Ex Parte Raiz et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 23, 2006

09827957 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 23, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte GREGORY L. RAIZ, CHRISTOPHER A. EVANS, LOUIS AMADIO
and AARON B. TINLING
_____________
Appeal No. 2006-0538
Application No. 09/827,957
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON and SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants have appealed to the Board from the examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1 through 20. Representative claim 1
is reproduced below:
1. A method for displaying a focus state of a user
interface element in a graphical user interface of a
computing system, the method comprising:
testing whether a control state of the user interface
element is a disabled state or an active state;
if the control state is the active state, detecting if
the user interface element is in a focus state;
Appeal No. 2006-0538
Application No. 09/827,957
2
if the user interface element is in the active state
and in the focus state, building a merged state indicating
the user interface element is in the active state and in the
focus state; and
rendering based on the merged state a display of the
user interface element in the active state with a focus
state indicator.
The following reference is relied on by the examiner:
Rock et al. (Rock) 6,039,047 Mar. 21, 2000
Claims 1 through 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Rock.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the
examiner, reference is made to the brief (no reply brief has been
filed) for appellants’ positions, and to the answer for the
examiner’s positions.
OPINION
Essentially for the general reasons set forth by the
examiner in the answer as amplified here, we sustain the
rejection of claims 1 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Independent claims 1, 7, 11, 17 and 20 are presented for
consideration. Appellants’ brief presents no arguments with
respect to any dependent claim on appeal. Each of the
independent claims basically sets forth two separate testing or
logical decision making operations with respect to two separate
Appeal No. 2006-0538
Application No. 09/827,957
3
display states for a user interface element. Independent claims
7, 11, 17 and 20 further recite that a so-called theme be
associated with a focus state and/or an operative state.
We do not agree with appellants’ apparent basic views that
figure 5 of Rock does not show testing operations for whether a
control is in an active or disabled state AND further testing of
the focus state of the control. It appears to us from figure 5
that a control may either be in an active or disabled state in
association with the cursor being over or away from a particular
control region as logically reflected in decision blocks 520 and
550. Correspondingly, each of those also have additional, second
logical requirements which are reflected in region 530 and 550
which determine whether a particular control region or all
control regions of a tool bar are dimmed or undimmed. The left
side of the figure appears to be much more logically explicit
indicating an active state of a cursor where it is over a control
region plus an active focus determination of an undimmed state,
thus fulfilling the additional requirements of the independent
claims of the merging or combined logical operation. The result
of this combined state is therefore rendered or otherwise
displayed according to Rock’s teachings in the requirements of
the independent claims on appeal.
Appeal No. 2006-0538
Application No. 09/827,957
4
In is believed that these remarks better state the
examiner’s views at pages 8-9 in the responsive arguments portion
of the answer. There is no reply brief traversing them.
Lastly, it is noted that the discussions with respect to
alternative embodiments at columns 4 through 6 of Rock clearly
relate to teachings associated with different themes of the
respective control and focus states either individually or
collectively. This portion of Rock clearly indicates that a
theme or overall visual appearance may be changed based upon font
or color or size changes, etc. The paragraph bridging columns
4 and 5 of Rock indicate that one or more of the preferred
embodiments may be used in combination and that the particular
appearance controlling features of the control regions may be
individually or collectively changed in appearance. In view of
these latter teachings, the toolbar 40 as a whole and/or
individual regions within this toolbar are individually
controllable with respect to the logic in figure 5.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner
rejecting claims 1 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is affirmed.

Appeal No. 2006-0538
Application No. 09/827,957
5
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
)
MAHSHID D. SAADAT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JDT:hh
Appeal No. 2006-0538
Application No. 09/827,957
6
MERCHANT & GOULD (MICROSOFT)
P.O. BOX 2903
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-0903