Ex Parte Khakzadi et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 25, 2011

10719673 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 25, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/719,673 11/21/2003 Khosro Khakzadi 03-1862/L13.12-0251 1314
7590 10/25/2011
Leo Peters
LSI Logic Corporation
MS D-106
1621 Barber Lane
Milpitas, CA 95035
EXAMINER
WIENER, ERIC A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2179
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/25/2011 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte KHOSRO KHAKZADI, MICHAEL N. DILLON, and DONALD
AMUNDSON
____________

Appeal 2010-000074
Application 10/719,673
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and ANDREW J.
DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 5-16, and 19-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention enables users to customize or modify graphical
user interfaces (GUIs) at run time by entering commands that build and
Appeal 2010-000074
Application 10/719,673

2
assign functionality to displayed user-selectable graphical objects to produce
an integrated circuit (IC) design. See generally Abstract; Spec. 5-6. Claim 8
is illustrative:
8. A method of providing a fully customizable graphical
user interface comprising:

upon execution of a command processor by a user,
loading a top level Tool Command Language (TCL) command
into a namespace, the command processor including a graphical
user interface (GUI) without graphical objects;

loading one or more TCL commands into the command
processor from a command line in which the one or more TCL
configuration commands are entered by the user;

building graphical objects according to the TCL
configuration commands;

assigning functionality to the built graphical
objects according to the TCL configuration commands;
and

displaying the graphical objects within the GUI
according to the TCL configuration commands, the
graphical objects selectable by the user to produce an
integrated circuit design.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Dangelo US 5,493,508 Feb. 20, 1996
Nahaboo US 5,974,253 Oct. 26, 1999

Appeal 2010-000074
Application 10/719,673

3
THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 5-16, and 19-281 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Nahaboo and Dangelo. Ans. 4-16.2

CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Nahaboo’s method of providing a
customizable GUI has every recited feature of representative claim 8 except
for user-selectable graphical objects to produce an IC design, but cites
Dangelo for teaching this feature in concluding that the claim would have
been obvious. Ans. 6-8, 17-26.
Appellants argue that the prior art does not teach or suggest all recited
limitations of claim 8. Br. 6-10. Appellants acknowledge that Nahaboo’s
design tool enables a developer to alter a user interface during design, but
maintain that end users cannot modify the interface during operation since
an interpreter program—not the interface development tool—is embedded
with the application, and editing is performed via a separate application. Br.
6-8. Appellants add that Dangelo does not cure Nahaboo’s deficiencies, and
the Examiner’s proposed combination of these references is based on
impermissible hindsight. Br. 10-11. Appellants make similar arguments
regarding the other independent claims.

1 Although the Examiner’s statement of the rejection omits claims 1, 5-13,
and 25-28, these claims are nonetheless included in the corresponding
discussion. Compare Ans. 4 with Ans. 11-12, 15-16. We therefore presume
that the Examiner intended to reject these claims, and present the correct
claim listing here for clarity. Accord Br. 2 (indicating claims 1, 5-16, and
19-28 are rejected and appealed).
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed March 11, 2009
and the Examiner’s Answer mailed June 23, 2009.
Appeal 2010-000074
Application 10/719,673

4

ISSUES
1. Under § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Nahaboo and
Dangelo collectively would have taught or suggested:
(1)(a) upon execution of a command processor by a user, loading a
top-level TCL command into a namespace, the command processor
including a GUI without graphical objects; (b) loading one or more TCL
commands into the command processor from a command line in which the
one or more TCL configuration commands are entered by the user; (c)
building graphical objects according to the TCL configuration commands;
(d) assigning functionality to the built graphical objects according to the
TCL configuration commands; and (e) displaying the graphical objects
within the GUI according to the TCL configuration commands, the graphical
objects selectable by the user to produce an integrated circuit design as
recited in claim 8?
(2) specifying a GUI entirely by a user via user input including one or
more configuration commands provided to a command processor at run time
as recited in claim 24?
(3) a command interpreter that modifies a GUI at its run time
according to interpreted configuration commands as recited in claim 1?
(4) assembling a GUI having no hard-coded objects as recited in claim
19?
2. Is the Examiner’s reason to combine the teachings of Nahaboo and
Dangelo supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning
to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion?

