of the layout, animation, painting, and multimedia integration.” (Id. at 7.) Additionally, Appellants concede that “Dewa possibly describes multimedia integration (¶¶ [0012-0013 and 0065-0067]), but is silent as to animation and painting.” (App. Br. 12.) The Examiner finds that “Dewa describe secondary application (such as, a user performs operation of a menu screen of an application program currently in execution through a keyboard, a mouse and/or the like (primary applications)” (Ans. 10). The Examiner relies on paragraphs ¶¶ 0012 and 0082 to show that Dewa provides control of the layout, animation, painting and multimedia integration (id.). We find that Appellants have the better position. Claim 6 requires a secondary application, and specifically requires receiving declarative page information about the secondary application that defines the behavior of the elements on the graphical user interface. As discussed above, we are not persuaded by the Examiner’s interpretation that third-party application can reasonably be interpreted to be a user of a primary application interface by use of a mouse or keyboard (FFs 6, 7). For similar reasons, we are not Appeal 2011-005679 Application 11/320,668 10 persuaded that a computer users’ use of the keyboard or mouse via the primary application interface can reasonably be interpreted to be a “secondary application” in view of the Specification. The Specification provides that “secondary applications utilize the application programming interfaces to extend the graphical user interfaces associated with a primary application. The secondary application may utilize the views and models of the primary application as a base to create complex graphical user interfaces having the look and feel of the primary application.” (Spec. 2: ¶ 0006.) Even though “secondary application” is not specifically defined in the Specification, the Specification does provide that the secondary applications utilize programing interfaces which implies that more than just a mouse or keyboard command may be involved. We are not persuaded that the combination of paragraphs ¶¶ 0012, 0013, 0065, 0066, 0067, 0082, and abstract (Ans. 5. 10) as relied on by the Examiner provides all the claim limitations. The Specification provides that “[d]eclarative descriptions define a collection of elements utilized by the graphical user interfaces” (Spec, 2: ¶0004). The Examiner has not explained how a user’s operation of a primary application through the use of a mouse or keyboard would meet the limitation of “receiving a declarative page from a secondary application” and how that information “provides control of the layout, animation, painting, and multimedia integration” as required by claim 6. We are therefore not persuaded that the preponderance of evidence on this record as explained by the Examiner supports a finding that Dewa teaches Appellants' claimed invention. The rejection of claims 6-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Dewa is reversed. Appeal 2011-005679 Application 11/320,668 11 With respect to claims 13-15 and 18, Appellants contend that “[e]ven if Dewa possibly describes a layout of a view, there is no animation and/or painting and/or multimedia integration in Dewa.” (Reply Br. 8; see also App. Br. 14.) The Examiner finds that claim 13 is similar in scope to claim 1 (Ans. 6). Additionally, the Examiner finds that the graphical user interface uses rules for “a display controlling method, a program and a display controlling apparatus, which can easily carry out centralized management of menu screens or the like for a plurality of electronic apparatuses, paragraph [0010]” (Ans. 11). The Examiner asserts that Dewa discloses animation and painting citing ¶ 0097 in support (id.). We find that Appellants have the better position. We are not persuaded by the Examiner’s contention that ¶ 0097 of Dewa provides for the animation and painting as claimed. The paragraph describes that the display controller generates information to display image corresponding to a particular view by the view selector (FF 4). We agree with the Appellants that the cited portions of Dewa are silent with respect to painting and animation. “[T]he examiner bears the initial burden . . . of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445. We find that the Examiner has not adequately explained how the cited portions of Dewa provide the limitation of “control of the layout, animation, painting, and multimedia integration” as required by claim 13. The Examiner has not explained how a data group for specifying the node carrying out the drawing and a drawing style corresponding to the node (FFs 1, 3, 4, 5) would necessarily control the animation and painting as required by claim 13. We are therefore not persuaded that the preponderance of evidence on this Appeal 2011-005679 Application 11/320,668 12 record as explained by the Examiner supports a finding that Dewa teaches Appellants’ claimed invention. The rejection of claims 13-16 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Dewa is reversed. SUMMARY We reverse the rejection of claims 1-16 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Dewa. REVERSED cdc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation