Ex Parte Hu

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 11, 2012

11317773 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 11, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL NOEL HU
____________

Appeal 2010-002982
Application 11/317,773
Technology Center 2100
____________

____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and BRYAN F.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-9 which are all of the claims remaining in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Appeal 2010-002982
Application 11/317,773

2
Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to a user support system and related user
interface that integrates FAQ (frequently asked questions) features and
helpdesk features. (Spec. 1: 5-6.)

Claims
Claim 1, which is the only independent claim and illustrative of the
invention, is reproduced below with key disputed language emphasized:

1. A method of providing user support through a user interface
screen, comprising:
(a) displaying on the screen one or more menu windows for
selecting one or more levels of support categories by a user;
(b) displaying on the screen a list of frequently asked questions
based on a user selection of the support categories; and
(c) displaying on the screen a message input window for
entering questions by the user;
wherein the menu windows, the list of frequently asked
questions and the message input window are displayed as parts of a
same webpage.

Prior Art
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence:
Koppolu US 5,581,686 Dec. 3, 1996
Kuzumaki US 2001/0032211 A1 Oct. 18, 2001
Sullivan US 6,999,990 B1 Feb. 14, 2006

Xaraonline feedback form,
http://www.xaraonline.com/home/applications/ffo home.htm, (last visited
Nov. 1, 2007) (Xara).

Appeal 2010-002982
Application 11/317,773

3
Examiner’s Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 3-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Sullivan and Xara. The
Examiner rejected claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the combination of Sullivan, Xara, and Koppolu. The Examiner
rejected claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
combination of Sullivan, Xara, and Kuzumaki.

Appellant’s Contention
Appellant contends that the cited references fail to teach or suggest
the limitation of “the list of frequently asked questions and the message
input window [that] are displayed as parts of a same webpage” as recited in
independent claim 1. (App. Br. 4-7.)

ISSUE
Based upon our review of the record and Appellant’s contention, we
have determined that the following issue is dispositive in this appeal:
Did the Examiner err in determining that the cited references teach or
suggest the claimed “list of frequently asked questions and the message
input window [that] are displayed as parts of a same webpage?”
(Independent claim 1.)
1

1
Appellant argues claims 1 and 3-8 as a group (Br. 4). Appellant argues
claims 2 and 9 separately. However, Appellant makes only a conclusory
statement that claims 2 and 9 are patentable by way of their dependency on
claim 1. (Br. 6-7.) Based on the absence of a specific argument directed to
claims 2 and 9, we treat claims 1-9 as standing or falling together.
Appeal 2010-002982
Application 11/317,773

4
ANALYSIS
As noted above, Appellant argues that the cited references, most
notably Sullivan, fail to teach or suggest the claimed “list of frequently
asked questions and the message input window [that] are displayed as parts
of a same webpage.” The Examiner responds that Sullivan in view of Xara
discloses this limitation in that Sullivan discloses a list of frequently asked
questions (“FAQ”) and an input window for searches is on the same web
page. (See Ans. 17-18, citing Fig. 7.) The Examiner further responds that
because Xara discloses a message input window, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
combine the Sullivan and Xara references. (Ans. 18.) Based upon our
review of the record, as discussed infra, we find the evidence before us
supports the Examiner’s position.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s reading of the claimed “list
of frequently asked questions” on Sullivan, i.e., the FAQ link shown in
Figure 7. (Ans. 17.) In particular, we find that based on Sullivan’s teaching,
one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have
recognized that a link could feature a scroll down function which displays
the frequently asked questions associated with the link on the same page.
(See Ans. 18.)
Appellant further states that "[a]dmittedly, the programming
techniques used to implement the features of the claimed invention are well
known in the programming art. What is novel and unobvious is the way the
programming techniques are used to display a user interface screen." (Br.
5.) However, the Specification does not disclose any particular way of using
programming techniques. We agree with the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 19)
Appeal 2010-002982
Application 11/317,773

5
that the way of using programming techniques to display the claimed user
interface screen is also well known and consistent with the approach taken
by an ordinary skilled artisan in the programming art. Appellant does not
present sufficient evidence to show that displaying the FAQs associated with
the link on the webpage was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of
ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious step over the prior
art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed.
Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418-19
(2007)(“KSR”).
Therefore, we find that Sullivan and Xara disclose the claimed “list of
frequently asked questions and the message input window [that] are
displayed as parts of a same webpage” because Sullivan discloses the FAQ
link is on the same webpage as an input window for entering searches and
Xara discloses a message input window. We further find that because
Sullivan discloses an input window in Fig 7 and Xara discloses a message
input window, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention to combine the references.
We also agree with the Examiner’s alternate reading that Sullivan’s
chat window in Fig. 18 is functionally equivalent to a FAQ. (Ans. 18.) The
chat window displays live questions and answers serially during a chat
session. (Sullivan Fig. 18.) A FAQ is a list of questions and answers that
were previously stored and are simultaneously displayed. We find it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to alter the chat window to display previously stored frequently
asked questions rather than live questions and answers.

Appeal 2010-002982
Application 11/317,773

6
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in determining that the cited references
teach or suggest the claimed “list of frequently asked questions and the
message input window [that] are displayed as parts of a same webpage.”
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of claim 1
and claims 2-9 that fall therewith.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-9 under is affirmed.
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).

AFFIRMED

ELD