Appeal 2010-000074
Application 10/719,673

5

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
1. Nahaboo’s interactive user-interface description tool (“EGERIA”)
uses an embedded interpreted language in which both data and programs are
similarly represented. Embedded in the interface description program and
produced application is a “WOOL” language interpreter that uses a library
(“X/MOTIF”) of interactive command and graphical objects. Nahaboo,
Abstract; col. 1, ll. 10-12, 35-45; col. 2, ll. 1-42; col. 3, ll. 40-61; Fig. 1.
2. EGERIA includes (1) an editor that allows the user to create or
modify an interface 10; (2) an interpreter library (“WOOL.LIB”) 11 that
uses link editing with the application to produce a complete application; and
(3) an editor library (“Edit.Lib”) 12 that produces an editor that enables real-
time execution of application functions. Nahaboo, col. 3, ll. 40-51; Fig. 1.
3. The EGERIA editor 10 has editing and execution modes. In the
editing mode, the application interface can be easily modified. The
execution mode, however, allows the user the test the interface’s behavior
via the “WOOL.LIB” interpreter. The system then reacts dynamically in the
interface without restarting the application. Nahaboo, col. 6, ll. 50-64.
4. Users can edit object (“widget”) attributes by selecting the “Edit”
202 and “Attribute Editor” 2021 functions on EGERIA’s main menu 200.
This selection results in window 31 shown in Figure 4A. Selecting button
3114 on this window activates the widget’s “callback” procedures editing
function which, as shown in Figure 4B, includes a text box that allows the
user to display information about the edited widget (e.g., its name and
reference number). Nahaboo, col. 3, ll. 31-33; col. 7, l. 59 – col. 8, l. 10; col.
Appeal 2010-000074
Application 10/719,673

6
8, ll. 30-34; col. 9, l. 51 – col. 10, l. 2; Figs. 2, 4A-4B. Nahaboo’s window
enabling callback procedure editing in Figure 4B is reproduced below:

Nahaboo’s window enabling callback procedure editing in Figure 4B
5. Nahaboo’s Figure 5 shows an interface that allows the user to
display a running dog 45 with various controls 40-43. Object attributes can
be edited via the “Edit” menu. The resulting program also enables the user
to edit the interface via a particular command. Nahaboo, col. 10, ll. 45-59;
col. 11, ll. 48-51, col. 15, ll. 20-24; Figs. 4A, 5.
6. Dangelo’s computer-aided tools enable designing and
implementing complex circuits and systems, particularly digital devices, by
generating structural descriptions of digital devices from high-level
descriptions. Dangelo, Abstract; col. 1, ll. 6-9.
7. Dangelo notes that typical Electronic Computer-Aided Design
(ECAD) schematic editors enable the user to select from a number of
displayed circuit elements and interconnect them via an input device (e.g., a
mouse). Previously-created schematics can be recalled and used as a macro-
level component in other circuits. Dangelo, col. 8, l. 26 – col. 9, l. 12.

Appeal 2010-000074
Application 10/719,673

7
ANALYSIS
Claims 8-16
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of representative claim 8. Although Appellants
maintain that the developer in Nahaboo—not the end user—modifies the
user interface (Br. 6-7), nothing in the claim precludes the developer from
being considered a “user” as claimed. Leaving aside the fact that the scope
of the term “user” does not preclude a developer, Nahaboo notes that the
developer can not only edit the application interface in the edit mode, but
also test the interface in the execution mode. FF 3. By invoking these
editing and execution functions, the developer effectively uses that
functionality and is therefore a “user” at least in that sense.
To the extent that other users must invoke an application separate
from the distributed application (and its embedded interpreter) for editing
purposes, as Appellants contend (Br. 8), does not change our conclusion. In
short, nothing in the claim precludes the developer’s customizing the
interface by, among other things, loading commands via the text-based
callback procedure editor, building graphical objects, assigning functionality
to those objects, and displaying them as the Examiner indicates. Ans. 17-18;
FF 4-5. Appellants’ argument that Nahaboo does not suggest the user can
design or refine the interface at run time (Br. 7) is unavailing and, in any
event, not commensurate with the scope of claim 8—an inconsistency
bolstered by Appellants’ reference to claim 1 in this regard.3

3 See Br. 7 (“Nahaboo . . . does not suggest that the user of the applications
allow for design and refinement of the interface ‘at run time of the graphical
user interface,’ as recited in claim 1.”) (emphases added).
Appeal 2010-000074
Application 10/719,673

8
Nor do we find error in the Examiner’s combining Dangelo with
Nahaboo to render claim 8 obvious. The Examiner cites Dangelo merely to
show that providing user-selectable graphical objects to produce an IC
design would have been obvious in Nahaboo’s system (Ans. 23)—a system
that likewise employs user-selectable objects for design purposes. FF 1-5.
Although producing an integrated circuit design is merely an intended use of
the recited GUI’s selectable graphical objects,4 the Examiner’s position in
this regard is nonetheless reasonably supported by Dangelo’s discussion of
conventional capabilities of ECAD systems that enable users to select
particular circuit element graphical representations, interconnect them
graphically, and incorporate previously-created schematics in other circuit
designs. FF 6-7. Given the myriad potential practical applications for
Nahaboo’s system, we see no reason why it could not be used to design
digital circuits (e.g., ICs) such as those in Dangelo as the Examiner
proposes. The Examiner’s reason to combine the teachings of these
references is therefore supported by articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 8, and claims 9-16 not separately argued with
particularity.

