Ex Parte Mourra

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 5, 2014

10906592 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 5, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOHN MOURRA
____________

Appeal 2013-009294
Application 10/906,592
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
ERIC B. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appeal 2013-009294
Application 10/906,592

2

Appellant’s Request for Rehearing (filed January 22, 2014) (“Req.”)
contends that we erred in our Decision on Appeal entered November 22,
2013 (“Decision”), in which we affirmed the Examiner’s decision to reject
claims 4-11.

DISCUSSION
Appellant contends that the combination of Coulthard and Edgar does
not teach configuration of an invocation adapter to morph a specified
registered command that has already been registered to be invoked within a
multi-style application component framework. Req. 3-4. In our Decision,
we found that paragraphs 62, 63, and Figure 9 of Coulthard teach this
limitation. Decision 3. Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence or
argument to persuade us of error in these findings.
Appellant contends that deriving a context menu of different menu
items as taught by Coulthard is not the same as invoking a registered
command through a corresponding adapter from which the registered
command had been morphed. Req. 3-4. However, as we said in our
previous Decision (at 3), Appellant has not provided a definition of at
least one invocation adapter, which is configured to morph to a specified one
of the registered commands that has been registered to be invoked within a
multi-style application component invocation framework that excludes the
adapter that returns commands to be run as taught by Coulthard. Nor has
Appellant provided a definition of “invoking said specified one of said
registered commands through said configured invocation adapter” that

Appeal 2013-009294
Application 10/906,592

3

excludes using the run command to execute an externally registered menu
item returned by the remote system adapters as taught by paragraphs 62, 63,
and Figure 9 of Coulthard.

DECISION
We have granted Appellant’s request to the extent that we have
reconsidered our Decision, but we deny the request with respect to making
any changes therein.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

DENIED

hh