Ex Parte Ma

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 23, 2013

10766673 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte STEVEN K. MA1
__________

Appeal 2011-007771
Application 10/766,673
Technology Center 2100
__________

Before TONI R. SCHEINER, ERIC GRIMES, and
MELANIE L. McCOLLUM, Administrative Patent Judges.

SCHEINER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1-4, 7-10, 31-34, 36-43, and 45-51, directed to a method, system, and
program for navigating files. The Examiner has rejected the claims as
obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 Appellant identifies the Real Party-In-Interest as International Business
Machines Corporation (App. Br. 1).

Appeal 2011-007771
Application 10/766,673
2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1-4, 7-10, 31-34, 36-43, and 45-51 are pending and on appeal.
Claims 5, 6, 11-30, 35, and 44 have been canceled. Representative claim 1
(emphasis added) is reproduced below:
1. A method, comprising:
rendering a display of names of a first and second data sets in a search
panel, wherein each data set is associated with one or more file components;
receiving selection of the displayed first data set name in the search
panel;
displaying names of the file components associated with the selected
first data set in the search panel;
receiving selection of at least one of the displayed file component
names associated with the selected first data set;
rendering the selected data set name and the selected at least one
selected file component name in a history panel, wherein the selected first
data set name and selected at least one file component are displayed in a
hierarchical tree arrangement, and wherein the history panel and the search
panel are rendered concurrently in a graphical user interface;
receiving selection of the displayed second data set name in the search
panel;
displaying names of the file components associated with the selected
second data set in the search panel;
receiving selection of at least one of the displayed file component
names associated with the selected second data set; and
rendering the selected second data set name and the selected at least
one selected file component name associated with the selected second data
set in the history panel, wherein the selected first and second data set names
and selected file components associated with the first and second data sets
are displayed together in the hierarchical tree arrangement to display
previously and currently selected data set names and component file names
of the selected data sets and wherein the rendered selected first and second
data set names and the selected file components in the history panel are
rendered concurrently in the graphical user interface with the search
panel separately rendering the selected displayed file component names
associated with the selected second data set name.
Appeal 2011-007771
Application 10/766,673

3
Claims 1-4, 7-10, 31-34, 36-43, and 45-48 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Moehrle (US 7,216,301 B2, issued
May 8, 2007) and Rochford et al. (US 6,633,312 B1, issued October 14,
2003), while claims 49-51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Moehrle, Rochford et al., and Weber (US 7,370,281 B2,
issued May 6, 2008).
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Figure 7 of the Specification depicts an example of a Graphical
User Interface (GUI) panel displayed as a result of the method of claim 1.
Figure 7 is reproduced below:

FIG. 7 illustrates a panel 110 the file viewer 12 displays
in response to the user invoking the search entered in the search
box 102 (FIG. 6), which includes the display in results box 112
of the component files of the data set resulting from the search
that specified all qualifiers of a data set name. FIG. 7 further
illustrates the user graphical pointer 114 selecting two files in
the located data set, e.g., “IBMDALCB.PLI” and
Appeal 2011-007771
Application 10/766,673

4
“IBMDBDSA.PLI”. The file viewer 12 further renders in work
history view 116 the previously selected and searched upon
data set, e.g., “MAS.SOURCE.PLI” and the currently selected
component files within that data set to further fill out the
hierarchically displayed work history view 116 displaying all
previously and currently selected data sets and component files
of selected data sets.
(Spec. ¶ 16.)
2. Moehrle discloses “[a] method for navigating within a multi-
level hierarchical collapsing menu structure” (Moehrle, col. 2, ll. 35-36).
“Each level in the menu structure contains plural items, each item
representing a function such as the function of launching an application,
accessing a database location, or pointing to a subordinate level” (id. at col.
2, ll. 36-40).
3. Figures 4A-4C of Moehrle are reproduced below:

Appeal 2011-007771
Application 10/766,673

5
Figures 4A-4C “are views showing how the Active Path of [Moehrle’s]
invention is assembled as the user browses and selects a menu item”
(Moehrle, col. 3, ll. 10-12).
In the initial view (FIG. 4A), the Active Path Active Path 100
comprises a single active link 102 termed a root link 101. Since
the initial view includes only one active link 102, it is both the
root link 101 and the end link 103.
FIG. 4B shows how the user browses the hierarchical
structure from the initial view (FIG. 4A) in order to arrive at an
expanded view [of] the Active Path 100 (FIG. 4C). Multiple
hierarchical levels are displayed in FIG. 4B. Menu items 1.1,
1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 are termed siblings because they all fall within
the same hierarchical level 10b. Moreover, menu items 1.1,
1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 are all hierarchically subordinate to root menu
item 1.0. Similarly, menu item 1.2 is hierarchically superior to
menu items 1.2.4.1, 1.2.4.2. Still further, menu item 1.0 is the
parent of menu items 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4.
FIG. 4C is a view of an expanded Active Path Active
Path 100 including active links 1.0, 1.2, 1.2.3, and 1.2.3.4.
The Active Path 100 consists of a sequential listing of
active links 102, each active link 102 providing direct access to
a corresponding level in the hierarchical structure and to all of
the menu items on the same hierarchical level (sibling menu
items).
(Id. at col. 4, ll. 9-30.)
The Active Path 100 has distinct browsing and selection
processes. The user browses by “rolling-over” (provisionally
selecting) an element with a pointing device such as a mouse,
causing the children to be displayed without hiding the siblings
of the parent (and siblings of the grandparents etc).
(Id. at col. 4, ll. 37-42.)
4. Moehrle teaches that “[w]hen the user selects any active link
102, the Active Path 100 responds by executing a function. Functions may
include the launch of a software application or the display of the subordinate
Appeal 2011-007771
Application 10/766,673

6
links with a detailed description” (id. at col. 5, ll. 6-9). “Browsing does not
affect the active [path] 100, which continues to be displayed until the user
selects an active link 102 or one of the sibling menu items of an active link”
(id. at col. 5, ll. 12-15).
5. Figures 5A-5C of Moehrle are reproduced below:

Figures 5A-5C of Moehrle “are views showing how an active link is used to
redirect the path” (Moehrle, col. 3, ll. 13-14). “[B]rowsing an active link
102 . . . initially display[s] only the siblings of the active link (FIG. 5A), and
display[s] the children after a slight time delay (FIG. 5B)” (id. at col. 5, ll.
35-38). “FIG. 5C shows the Active Path 100 created after the user selected
1.2.4.4 in FIG. 5b” (id. at col. 5, ll. 41-42).
6. Rochford discloses a method “for navigating within a Graphical
User Interface (GUI) . . . [which] allows the user to select a plurality of
Appeal 2011-007771
Application 10/766,673

7
different criteria to limit the number of network entities that are selected and
displayed, hence allowing only the network entities of interest to be shown”
(Rochford, col. 3, ll. 16-25).
7. Figure 8 of Rochford is reproduced below:

FIG. 8 illustrates the use of the history menu 212 that is
incorporated within the footer 204 of the GUI . . . Preferably,
once the history menu 212 is selected, by clicking on it, a
history window 802 pops up from it. All of the layer cakes
(each comprised of one or more network features) that were
previously viewed on the network display window 208 are
preferably saved within the local database 118 . . . and
displayed within the history window 802. For these layer cakes
that were previously viewed, the corresponding network
feature(s) are preferably grouped together with a symbol
indication given whether the network feature was added as a
base view, due to a filtering operation, or due to a highlighting
operation. . . . [T]he layer cakes are saved with a dependent
hierarchical structure such that a network feature added due to a
filtering or highlighting operation may not be viewed without
the base view and any other previously added network feature.
For example . . . the attribute “BANK B” is a network feature
which can only be selected if the base view “TORONTO” is
also chosen. Similarly, network feature “VPNS” can only be
Appeal 2011-007771
Application 10/766,673

8
selected along with base view “TORONTO” and network
feature “BANK B”.
(Rochford, col. 16, l. 56 - col. 17, l. 12.)
Rochford explains that a network entity is “a component within a
network, for example a node” (id. at col. 3, ll. 31-32), while a network
feature is “a limiting characteristic, for example a specific customer type
such as a bank, that has one or more network entities of a network associated
with it” (id. at col. 3, ll. 33-35).
DISCUSSION
Claims 1-4, 7-10, 31-34, 36-43, and 45-48 stand rejected as
unpatentable over Moehrle and Rochford.
With regard to independent claims 1, 31, and 40, the Examiner finds
that Moehrle discloses a method wherein a search panel rendering a selected
data set and a selected associated file component (Figure 4A, 102; Figure
4B, 10b-10d) and a history panel (Figure 4C; Figures 5A and 5B) are
displayed separately, yet concurrently (Ans. 3-4). According to the
Examiner, the only limitation not taught by Moehrle is that “the first data set
name and first selected file component name remain[] in the history panel
after selection of the second data set name and second selected file
component alongside the second or currently selected data set name and file
component” (id. at 16-17). However, the Examiner finds that Rochford
discloses a history panel wherein “selected first and second data set names
and selected file components associated with the selected first and second
data set names are displayed together in a hierarchical arrangement to
display previously and currently selected data set names and component file
names of the selected data sets” (id. at 5).
Appeal 2011-007771
Application 10/766,673

