Ex parte Hoose et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 29, 1999

08431397 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 29, 1999)

Application for patent filed April 28, 1995, entitled1
"Automatic Invocation Of Object During Data Entry In A Data
Processing System User Interface," which is a continuation of
Application 08/058,344, filed May 6, 1993.
- 1 -
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
_______________
Paper No. 22
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES

Ex parte BOB HOOSE
and WILLIAM J. JOHNSON

Appeal No. 1997-1274
Application 08/431,3971

ON BRIEF

Before HAIRSTON, BARRETT, and FRAHM, Administrative Patent
Judges.
BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal No. 1997-1274
Application 08/431,397
- 2 -
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellants request rehearing of our decision entered
September 3, 1999.
We have reconsidered our decision in light of Appellants'
arguments, but are not persuaded of any errors therein.
Therefore, we decline to make any changes in our prior
decision.
OPINION
Appellants argue that we overlooked or misapprehended
limitation d) of claims 1 and 11 in sustaining the
anticipation rejection of claims 1 and 11 over Davis. In
particular, Appellants argue that Davis does not teach
"determining if said second object is present on said user
interface . . .," as provided by limitation d). We stand by
our decision.
We interpreted the terms "object" and "location," as
applied to claim 1, as follows (Decision, page 4):
In terms of claim 1, a particular field (e.g., "alpha 1,"
"beta 1," etc.) in a category (e.g., category
"Outline/first") is an "object" and the category itself
(e.g., category "Outline/first" or "Outline/second") is
also an "object." Thus, going from field "alpha 1" to
"beta 1" in category "Outline/first" is a move from a
first object to a second object. Also, going from field
"alpha 1" in category "Outline/first," shown in figure
Appeal No. 1997-1274
Application 08/431,397
- 3 -
5h, to field "alpha 2" in category "Outline/second" in
figure 5i is a move from a first object (either field
"alpha 1" or category "Outline/first") to a second object
(either field "alpha 2" or category "Outline/second").
The "location" in the "object" is the position of the
cursor in the Edit window, e.g., the cursor (unnumbered)
in Edit Window 264 in figure 5i can be considered a
"second location" in a "second object." The Edit Window
is associated with the particular field (i.e., object) in
a particular category (also an object).
We addressed limitation d) as follows (Decision,
pages 9-10):
Nevertheless, we find that Davis discloses
limitations d) and e) for the reasons discussed with
respect to limitation c). First, hitting the TAB key to
move from one field to another is "receiving an input
from said user to move said cursor to a next location" as
recited in limitation c) and the system brings the next
field (the second object) to the user interface and
provides the cursor at the second location in the Edit
Window. This is basically the same as the admitted prior
art except that only one field appears on the screen in
Davis at a time. The user may enter data as recited in
limitation e). Second, selecting the "next category"
from the menu in figure 5h is "receiving an input from
said user to move said cursor to a next location" as
recited in limitation c) and the system brings the next
category (the second object) to the user interface and
provides the cursor at the second location as shown in
figure 5i. The user may enter data as recited in
limitation e)."
The screens shown in figure 5 of Davis are specific
examples of the "FORMS" objects in figure 3a. Each category
under "FORMS" is an object as indicated by the fact that it
has a separate block in figure 3a and each category (object)
Appeal No. 1997-1274
Application 08/431,397
- 4 -
is separately displayed on the user interface; e.g., figure 5g
shows the object category "Outline/first" and figure 5i shows
the object category "Outline/second." Each "FORMS" category
(object) has one or more "field" objects, e.g., Category 1 in
figure 3a has "!field 1" and "field 2," where the data field
is indicated by rectangles next to the field names. In Davis,
a category has all its fields displayed on the user interface,
e.g., "Outline/first" in figure 5g has fields "alpha 1,"
"beta 1," "gamma 1," and "!omega" all on the user interface.
Although we believe that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have recognized that if the list of fields (objects) was
longer, the system could scroll the field pointer 266 down the
list to fields (objects) which are not currently shown on the
interface and, thus, bring such fields (objects) to the user
interface, just as a user scrolls through a document in a word
processing program, such a finding is not part of the
rejection. When a FORM is filled out with specific
information it becomes one of the RECORDS in figure 3a.
When the TAB key is pressed to go to from a first field
(object) to a second field (object) within a category
(object), e.g., from field (object) "alpha 1" to field
Appeal No. 1997-1274
Application 08/431,397
- 5 -
(object) "beta 1," the system determines that the second field
(object) is present on the user interface and data may be
entered within the edit window at a second location for the
second field (object). The system "determines if said second
object is present on said user interface" because it
interprets the TAB key as a command to go to the next field
(second object) on the user interface in the same way as
admitted prior art systems (specification, page 1) interpret
the TAB key as a determination that the next field is on the
user interface. Claim 1 does not define how the system
determines if the object is present on the user interface, so
recognition of the TAB key is one method of determining.
Claim 1 says nothing about skipping fields (objects) or
changing the order of appearance of fields (objects).
When the "next category" is selected from the menu, the
system determines that the second category (object) is not
present on the user interface and brings the second category
(object) to the user interface, e.g., bringing up the user
interface for the next category shown in figure 5i.
Appellants argue that hitting the TAB key or selecting
the "next category" from the menu is not the same as
Appeal No. 1997-1274
Application 08/431,397
- 6 -
"determining if said second object is present on said user
interface . . ." because (Req. for Reh'g, page 2):
Davis has no need to determine if the second object
is present on the user interface. This is because the
data is always entered into the same window 264. A field
pointer 266 determines which field is enabled for data
entry (column 12, lines 20-34) in the window 264. There
is no need for Davis to determine if the second object
(for example, a second field) is present on the user
interface because the window is already displayed.
We disagree with these arguments. Davis determines that
the next field (object) is present on the user interface in
response to pressing a TAB key in the same way as the admitted
prior art (specification, page 1) and determines that the next
category (object) is not present on the user interface in
response to a selection of the "next category" item from the
menu. Appellants have not explained, for example, why, when
there are multiple fields displayed on the user interface as
in Appellants' figure 2, pressing a TAB key in the admitted
prior art (specification, page 1) does not involve a
determination by the system that the next field is on the user
interface and why Davis does not involve this same
determination.
The argument that Davis has no need to determine if the
second object is present on the user interface because the
Appeal No. 1997-1274
Application 08/431,397
- 7 -
window is already displayed is unpersuasive. The Edit Window
264 is just a wordprocessing window for entering data into the
object; it is not the object itself. Instead of a separate
line for each field (object) as for fields 0, 1, and 7 in
Appellants' figure 2, Davis uses a pointer 266 to indicate the
field and a single edit window because the data length may be
extensive. Claim 1 does not specify how the objects or
locations appear on the user interface and does not define
over Davis. The edit window's presence in Davis does not
eliminate the need to determine if the second object is
present on the user interface. The system in Davis determines
that the next object is on the user interface if the TAB key
is pressed (i.e., that it is one of the fields for a
particular category) and determines that the next object is
not on the interface if the "next category" is selected from
the menu. The location of the cursor in the edit window for a
first object (say "alpha 1") is a first location and the
location of the cursor in the edit window for the second
object (say "beta 1") is a second location although the cursor
may have the same physical location on the screen.
Appeal No. 1997-1274
Application 08/431,397
- 8 -
For the reasons stated above, Appellants have not
persuaded us that we erred in our finding of anticipation.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Appellants' request to the extent that
we have reconsidered our decision of September 3, 1999, but we
decline to make any changes therein.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
DENIED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ERIC FRAHM )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1997-1274
Application 08/431,397
- 9 -
Geoffrey A. Mantooth
WOFFORD, FAILS, ZOBOL, and MANTOOTH
110 West Seventh
Suite 500
Fort Worth, TX 76102