Ex Parte Krebs

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 18, 2013

10831398 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 18, 2013)

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.
10/831,398 04/23/2004 Andreas S. Krebs 11884/502401 1042
53000 7590 10/18/2013
KENYON & KENYON LLP
1500 K STREET N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
GISHNOCK, NIKOLAI A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3715
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/18/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ANDREAS S. KREBS
____________________

Appeal 2011-008251
Application 10/831,398
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
JOHN W. MORRISON, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-008251
Application 10/831,398

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Andreas S. Krebs (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3, 7-11, 16, 17, 19-21, 33, 37-42, and
44-47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nunes (GB
2 338 333 A, pub. Dec. 15, 1999) and Elzinga (US 2005/0026131 A1, pub.
Feb. 3, 2005). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. A computer-implemented method comprising: detecting,
by a processor, a change in how a structure is organized, which
change is input via interaction with elements displayed in one
or more first sections of a user interface;
responsive to the detection of the change, positioning, by
the processor, representations of software components of the
structure into a preview, including:
determining which of a plurality of structure
strategies has been selected,
creating an initial state model for an object of the
structure in accordance with the strategy determined
to have been selected,
requesting a next available option for the object in
relation to the strategy, updating the state model for
the object,
determining no options are available for the object
in relation to the strategy,
determining that something within the object was
not reached based on the state model, and
providing an indication of an error responsive to
the determining that something was not reached; and
presenting the preview, by the processor and in a display
device, in a second section of the user interface separate
from the one or more first sections.
Appeal 2011-008251
Application 10/831,398

3
OPINION
Claims 1-3, 7-11, 16, 17, and 19-21
Claims 1 and 21 recite a method comprising, inter alia, detecting a
change, input via interaction with elements displayed in one or more first
sections of a user interface, in how a structure is organized; positioning
software components of the structure into a preview responsive to the
detection of the change; and presenting the preview in a second section of
the user interface separate from the one or more first sections. Claim 17
recites a system comprising, inter alia, a processor configured to detect a
change in a structure, via interaction with elements displayed in one or more
first sections of a user interface; positioning representation of software
components of the structure into a preview responsive to the detection of the
change; and presenting the preview in a second section of the user interface
separate from the one or more first sections.
The Examiner’s findings with respect to Nunes are not entirely clear.
Specifically, the Examiner does not coherently identify which features of
claims 1, 17, and 21 are disclosed by Nunes, much less specifically point out
where each of such features is disclosed in Nunes. Notably, the Examiner
does not articulate any explicit findings with respect to whether Nunes
discloses detecting a change in a structure (or how a structure is organized)
input via interaction with elements displayed in one or more first sections of
a user interface and presenting a preview, generated in response to detecting
the change, of representations of software components of the structure in a
second section of the user interface separate from the one or more first
sections, as called for in claims 1, 17, and 21.
Appeal 2011-008251
Application 10/831,398

4
To address this combination of features the Examiner seemingly
relies, at least in part, on the editing/previewing of a learning object depicted
by Elzinga in figure 6. Ans. 5, 16. The Examiner determines it would have
been obvious “to have merely detected the organization of the learning
object of Nunes, as taught by Elzinga, in order to provide an updated and
accurate picture of the learning object to a course designer during editing.”
Id. The Examiner adds that “viewing a preview of the course organization
makes clear an understanding of the organization of the structure, as
Elzinga’s preview is responsive to editing changes.” Ans. 16.
Appellant argues that the paths displayed in the adaptive path editing
window of Elzinga’s figure 6 are generated in response to user interaction
with the graphical components displayed, not in response to detection of a
change in a structure, as required in Appellant’s claims 1, 17, and 21. App.
Br. 6, 10. According to Appellant, the display in Elzinga’s figure 6 is an aid
for the user to set an organization, while the features of claims 1, 17, and 21
aid a user to understand the perhaps not previously appreciated effect of an
organization set elsewhere by the user, “by generating a preview of how the
structure would play out given the organization the user has set in a separate
section.” App. Br. 6. As pointed out by Appellant, claims 1, 17, and 21 call
for the preview to be presented “in a display section separate from a section
in which the change in structure organization is made.” App. Br. 6-7, 10.
In addressing the requirement in claims 1, 17, and 21 that said
preview be presented in a section of the user interface separate from the one
or more first sections in which the change is input, the Examiner explains
that “Elzinga’s Figure 6 teaches each component in separate windows in the
user interface; these are understood to be [A]ppellant’s sections.” Ans. 17.
Appeal 2011-008251
Application 10/831,398

5
Elzinga’s figure 6 depicts a user interface including “selectable
content variables, concepts, properties, and an adaptive path editing
window.” Para. [0114]. The user interacts with the adaptive path editing
window (i.e., the window labeled “Vocabulary Test” in figure 6) to add
icons, such as activities, and branches, to the adaptive path displayed in that
window, or section, of the user interface. See, e.g., paras. [0124], [0127],
[0134], [0139]. For example, the user can drag and drop an activity from the
activity list into the adaptive path editor at any point within the adaptive path
(paras. [0134], [0139]) and can either click and drag from a diamond to
another activity or just click on the diamond and then on an icon to make a
connection (para. [0128]). In other words, a change to the adaptive path
reflected in the adaptive path editing window (or section of the user
interface) is input by interaction with elements displayed in the adaptive path
editing window.
The Examiner does not explain with sufficient specificity how Nunes
would be modified in view of the teachings of Elzinga nor specifically
identify which portions of the display shown in Elzinga’s figure 6, if any,
would correspond to the one or more first sections of a user interface in
which changes to the structure are input and to the second section in which
the preview is presented in claims 1, 17, and 21. The Examiner’s findings
on page 6 of the Answer suggest that the Examiner considers the adaptive
path editing window (i.e., the window labeled “Vocabulary Test” in figure
6) to be the section in which the preview is presented. See Ans. 6 (stating,
“the preview map is displayed in a second window (Figure 6, ‘Vocabulary
Test’ pane)).” However, as we found above, the adaptive path editing
window is the section of the user interface with which the user interacts to
Appeal 2011-008251
Application 10/831,398

6
change the adaptive path. As such, it is not apparent, and the Examiner does
not adequately explain, how incorporating the editing concept of Elzinga
into Nunes would yield a method or system satisfying the requirement in
claims 1, 17, and 21 that the preview be presented in a second section of the
user interface separate from the one or more first sections in which the
change is input via interaction with elements in the one or more first
sections.
The Examiner asserts that this limitation is non-functional descriptive
material “because labeling the separate sections as a first or second section
does not provide any weight to the claims apart from the sections being
separate.” Ans. 17. This assertion does not coherently explain how the
proposed combination satisfies the claimed requirement that the preview be
presented in a section of the user interface separate from the section in which
the change is input.
For the above reasons, the Examiner fails to establish that the subject
matter of claims 1, 17, and 21 would have been obvious. Thus, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 1, 17, and 21 and of their dependent claims 2,
3, 7-11, 16, 19, and 20 as unpatentable over Nunes and Elzinga.
Claims 33, 37-42, and 44-47
Claim 33 requires storage of a plurality of preset component output
strategies, each including a respective set of rules and each being selectable
by input of a reference to said respective component output strategy via
interaction with the third section of the user interface window, and
application by the machine of the stored set of rules of the selected output
strategy for generating the map. Once again, the Examiner’s findings with
respect to Nunes are not entirely clear. However, the Examiner appears to
Appeal 2011-008251
Application 10/831,398

7
rely on paragraphs [0079]-[0081] and [0084]-[0086] of Elzinga for this
feature. See Ans. 5, 19.
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to process
“the object preview of Nunes in accordance with the learning strategies of
Elzinga, in order to optimize learning for a particular individual, group, or
educational lesson.” Ans. 6.
Paragraph [0079] of Elzinga cited by the Examiner discloses that once
designed, the educational lesson is experienced by the student/tutor/user,
data relating to the user’s learning is gathered and analyzed, and
modifications are selectively or automatically made to the educational lesson
to optimize the learning process. Paragraph [0080] discloses types of
performance data analyzed, and paragraph [0081] discloses that the learner
performance data is gathered and used to adjust pace and frequency of
exposure to particular content. Paragraphs [0084]-[0086] disclose different
types of adaptivity that could be employed to optimize the learning in
embodiments of the invention.
In sum, the passages of Elzinga cited by the Examiner disclose
modifying the pace and sequencing of learning activities to modify the
educational lesson to optimize learning, and further describe different types
of adaptivity for making such modifications. The Examiner’s finding that
these modifications or adaptivities are strategies is reasonable. See Ans. 19.
However, these passages do not teach storing a plurality of such strategies so
that each is selectable by input of a reference to said strategy via interaction
with a section of the user interface window, as called for in claim 33, and the
Examiner does not adequately explain how the combination of Elzinga’s
Appeal 2011-008251
Application 10/831,398

8
learning strategies with Nunes would render obvious a method with such a
feature.
Thus, the Examiner fails to establish that the subject matter of claim
33 would have been obvious. We therefore do not sustain the rejection of
claim 33 and of its dependent claims 37-42, and 44-47 as unpatentable over
Nunes and Elzinga.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3, 7-11, 16, 17, 19-21, 33,
37-42, and 44-47 is reversed.
REVERSED

hh