4 Claim 8 recites, in relevant part, that the graphical objects are user-
selectable “to produce an integrated circuit design” (emphasis added).
Appeal 2010-000074
Application 10/719,673

9
Claims 24-265
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 24
for reasons similar to those previously discussed. Claim 24 recites
limitations commensurate with claim 8 but, unlike claim 8, calls for
specifying the GUI entirely by a user via a user input including one or more
configuration commands provided to the command processor at run time.
At the outset, we note that the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 24 differs from the other independent claims in that Dangelo is cited
as a base reference and Nahaboo as a secondary reference. Compare Ans.
10-11 with Ans. 4, 6, 19. Nevertheless, this ordering is insignificant here,
for this obviousness rejection, like that of the other claims, is based on
Nahaboo’s and Dangelo’s collective teachings.6 In any event, the
Examiner’s unique application of the cited references in connection with
claim 24 is undisputed, for Appellants reiterate similar arguments regarding
Nahaboo and Dangelo’s alleged failure to cure Nahaboo’s deficiencies. Br.
12-13.
We are not persuaded by these arguments, however, for the reasons
previously discussed and those indicated by the Examiner. Ans. 26-28. Nor
does claim 24 preclude the user in Nahaboo specifying the GUI at run time

5 Although Appellants group claims 27 and 28 with independent claim 24
and indicate that these claims are allowable by virtue of their dependency
from claim 24 (Br. 12-13), claims 27 and 28 indirectly depend from
independent claim 1—not claim 24. We therefore group claims 27 and 28
with claim 1.
6 See In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961) (“[W]e deem it of no
significance, but merely a matter of exposition, that the rejection is stated to
be A in view of B instead of B in view of A, or to term one reference
primary and the other secondary.”)

Appeal 2010-000074
Application 10/719,673

10
of the EGERIA system by entering commands in its editing mode. See FF 3.
Since the EGERIA system and its interface run for whichever mode is
selected (i.e., editing or execution), the corresponding functionality would
therefore be realized during the run time of the EGERIA system and its
associated processor. See FF 2-5. Therefore, we see no error in the
Examiner’s reliance on the user’s editing capabilities in the edit mode of
Nahaboo’s system in connection with the disputed limitations of claim 24.
Nor are we persuaded of error in combining the teachings of the cited
references as proposed for the reasons previously discussed.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 24 and claims 25 and 26 not separately argued with
particularity.

Claims 1, 5-7, 27, and 28
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1
which recites similar limitations including a command interpreter that
modifies a GUI at its run time according to interpreted configuration
commands. For the reasons noted previously, we find no error in the
Examiner’s position regarding Nahaboo’s editing capabilities for teaching
GUI modification during run time. Ans. 19-20, 29-32. See FF 2-5. Nor are
we persuaded of error in the Examiner’s combining Dangelo with Nahaboo
as the Examiner proposes for the reasons previously discussed. Appellants’
arguments regarding Dangelo (Br. 15) are unpersuasive, for they are not
germane to the limited purpose for which the reference was cited, namely to
show that user-selectable graphical objects to produce an IC design would
have been obvious. Ans. 5-6, 29-30.
Appeal 2010-000074
Application 10/719,673

11
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 1 and claims 5-7, 27, and 28 not separately argued with
particularity.

Claims 19-23
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 19
which recites limitations commensurate with the other independent claims
but which also calls for assembling a GUI having no hard-coded objects.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (Br. 15-17) for the reasons
noted previously. Nor do we find error in the Examiner’s position that, by
entering the editing mode before execution in Nahaboo, the user can
effectively assemble a GUI with no hard-coded objects. Ans. 27, 33; FF 2-4.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 19 and claims 20-23 not separately argued with
particularity.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 5-16, and 19-28 under
§ 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 5-16, and 19-28 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).

Appeal 2010-000074
Application 10/719,673

12

AFFIRMED

peb