Ex Parte Mirza et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 7, 201512603482 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 7, 2015) Copy Citation 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. 12/603,482 10/21/2009 Muhammad Ali Mirza P080135 6606 115776 7590 10/07/2015 Betty E. Ungerman 2140 Lake Park Blvd., 8T Richardson, TX 75080 EXAMINER STEVENS, THOMAS H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2126 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/07/2015 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 MUHAMMAD ALI MIRZA, JACOB JENNINGS, and AMANDA FILBECK ____________ Appeal 2013-007285 Application 12/603,482 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before JOHN A. EVANS, MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, and JOHN F. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judges. WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 3–16, and 18–20. Claims 2 and 17 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2013-007285 Application 12/603,482 2 INVENTION Appellants’ invention relates to graphical interface dashboards for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems. See Spec. ¶ 2. Exemplary independent claim 1 reads as follows: 1. An HVAC graphical interface dashboard, comprising: a weather tab, wherein invoking the weather tab advances to a weather screen; an indoor humidity tab, wherein invoking the indoor humidity tab advances to a humidity screen which displays at least a current indoor humidity; an alerts tab, wherein invoking the alerts tab advances to an alerts screen; a help tab, wherein invoking the help tab advances to a help screen that provides context sensitive help that presents at least one dialog box related to a function of a current screen; an indoor settings tab, wherein invoking the indoor settings tab advances to an indoor settings screen which includes a current indoor temperature; a programs tab, wherein invoking the programs tab advances to a programs screen which can program at least one of: a) a time; b) temperature setpoints; c) heating/cooling setpoints; and wherein at least one of: a) a system mode; and b) a fan mode can be selected by pressing a correlated icon in the program tab; and a home tab, wherein invoking the home tab advances to a home screen which provides a summary of indoor conditions. Appeal 2013-007285 Application 12/603,482 3 REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 4, 8–12, 15, 16, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Harrod (US 2010/0070086 A1, published Mar. 18, 2010). Final Act. 3–10. The Examiner rejects claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Harrod and Fulker (US 2010/0023865 A1, published Jan. 28, 2010). Final Act. 11. The Examiner rejects claims 5, 6, 13, 14, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Harrod and Smith (US 7,302,642, issued Nov. 27, 2007). Final Act. 12–14. ANALYSIS Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 9, and 16 because Harrod does not disclose “a help tab, wherein invoking the help tab advances to a help screen that provides context sensitive help that presents at least one dialog box related to a function of a current screen.” See App. Br. 8–14. Based on our review of the Examiner’s findings in light of Appellants’ contentions, we are persuaded of error. Appellants contend that the cited portions of Harrod “provide[] no teaching that may be fairly interpreted to disclose ‘context sensitive help that presents at least one dialog box related to a function of a current screen.’” App. Br. 10; see also Reply Br. 2–4. We agree with Appellants in this regard. For example, the Examiner directs us to where Harrod discloses a screen with a graphical element 118 that may be selected to view other screens of a GUI, such as a help screen. See Final Act. 4 (citing Harrod ¶ 65, Fig. 7); see also Ans. 4 (citing Harrod, Figs. 12–14). The Examiner also Appeal 2013-007285 Application 12/603,482 4 directs us to where Harrod discloses that the GUI may include various screens or other components that may be displayed in all or a portion of the display. See Ans. 4 (citing Harrod ¶ 39). The Examiner does not, however, point us to any disclosure in Harrod that describes the help screen as providing context sensitive help. Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Harrod. Final Act. 3. Our analysis, therefore, is limited to the question of whether Harrod anticipates claim 1. “Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, every limitation of a claim must identically appear in a single prior art reference for it to anticipate the claim.” Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Although Harrod discloses a user-invocable help icon, Harrod fails to disclose producing a help screen upon invoking the help icon, where the help screen presents a dialog box providing context sensitive help related to a function of the current screen. Because the question is not before us, we do not consider whether it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellants’ invention that such a help screen would have been produced upon invoking Harrod’s help icon. Accordingly, based on the record before us, we are persuaded by Appellants’ contention. CONCLUSION In view of the foregoing, we are persuaded of error in the Examiner’s findings as to claims 1, 9, and 16. Claims 3–8, 10–15, and 18–20 depend from claims 1, 9, or 16. Accordingly, we decline to sustain the Examiner’s Appeal 2013-007285 Application 12/603,482 5 § 102 rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 8–12, 15, 16, 18, and 19, as well as the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 5–7, 13, 14, and 20. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3–16, and 18–20 is reversed. REVERSED sl Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation