Ex Parte Mahr et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 10, 2017

12637230 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2017)

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.
12/637,230 12/14/2009 Christian Mahr 2009P00175US 2916
62730 7590
SAP SE
3410 HILLVIEW AVENUE
PALO ALTO, CA 94304
EXAMINER
STITT, ERIK V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2145
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/14/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
APRIL.MENG@SAP.COM
GIPinhouse@sap.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTIAN MAHR and THOMAS FRAMBACH
Appeal 2016-003747
Application 12/637,230
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1 through 3 and 5 through 14, which
constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2016-003747
Application 12/637,230
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method for designing a user interface
where simple user interface elements which contains one data input field
may be combined to make a complex user interface. See Abstract of
Appellants’ Specification.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below:
1. A computer-implemented method of designing a user
interface, the method being implemented by a computer system
comprising at least one memory for storing data and
instructions, and at least one processor configured to access the
at least one memory and to execute presentation logic
comprising at least one software module, the method
comprising the steps of:
determining, by the presentation logic, a plurality of
simple user interface elements within the user interface to be
designed based on requirements, wherein each simple user
interface element contains one data input field;
determining, at runtime, using received rules and
parameters that govern design of the user interface, whether two
or more of the plurality of simple user interface elements may
be combined to form a first complex user interface;
using the rules and parameters, and information from at
least one data input field of the plurality of simple user interface
elements, to determine whether or not to combine at least one of
the plurality of simple user interface elements with one or more
complex user interfaces,
wherein the information from the at least one data input
field is entered at runtime by an end-user of the user interface,
and the one or more complex user interfaces comprise the first
complex user interface, and contain the input fields from the
two or more of the plurality of simple user interface elements;
and
2
Appeal 2016-003747
Application 12/637,230
displaying a user interface comprising the one or more
complex user interfaces.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner rejected claims 1,5,6, and 10 through 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haley (US 2005/0229109 Al)
and Curtis (US 2008/0010590 Al). Answer 4—8.1
The Examiner rejected claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Haley, Curtis, and Savage (US 2010/0250409 Al).
Answer 8—9.
The Examiner rejected claims 2, 3, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Haley, Curtis, and Bailey (US 6,701,513 Bl).
Answer 9—10.
ISSUES
Appellants argue, on pages 9 through 13 of the Appeal Brief and
pages 2 through 6 of the Reply Brief, that the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1 is in error. These arguments present us with the
following issues:
1) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Haley and
Curtis teaches a plurality of simple user interfaces, as recited in
representative claim 1?
1 Throughout this Opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated July 20, 2015,
Reply Brief dated March 3, 2016, Final Action August 27, 2014 and the
Examiner’s Answer mailed on January 14, 2016.
3
Appeal 2016-003747
Application 12/637,230
2) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Haley and
Curtis teaches combining simple user interfaces elements, during
runtime, to form a complex user interface, including determining
whether two or more of the simple user interface elements may be
combined to form a first complex user interface as recited in claim
1?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to the Appellants’
arguments. Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 3 and claims 5 through 14.
Appellants’ arguments directed to the first issue assert that Haley’s
Figure 3, is akin to Appellants’ Figure 2, and does not teach a simple user
interface as asserted by the Examiner. App. Br. 11—12. We disagree with
Appellants’ assertion. Claim 1 recites the simple user interface element
contains one data input field. The Examiner finds that Figure 3 depicts
multiple single data input fields. Final Rej. 4—5. We agree with the
Examiner that each of the elements items 14—17 includes one data input field
and as such meets the claimed simple user interface with one input field.
Final Rej. 4—5. Thus, Appellants’ arguments directed to the first issue have
not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Appellants’ arguments directed to the second issue assert that Haley’s
disclosure in paragraphs 66 and 67, which discusses the user interface and
data field for last PAP test, does not teach generating a complex user
interface as claimed. App. Br. 11—12, Reply Br. 3^4. Further, Appellants
4
Appeal 2016-003747
Application 12/637,230
argue that combining Curtis’ teachings of hiding parts of a user interface
with Haley’s teachings does not result in the claimed invention. Answer 11—
12.
The Examiner provides a comprehensive response to Appellants’
arguments on pages 4 through 7 of the Answer. Specifically, the Examiner
identifies that Haley teaches that the simple user input element related to the
PAP Test Date, is determined to be added based upon the user’s input to the
gender simple user interface element, thus teaching a simple user input
element is conditionally added to create a complex user input. Answer 5.
Further, the Examiner finds that Curtis teaches check boxes conditionally
control components to be displayed (i.e., the check boxes are simple user
interface objects and the objects they control are simple user interface
objects), thus teaching conditionally adding simple elements to generate
complex user interface. Answer 5—6. We have reviewed the Examiner’s
response and the teachings in the references relied upon by the Examiner.
We concur with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions and are not
persuaded of error by Appellants’ arguments directed to independent claim
1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Appellants’ arguments directed to the rejection claims 2, 3, and 5
through 14 assert the rejection is in error for the same reasons as discussed
with respect to claim 1. Accordingly, we, similarly, sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 2, 3, and claims 5 through 14.
DECISION
We sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through 3 and 5
through 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
5
Appeal 2016-003747
Application 12/637,230
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6