Ex Parte Petersen et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 25, 201311740694 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte KRISTIN PETERSEN and CARLI CONNALLY ____________________ Appeal 2011-002968 Application 11/740,694 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JUSTIN BUSCH, and PATRICK M. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges. Per Curiam. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-002968 Application 11/740,694 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Introduction According to Appellants, the invention relates to a system and method for displaying sorted test data entries. A plurality of test data items are grouped to form a plurality of test data entries. The test data entries are sorted in accord with one or more of the test data items found within the test data entries, and a dynamically updated range of the sorted test data entries is displayed via a sorted table of a graphical user interface (GUI). (Abstract). Exemplary Claim Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A computer-implemented method, comprising: grouping a plurality of test data items to form a plurality of test data entries, wherein the test data items include test results and test result identifiers, and wherein each of the test data entries includes at least one of the test results and at least one of the test result identifiers; sorting the test data entries in accord with one or more of the test data items found within the test data entries; Appeal 2011-002968 Application 11/740,694 3 displaying a dynamically updated range of the sorted test data entries, via a sorted table of a graphical user interface (GUI); and providing, via the GUI, at least one sort mechanism that enables a user to select from among the one or more test data items in accord with which the test data entries are sorted. REFERENCES Gillenwater Clark US 6,338,148 B1 US 6,725,228 B1 Jan. 8, 2002 Apr. 20, 2004 REJECTION The Examiner made the following rejection: Claims 1-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gillenwater and Clark (Ans. 4). ISSUE 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1-23 Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Gillenwater and Clark (App. Br. 10). Specifically, Appellants contend Gillenwater does not teach “grouping a plurality of test data items to form a plurality of test data entries, wherein the test data items include test results and test result identifiers, and wherein each of the test data entries includes at least one of the test results and at least one of the test result identifiers” (App. Br. 10). Appellants argue the Examiner found Gillenwater’s counts of “failures” correspond to the recited “test results” while Gillenwater’s “test numbers” correspond to the recited “test result identifiers” (App. Br. 10). Thus, Appeal 2011-002968 Application 11/740,694 4 Appellants allege, Gillenwater discusses an array containing “test numbers” and “counts of failures” but not “failures” (Reply Br. 3). Appellants next argue, contrary to the Examiner’s contention, Gillenwater does not disclose how and whether the information in the failure database is displayed (Reply Br. 4). Furthermore, Appellants contend Gillenwater does not disclose a user-operable “sort mechanism” from which selections can be made for sorting the array (App. Br. 12). Appellants also argue Gillenwater is directed to a “very different method” than the present invention (App. Br. 11). According to Appellants, “the Examiner is improperly melding the descriptions of three different items disclosed by Gillenwater” and this improper melding does not exist in Gillenwater (id.). Moreover, Appellants contend the Examiner’s reliance on Clark is misplaced since Gillenwater only discloses a display of test diagnostics and one of ordinary skill in the art would not have thought to provide a “sort mechanism” for sorting test diagnostics (App. Br. 13). Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Gillenwater and Clark teaches or suggests the limitations recited in claim 1? Appeal 2011-002968 Application 11/740,694 5 ANALYSIS We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions and adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to the Appeal Brief. In addition, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. Analyzing the obviousness of combining elements, a court “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim,” but rather may consider “the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art” and “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Here, we determine the Examiner’s findings are not inconsistent with the ordinary level of knowledge and skill in the art. We also note that Gillenwater’s teaching of the memory array is not limited to “test numbers” and “counts of failures” but instead, may include a record from the failure database which includes a number of fields (see e.g., col. 10, l. 34 – col. 11, l. 10; col. 11, ll. 33-49; Fig. 5). Further, we also determine Appellants seem to be arguing the references individually while the Examiner is relying on the combined teachings of Gillenwater and Clark (Ans. 4-5 and 10-11). Appellants have not persuaded us that incorporating Clark’s sorting mechanism into Gillenwater’s system would have destroyed Gillenwater’s system or its function (App. Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 6). Indeed, Gillenwater teaches sorting and we are not convinced using Clark’s technique to allow a user to choose the sort criteria (see Ans. 11) would have been uniquely challenging or beyond the skill of an ordinarily skilled artisan. In addition, the Examiner Appeal 2011-002968 Application 11/740,694 6 has articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning as to why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the references (Ans. 5 and 10). Appellants have not presented sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us of error in the Examiner’s findings. Accordingly, the Examiner did not err in finding the combination of Gillenwater and Clark teaches or suggests the limitations as recited in independent claim 1, commensurately recited independent claim 12 (not separately argued) and dependent claims 1-11 and 13-23 (also not separately argued). Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Gillenwater and Clark. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gillenwater and Clark is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED ELD Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation