Ex Parte Ragoler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 19, 2016

12512739 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/512,739 0713012009 Iftach RAGOLER
56436 7590 02/23/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
82257995 6278
EXAMINER
MAMO, ELIAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2184
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/23/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte IFTACH RAGOLER, ADI BARDA, and
RAN LAMPERT
Appeal2014-004884
Application 12/512,739 1
Technology Center 2100
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard
Development Co., LP. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-004884
Application 12/512,739
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The Invention
Appellants' claimed invention relates to a computer-readable media,
methods and computer systems for designing a software application
graphically. Title.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal (emphasis added to contested limitations):
1. A non-transitory computer-readable medium
having computer-executable instructions for designing a
software application graphically, the computer-executable
instructions causing a computer to perform steps comprising:
inserting graphical nodes representing first and second
activities of a software application into a design area;
inserting a graphical link between parameters of the
graphical nodes, the graphical link representing a data link
that includes an adjustable state; and
forming a computer-generated executable with the first
and second activities, the data link and the adjustable state.
2 Our decision relies upon Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
Aug. 26, 2013); Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Feb. 18, 2014); Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.," mailed Dec. 19, 2013); Final Office Action ("Final Act.,"
mailed Apr. 25, 2013); and the original Specification ("Spec.," filed
July 30, 2009).
2
Appeal2014-004884
Application 12/512,739
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Santori et al. ("Santori") US 2004/0255269 Al
Rosen et al. ("Rosen") US 2009/0113396 Al
Rejection on Appeal
Dec. 16, 2004
Apr. 30, 2009
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Santori and Rosen. Final Act. 2.
CLAIM GROUPING
Based on Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 5-12), we decide the
appeal of the rejection of claims 1--4, 7-10, 12-17, 19, and 20 on the basis of
independent claim 1. We decide the appeal of the rejection of separately
argued dependent claims 5, 6, 18, and 11, infra.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellants. We do not consider arguments
which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs so
that we deem any such arguments as waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
We disagree with Appellants' arguments with respect to claims 1-20,
and we incorporate herein and adopt as our own: ( 1) the findings and
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken, and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner's Answer in
response to Appellants' arguments. We incorporate such findings, reasons,
and rebuttals herein by reference unless otherwise noted. However, we
3
Appeal2014-004884
Application 12/512,739
highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claims 1, 5,
6, and 11 for emphasis as follows.
1. § 103(a)RejectionofClaim 1
Issue
Appellants argue (App. Br. 5-10; Reply Br. 2-3) the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the
combination of Santori and Rosen is in error. These contentions present us
with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches
or suggests the contested limitation of "inserting a graphical link between
parameters of the graphical nodes, the graphical link representing a data link
that includes an adjustable state," as recited in claim 1?
Analysis
Appellants contend:
The graphical user interface element and graphical program
element described by Santori are from different graphical
program development environments and are clearly not
equivalent to parameters of graphical nodes that represent
activities of a particular software application. See Santori,
Abstract; para. [0009].
App. Br. 7.
In the patentability context, "claims are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretations ... limitations are not to be read into the claims
from the specification." In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir.
1993) (citations omitted). Any special meaning assigned to a term "must be
sufficiently clear in the specification that any departure from common usage
4
Appeal2014-004884
Application 12/512,739
would be so understood by a person of experience in the field of the
invention." Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473,
1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Absent an express intent to impart a novel meaning
to a claim term, the words take on the ordinary and customary meanings
attributed to them by those of ordinary skill in the art. Brookhill-Wilk 1,
LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
(citation omitted).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' contention because Appellants
argue Santori's graphical user interface element and graphical program
element as cited by the Examiner (Final Act. 3) are "clearly not equivalent"
to the graphical nodes recited in claim 1, which purportedly "represent
activities of a particular software application." Id. However, claim 1 merely
recites graphical nodes representing activities, rather than the narrower
construction of "equivalent to," as advocated by Appellants. Given the
broadest reasonable interpretation standard, we conclude Santori's elements
are not required to be equivalent to the graphical nodes to cover the scope of
the disputed claim term under§ 103(a).
Appellants also contend:
Specifically, the present claims explicitly recite the insertion of
a graphical link representing a data link including an adjustable
state between parameters of graphical nodes representing first
and second activities of a software application. By contrast,
Santori does not teach or suggest inserting any type of graphical
link representing a data link including an adjustable state
between parameters of graphical nodes representing first and
second activities of a software application.
App. Br. 9.
5
Appeal2014-004884
Application 12/512,739
Appellants further allege:
[W]hile Santori does describe associating two elements with
each other by drawing a "wire" between them, the two elements
are not graphical nodes representing first and second activities
of a software application. See id. Rather, the two elements
include a graphical user interface element and a graphical
program element from two different graphical program
development environments. See id., paras. [0016] and [0019].
App. Br. 9-10.
We agree with the Examiner's finding that Santori's graphical program
elements teach or suggest "graphical nodes," as recited in claim 1. Final
Act. 2-3; Ans. 3.
We agree with the Examiner because Applicants do not point to a
specific definition in their claims or Specification for the claim terms
"graphical nodes," or "activities" that would preclude the Examiner's broader
reading. We conclude the Examiner's interpretation of Santori's program
elements is not overly broad, unreasonable, or inconsistent with the non-
limiting examples of control flow activities provided in Appellants'
Specification. Thus, we conclude the scope of the recited "activities"
encompasses the graphical program elements taught and suggested by
Santori. In particular, we find Santori's program elements teach or at least
suggest the exemplary list of activities 22 as shown in the toolbox area 18 of
GUI 12, depicted in Figure 1 of Appellants' disclosure. Spec. i-fi-f l 0, 11;
Fig. 1.
Appellants also contend "[m]oreover, the association, e.g., the 'wire,'
between the two elements described by Santori is not a data link that
includes an adjustable state." App. Br. 10.
6
Appeal2014-004884
Application 12/512,739
We disagree with Appellants, and agree with the Examiner's finding
that Santori's virtual wire drawn between the GUI and the graphical program
element teaches or at least suggests the disputed "graphical link," as recited
in claim 1. Ans. 2; Final Act. 3 (citing Santori i-f 19). We also agree with the
Examiner's finding that Santori's graphical program element, which may
modifY or configure the state of related data structures, teaches or suggests
the contested limitation "the graphical link representing a data link that
includes an adjustable state," as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 3; Ans. 3-6
(citing Santori i-fi-178, 107).
Accordingly, Appellants have not provided sufficient evidence or
argument to persuade us of any reversible error in the Examiner's reading of
the contested limitations on the cited prior art, or in the legal conclusion of
obviousness. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1, and grouped claims 1--4, 7-10, 12-17, 19, and 20
which fall therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra.
2. § 103(a) Rejection of Claim 5
Dependent claim 5 recites "[t]he non-transitory computer-readable
medium of claim 1, wherein the adjustable state includes a custom-coded
event."
Appellants contend:
[P]aragraph [0078] of Santori merely states that "[t]he graphical
program element may then modify or configure its state, e.g.,
may modify or configure the state of related data structures or
program code in accordance with the received data." Santori,
para. [0078]. The modification or configuration of the state of a
graphical program element is not the same as a custom-coded
event of an adjustable state of a graphical data link between
parameters of two graphical nodes.
7
Appeal2014-004884
Application 12/512,739
App. Br. 11.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' contention, and agree with the
Examiner's finding Santori's graphical program element, by modifying or
configuring the related data structures or program code, teaches or at least
suggests a "custom-coded event." Ans. 6-7; Final Act. 4 (citing Santori
i-f 78). We find the Examiner's broad but reasonable claim interpretation is
not inconsistent with Appellants' Specification, which lacks an explicit
definition of this claim term.
Accordingly, Appellants have not provided sufficient evidence or
argument to persuade us of any reversible error in the Examiner's reading of
the contested limitation on the cited prior art, or in the legal conclusion of
obviousness. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
dependent claim 5.
3. § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 6 and 18
Dependent claim 6 recites, in pertinent part, "wherein the adjustable
state transforms data from the output parameter from a first data type to a
second data type" (emphasis added).
Appellants contend:
Santori does not disclose using an adjustable state of a
graphical link to transform data to a different data type. Rather,
Santori describes receiving data from the GUI element at the
graphical program element and then processing the data
according to the functionality of the graphical program element.
App. Br. 11 (citing Santori i-f 31 ).
We agree with the Examiner's claim interpretation that the scope of
the contested claim language ("transforms data ... from a first data type to a
second data type") broadly but reasonably encompasses Santori's teaching of
8
Appeal2014-004884
Application 12/512,739
programmatically communicating data in an appropriate format. Ans. 7-8;
Final Act. 5 (citing Santori i-f 30). We further agree with the Examiner
because we find Santori's "appropriate format" teaches or at least suggests
the disputed limitation "transform[ation]" of a "data type."
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments because Appellants
have presented no evidence that transforming between two different data
types was "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the
art" or "represented an unobvious step over the prior art." Leapfrog Enters.,
Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citingKSR
Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418-19 (2007)).
Accordingly, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are
not persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the combined teachings
and suggestions of the cited prior art combination to teach or suggest all the
limitations of claim 6, nor do we find error in the Examiner's resulting legal
conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of dependent claim 6, and claim 18, which contains
commensurate limitations.
4. § 103(a) Rejection of Claim 11
Appellants contend:
[B]ecause Santori fails to disclose inserting a first graphical link
between first parameters of the graphical nodes, it follows that
Santori also fails to disclose inserting a second graphical link
between second parameters of the graphical nodes.
Accordingly, Santori fails to disclose all of the elements of
dependent claim 11.
App. Br. 12
9
Appeal2014-004884
Application 12/512,739
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments for the same reasons
discussed above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, we find the claimed
terms second graphical link and second parameters of the graphical nodes
would have merely produced a predictable result under § 103. We find such
duplication would have been a "predictable use of prior art elements
according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Thus,
claiming a mere plurality of prior art elements is not an unobvious
distinction over the prior art of record, because using plural elements would
have produced a predictable result under§ 103. See In re Marcum, 47 F.2d
377, 378 (CCP A 1931) ("A mere duplication of parts is not invention.")
(citing Topliff v. Topliff, 145 U.S. 156, 163 (1892)). "It is well settled that
the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and
unexpected result is produced .... " In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 671
(CCP A 1960).
Therefore, based upon the discussion above, on this record, we are not
persuaded of error regarding the Examiner's underlying factual findings and
ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness. Accordingly, we sustain the § 103
rejection of claim 11.
REPLY BRIEF
To the extent Appellants may advance new arguments in the Reply
Brief (Reply Br. 2-3) not in response to a shift in the Examiner's position in
the Answer, we note arguments raised in a reply brief that were not raised in
the Appeal Brief or are not responsive to arguments raised in the Examiner's
Answer will not be considered except for good cause (see 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(b)(2)), which Appellants have not shown.
10
Appeal2014-004884
Application 12/512,739
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err with respect to the obviousness rejection of
claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the cited prior art combination of
record, and we sustain the rejection.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20.
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
msc
11