Ex Parte Lentz

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 30, 2004

09422365 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 30, 2004)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 16
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte JAMES LEE LENTZ
____________
Appeal No. 2003-1882
Application No. 09/422,365
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before KRASS, GROSS, and BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1 through 51, which are all of the claims
pending in this application.
Appellant's invention relates to a method of performing task
navigation. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention,
and it reads as follows:
1. A method for performing task navigation comprising the
steps of:
(a) receiving a first control signal for initiating a task
to be performed, which task comprises a sequence of a plurality
of task steps;
(b) displaying a first plurality of controls representative
of a first set of the plurality of task steps, wherein the first
Appeal No. 2003-1882
Application No. 09/422,365
2
plurality of controls represent a sequence of the first set of
the plurality of task steps;
(c) receiving a second control signal selecting a first
control of the first plurality of controls; and
(d) displaying a second plurality of controls
representative of a second set of the plurality of task steps
generated in response to the second control signal, wherein the
second plurality of controls represents a sequence of the second
set of the plurality of the task steps.
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:
Blowers et al. (Blowers) 6,298,474 Oct. 02, 2001
(filed Apr. 30, 1999)
Claims 1 through 51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Blowers.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 12,
mailed December 23, 2002) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejection, and to appellant's Brief (Paper
No. 11, filed November 26, 2002) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 13,
filed February 19, 2003) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 1 through 51.
Appeal No. 2003-1882
Application No. 09/422,365
3
In rejecting independent claims 1, 9, 20, and 29, the
examiner (Answer, page 5) directs our attention to column 3,
lines 18-23, of Blowers for the claimed first control signal. We
agree that Blowers discloses in column 3, lines 18-23, a first
set of control programs representing tasks. Further, Blowers
discloses in column 3, lines 21-22, that the control programs
define a first set of controls, which appellant recites in step
(b) of claim 1 and step (c) of claims 9, 20, and 29. For the
claimed "second control signal selecting a first control of the
first plurality of controls" for claim 1, and "receiving
information upon selection of a first control" for claims 9, 20,
and 29, the examiner (Answer, pages 5 and 9) relies on a portion
of the abstract and lines 15-45 of column 3. In particular, the
examiner relies upon Blowers' disclosure in the above-noted
portions of hardware operating parameters defining a second set
of standard controls and receiving commands from a user to select
a hardware operating parameter. The examiner states (Answer,
pages 9-10) that "[i]t is clearly [sic] that 'receiving commands
from a user to select desired hardware' is read as receiving the
command to select a first control to receive the desired
hardware."
Appellant contends (Brief, page 4) that Blowers fails to
disclose receiving a second control signal selecting a first
control. We agree. The examiner has read the claimed first
Appeal No. 2003-1882
Application No. 09/422,365
4
controls on Blowers' first set of controls and has read the
claimed second controls on Blowers' second set of controls
defined by the hardware operating parameters. Thus, receiving
commands to select desired hardware at best could be considered
receiving second control signals to select a second control, not
to select a first control as is recited in claim 1. Further, as
there is no selection of a first control disclosed in Blowers,
there is no generation of second controls in response to
information received from the selection of a first control, as is
recited in claims 9, 20, and 29. Accordingly, the examiner has
failed to establish a prima facie case of anticipation for
independent claims 1, 9, 20, and 29, and their dependents, claims
2 through 8, 10 through 19, and 30 through 37.
Regarding independent claim 38, appellant asserts (Brief,
pages 13-14) that Blowers fails to disclose the claimed "forward
control operable for permitting a user to proceed through the
sequence of task steps," "backward control operable for
permitting a user to reverse through the sequence of task steps,"
"status for each of the task controls is determined," and "each
of said task controls is operable based upon the status
determined for the task control." The examiner states (Answer,
page 7) that "claim 38 is analyzed as previously discuss [sic]
with respect to claims 1 and 10," which do not recite any of the
Appeal No. 2003-1882
Application No. 09/422,365
5
same features recited in claim 38. Thus, the discussion of
claims 1 and 10 does not point out where Blowers might disclose
forward and backward controls and determining a status for each
task control. In the response to arguments portion of the
Answer, the examiner (Answer, page 14) points to column 9, lines
7-15 of Blowers. The examiner asserts that "[b]ecause Blowers
teaches the navigation of the structure tree or hierarchical
tree, it gives a user a chance to go back a previous step in the
whole sequence of the task steps." However, we see nothing in
Blowers that teaches or suggests the claimed forward and backward
controls.
In addition, the examiner (Answer, page 15) contends that
Blowers indicates in column 3, lines 16-45, and column 12, lines
34-48, "The Start/Stop (Online/Offline) status of the system is
indicated through icon changes," and that this somehow suggests
determining the status for each task control and each task
control being operable based on the status determined. We
disagree. The examiner has not made clear how the status of the
system indicates the status for each task control. Accordingly,
the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
anticipation for claim 38 and its dependents, claims 39 through
51.
Appeal No. 2003-1882
Application No. 09/422,365
6
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 51
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is reversed.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2003-1882
Application No. 09/422,365
7
JAMES J MURPHY
5400 RENAISSANCE TOWER 1201 ELM STREET
DALLAS, TX 75270-2199