Ex parte Livingston

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 21, 2002

09018391 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 21, 2002)

-1–
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and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 11
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________
Ex parte KRIS R. LIVINGSTON
________________
Appeal No. 2000-0772
Application No. 09/018,391
________________
ON BRIEF
________________
Before URYNOWICZ, HAIRSTON, and LEVY, Administrative Patent
Judges.
URYNOWICZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
Decision on Appeal
This appeal is from the final rejection of claims 1-23.
The invention pertains to computer screen interfaces.
Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as follows:
1. A help feature for a user interface, comprising a
help control displayed adjacent to a control option of the
user interface, the help control referencing the control
Appeal No. 2000-0772
Application No. 09/018,931
-2–
option for obtaining help information about the control
option.
The references relied upon by the examiner are:
Tozuka 5,710,898 Jan. 20, 1998
Dazey et al. (Dazey) 5,715,415 Feb. 03, 1998
Claims 1-6 and 8-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e) as anticipated by Dazey.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dazey in view of Tozuka.
The respective positions of the examiner and the
appellant with regard to the propriety of these rejections are
set forth in the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 9) and the
appellant’s brief (Paper No. 8).
Appellant’s Invention
The invention is described at pages 2 and 3 of the brief.
The Dazey Patent
In Figure 4, Dazey discloses a help pane 70 positioned
adjacent to a workspace 50 that is accessed by a Show Help
control button 66 in the status bar 64. Upon activation of
the Show Help control button, the application window 44 is
partitioned to define a help pane for showing the help content
Appeal No. 2000-0772
Application No. 09/018,931
-3–
without opening a separate graphical window (column 4, lines
57-61).

Grouping of Claims
At page 3 of the brief, appellant provides the following
grouping of claims:
claims 1, 2, 7-9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19-21 and 23 stand or
fall together,
claim 3 stands or falls alone,
claim 4 stands or falls alone,
claim 5 stands or falls alone,
claims 6 and 17 stand or fall together,
claims 10, 15 and 22 stand or fall together, and
claims 13 and 18 stand or fall together.
The examiner acknowledges this grouping of claims in the
paragraph bridging pages 2 and 3 of the answer, and has
responded to the arguments with respect to each group at pages
10-16 of the answer.
The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
Claim 1
Appeal No. 2000-0772
Application No. 09/018,931
-4–
At page 4 of the brief, appellant acknowledges that
Dazey’s Show Index button 90 illustrated in Figure 4 is a
control option. It is argued by appellant that although the
control option 90 is disposed adjacent to the help control
(Show Help button 66) as defined in claim 1, the help control
66 does not reference the control option for obtaining help
information about the Show Index button. Rather, it is urged
that button 66 is intended to reference application window 44
and/or workspace 50, which are not control options, for
obtaining help information about the window and/or workspace
in help pane 70.
In the second full paragraph at page 11 of the answer,
the examiner’s response is that in Dazey’s invention the Show
Help button 66 is displayed adjacent to workspace 50 “from
which is (sic:it) can assist the user with context specific,
step-by-step, instruction”.
We are not persuaded by appellant’s argument, even though
we agree with appellant that window 44 and workspace 50 are
not control options. At column 4, lines 46-53, Dazey
discloses that the application is configured to provide help
to a user during creation of the work and that the help
Appeal No. 2000-0772
Application No. 09/018,931
-5–
content may also include an electronic version of the
operation manual that might accompany the software product.
The electronic version of the operation manual would describe
operation of all functions, including that of the Show Index
button (control option). Accordingly, with respect to claim 1,
when the Show Help control button 66 (help control) is
activated, it references the Show Index (a control option) for
obtaining help information about the Show Index.
In view of the above discussion, the rejection of claim 1
as anticipated by Dazey will be sustained.
The Rejection of Claims 2, 7-9,
11, 12, 14, 16, 19-21 and 23
In view of appellant’s grouping of claims, noted above,
and the fact that we will sustain the rejection of claim 1, we
will also sustain the rejection of claims 2, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14,
16, 19-21 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and the rejection of
claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
Claims 3-6, 13, 17 and 18
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 3. With
respect to Dazey’s disclosure concerning Figures 3-6, there is
Appeal No. 2000-0772
Application No. 09/018,931
-6–
simply no persuasive showing that Dazey teaches that the help
control 66 is displayed in response to a detected status of a
control option, e.g., Show Index button 90. We do not agree
with the examiner’s position that help pane 70 is a control
option and, even if it could be so construed, the help control
66 is not displayed in response to a detected status of pane
70. Button 66 of Dazey is independently and continuously
displayed.
Concerning claim 3 and Dazey’s disclosure with respect to
Figure 7, the Help control button in dialog/message box 100 is
a help control that is displayed in response to a detected
status of a control option, a print button. However, the Help
control button is not displayed adjacent to a control option
as required by claim 1, from which claim 3 depends, because
“Print Error” in box 100 is an adjacent message, not an
adjacent control option.
Whereas we will not sustain the rejection of claim 3, we
will not sustain the rejection of claims 4-6 which depend
therefrom. Since claim 17 is grouped with claim 6 and defines
similar subject matter, we will not sustain the rejection of
claim 17, or claim 18, which depends from claim 17. Since
Appeal No. 2000-0772
Application No. 09/018,931
-7–
claim 13 is grouped with claim 18 and defines similar subject
matter, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 13.
The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
Claims 10, 15 and 22
We will not sustain the rejection of these claims because
Dazey simply has not been shown to teach that his help
information displays instructions for enabling a control
option in the event it is disabled and that the help
information displays why the control option is noteworthy
(cautionary) in the event the control option is enabled.
Summary
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 7-9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19-21
and 23 is sustained.
The rejection of claims 3-6, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18 and 22 is
reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Appeal No. 2000-0772
Application No. 09/018,931
-8–
STANLEY M. URYNOWICZ JR. )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
STUART S. LEVY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
SU/RWK
HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION
3404 E HARMONY ROAD
P.O. BOX 272400
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-3599