Ex Parte Poston

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 30, 2016

12767285 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2016)

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.
12/767,285 04/26/2010 Ricky L. Poston 0081-201001 3362
93236 7590 01/04/2017
Brake Hughes Bellermann LLP
c/o CPA Global
900 Second Avenue South
Suite 600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
SALVUCCI, MATTHEW D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/04/2017 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):
docketing@brakehughes.com
uspto@brakehughes.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICKY L. POSTON
Appeal 2016-001660
Application 12/767,285
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-001660
Application 12/767,285
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1, 4—6, 9-13, 15, 16, 18, 23—25, and 27. The Examiner has objected
to claims 7, 8, and 26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
Representative Claim
1. A method, comprising:
displaying, in a first window, a first portion of a plurality
of nodes, each of the plurality of nodes representing one or more
components modeled by a service model, the first portion
including a first node of the first portion of the plurality of nodes,
the first node representing multiple subnodes of the service
model not displayed in the first window and the first window
including a representation of the first node with an associated
first target area and an associated second target area;
displaying a second window in response to determining
that a cursor is positioned substantially coincident with the first
target area, the second window displaying the first node coupled
with at least some of the subnodes of the service model
represented by the first node, the subnodes displayed in the
second window being a second portion of the plurality of nodes
that are absent from the first window; and
displaying a third window in response to determining that
the cursor is positioned substantially coincident with the second
target area, the third window displaying the first node coupled
with at least some of the subnodes of the service model
represented by the first node, the subnodes displayed in the third
window being a third portion of the plurality of nodes that are
absent from the first window, wherein the third portion is disjoint
from the second portion.
2
Appeal 2016-001660
Application 12/767,285
Prior Art
Gardner
Guido
Chang
US 2005/0076312 A1
US 2008/0016474 A1
US 2010/0169832 A1
Apr. 7, 2005
Jan. 17, 2008
July 1, 2010
Examiner’s Rejection
Claims 1, 4—6, 9-13, 15, 16, 18, 23—25, and 27 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Guido, Gardner, and Chang.
Claim 1 recites “displaying a third window” that displays “the first
node coupled with at least some of the subnodes of the service model
represented by the first node,” where the subnodes are “a third portion of the
plurality of nodes that are absent from the first window,” and “disjoint from
the second portion.”
Appellants contend Chang does not teach a second window displaying
a second portion of nodes that are disjoint from a third portion of nodes
displayed in a third window. App. Br. 13—15; Reply Br. 3—5. We agree
with Appellants for the reasons given in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief.
Chang, at best, shows a “first window” in teaching pane 303 that
displays a floating item, or “node,” such as a history item, and a “second
window” in teaching region 307 that displays an aspect of the history item
displayed in pane 303, such as additional subnodes 307. However, Chang
does not teach a third window displaying a third portion of nodes of the
service model that are not only disjoint from the second portion of nodes,
but also belong to the same service model as the second portion of nodes as
required by claim 1.
ANALYSIS
3
Appeal 2016-001660
Application 12/767,285
The Examiner’s rejection appears based on the premise that each item
displayed in the navigation pane of Chang is disjoint from the other items.
For example, the Examiner finds Paragraph 32 of Chang teaches the
navigation pane displays items A, B, and C, where the A items are tables,
the B items are queries, and the C items are reports. Ans. 20. According to
the Examiner, the A, B, and C items are disjoint because they each represent
different groups, and are each displayed in separate windows. Id. However,
claim 1 requires the second window and the third window to each display
nodes of the same service model. The Examiner has not explained how
items A, B, and C of Chang, corresponding to tables, queries, and reports,
are nodes and subnodes of the same service model, as recited in claim 1.
The Examiner also has not persuasively explained how Guido and
Gardner teach the “second window” and “third window” that each display
disjoint portions of the service model, as recited in claim 1.
We do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103. Claims 4—6, 9—13, 15, 16, 18, 23—25, and 27 either contain
or depend from a claim containing a limitation similar to that recited in
claim 1 for which the rejection fails.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 4—6, 9-13, 15, 16, 18, 23—25, and 27 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Guido, Gardner, and Chang is
reversed.
REVERSED
4