9
The Examiner concludes that:
[I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art . . . to modify the selection of a data set name and
corresponding file component name for hierarchical display in a
history panel taught by Moehrle to include the rendering a
history panel simultaneously displaying the selected first and
second data set names and associated selected file components
of Rochford, in order to obtain selection of a first data set name
and corresponding file component within the first data set,
selection of a second data set name and corresponding file
component within the second data set, rendering a history panel
that displays the selected first and second data set names and
selected file components associated with the selected first and
second data set names together in a hierarchical arrangement to
display previously and currently selected data set names and
component file names of the selected data sets . . . because an
ongoing history tracker useful for multiple searches would have
been obtained, as taught by Rochford.
(Id.)
Appellant contends that “Moehrle concerns the display of active links
to provide selection of functions associated with active links, not selection of
data set names and their component files” (App. Br. 16). Moreover,
Appellant contends that Moehrle “does not show a separate search panel in
which the data set names, or active links are selected, separate from a
separate history panel that shows the same selected links (data set names)
and their sublinks (component files)” (Reply Br. 4). Appellant further
contends that Rochford’s Figure 8 “is a history window in which selected
layer cakes (network features) are displayed . . . with a hierarchical structure,
such that a network feature may not be viewed without a base view” (App.
Br. 17), but “this does not teach or suggest displaying selected first and
second data set names and selected file components of the first and second
Appeal 2011-007771
Application 10/766,673

10
data sets name [sic] in a hierarchical tree arrangement . . . as claimed” (id. at
18).
As an initial matter, we understand Appellant’s implication to be that
the links in Moehrle’s Active Path 100 are not “data sets,” and the
subordinate menu items are not “file components.” The Examiner, on the
other hand, finds that “[p]ractically anything can be considered a file
component, [and] each of the functions represented by Moehrle must be
defined by a file somewhere, therefore they are a file component and are
named in a way for user selection” (Ans. 15-16). Unfortunately, none of
these terms is defined in the Specification, or elsewhere on the record.
Nevertheless, we agree with Appellant that “FIG. 4B and other views
of Moehrle show just a single display of links and their submenu in different
states. The cited FIG. 4C shows an active path of active links, but there is
no teaching that this is displayed concurrently with a search panel or the
view of FIG. 4B” (Reply Br. 4). That is, Figures 4B and 4C of Moehrle (as
well as the remaining figures) depict sequential views, not a single,
concurrent view (FFs 3-5). Thus, even if we consider the hierarchical
sibling/child structure shown in Moehrle’s Figure 4B to be a search panel,
and the Active File Path 100 in Moehrle’s Figure 4C to be a separate
hierarchical history panel, the two are not displayed concurrently. On the
other hand, while Figures 5A and 5B display both an Active File Path 100
and a hierarchical sibling/child structure concurrently, the Active Path 100 is
overwritten to reflect the user’s most recent selection, and in any case is not
separate from the a search panel, as required by the claims.
Moreover, we agree with Appellant that Rochford’s layer cake is a
“flat view” that reflects a user’s filtering and/or highlighting choices among
Appeal 2011-007771
Application 10/766,673

11
various network features, rather than a hierarchical tree arrangement as
claimed (App. Br. 18; Reply Br. 5; FF 7). That being the case, simply
replacing Moehrle’s Active File Path 100 with Rochford’s layer cake history
view, or even adding Rochford’s history panel to Moehrle’s GUI would not
cure the deficiencies in Moehrle’s disclosure.
Accordingly, we will reverse the rejection of claims 1-4, 7-10, 31-34,
36-43, and 45-48 as unpatentable over Moehrle and Rochford.
The rejection of claims 49-51 as unpatentable over Moehrle,
Rochford, and Weber rests on the same premise, so we will reverse this
rejection as well.
SUMMARY
The rejection of claims 1-4, 7-10, 31-34, 36-43, and 45-48 as
unpatentable over Moehrle and Rochford is reversed.
The rejection of claims 49-51 as unpatentable over Moehrle,
Rochford, and Weber is reversed.

REVERSED

cdc