Ex Parte Schwartz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 4, 2017

13812600 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 4, 2017)

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.
13/812,600 01/28/2013 Dror Schwartz 83185162 3665
56436 7590 12/06/2017
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
EXAMINER
YI, RINNA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2172
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/06/2017 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):
hpe.ip.mail@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 DROR SCHWARTZ, AMIR KESSNER, ITHAI LEVI,
MOSHE ERAN KRAUS, and EYAL KOBRIGO
Appeal 2017-005862
Application 13/812,6001
Technology Center 2100
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-20, which are the only claims pending in the application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, LP, a wholly-owned affiliate of Hewlett-Packard
Company, whose general or managing partner is HPQ Holdings, LLC. Br.
1.
Appeal 2017-005862
Application 13/812,600
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention is generally related to
identifying and representing “multiple alternative interpretations of a
particular user action that is made by the user in a user interface (e.g., a
graphical user interface or GUI).” Spec. ^ 6.2
Claims 1 and 9 are exemplary and reproduced below:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a system having a processor, an indication
of a particular user action made in a user interface during a
recording session;
identifying, by the system, plural alternative
interpretations of the particular user action;
producing, by the system, a representation of the plural
alternative interpretations of the particular user action; and
generating, by the system, automation code that contains
the representation, wherein the automation code is executable to
replay the particular user action.
9. An article comprising at least one non-transitory
computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that
upon execution cause a system having a processor to:
receive automation code having a representation
containing plural alternative interpretations of a user action
made in a user interface, wherein one of the plural alternative
interpretations is marked as active while another one of the
plural alternative interpretations is marked as inactive; and
2 Our Decision refers to the Final Action mailed May 8, 2015 (“Final Act.”);
Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed Oct. 5, 2015 (“Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer
mailed Mar. 25, 2016 (“Ans.”); and the original Specification filed Jan. 28,
2013 (“Spec.”).
2
Appeal 2017-005862
Application 13/812,600
execute the automation code to replay the user action
using the active alternative interpretation.
Rejections on Appeal
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Klementiev (US 2005/0278728 Al; published Dec. 15, 2005).
Claims 2-5, 9-16, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Klementiev and Elenburg et al. (US
2006/0253742 Al; published Nov. 9, 2006) (“Elenburg”).
Claims 6-8 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Klementiev, Elenburg, and Chen et al. (US 2004/0221242
Al; published Nov. 4, 2004) (“Chen”).
ANALYSIS
Rejection of Claim 1 under § 102(b)
Appellants argue claim 1 is allowable over Klementiev because
Klementiev does not disclose “the identifying of plural alternative
interpretations of the particular user action, and producing a representation
of the plural alternative interpretations of the particular user action.” Br. 7.
In particular, Appellants argue that, in Klementiev, one action (a hover
action) results in one event being recorded. Id. According to Appellants,
Klementiev does not disclose “identifying plural alternative interpretations
of the particular user action and producing a representation of the plural
alternative interpretations of the particular action, where this representation
... is contained in automation code that is generated and that is executable
to replay the particular user action.” Id.
3
Appeal 2017-005862
Application 13/812,600
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Instead, we agree
with the Examiner’s findings and reasons that Klementiev discloses the
limitations of claim 1, including the “identifying,” “producing,” and
“generating” limitations argued by Appellants. Final Act. 2-3 (citing
Klementiev 64-70, 81, 126, 127); Ans. 4-5 (citing Klementiev 66-70).
We adopt those findings and reasons as our own and incorporate them herein
by reference. In particular, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that
Klementiev discloses hovering over an expandable element automatically
causes its side menu to expand, which the Examiner correctly interprets as
identifying “plural alternative interpretations of the particular user action
(i.e., hover action).” Ans. 4. The Examiner also finds, and we agree,
Klementiev discloses “[t]he collector 320 records both expand events.” Id.
Accordingly, we further agree with the Examiner’s finding that “the act of
hovering over an expandable UI element results in one expand event having
multiple menu options being recorded thus, a single user action in
Klementiev results in the identifying of multiple . . . [alternative]
interpretation^] of the user action.” Id. at 5 (citing Klementiev 66-70).
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1
under § 102(b).
Rejection of Claims 2—5, 9 16, and 18—20 under § 103(a)
Claim 2
Appellants argue there is no teaching in Elenburg “of plural
alternative interpretations of the particular user action, as recited in claim 2.”
Br. 8 (emphasis omitted). Appellants also argue “[t]he concept of selecting
one of multiple possible alternative interpretations of one user action clearly
does not exist in Elenburg.” Id. at 9.
4
Appeal 2017-005862
Application 13/812,600
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. First, Appellants
attack on Elenburg as failing to teach “plural alternative interpretations of
the particular user action” is not persuasive because the Examiner relies on
Klementiev as teaching this limitation. See Ans. 4. “Non-obviousness
cannot be established by attacking references individually where the
rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.” In re
Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The relevant
inquiry is whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to
those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of the
references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Second, we
agree with the Examiner’s findings that Elenburg teaches “the system 10
executes a selected test script step by selecting one of the test script
identifier texts (e.g., Launch Browser)” and that “the recording toolbar 301
displays the script step identifier texts for the available test script steps (e.g.,
305, 306, and 307) and allows the user to select each script scrip step to
perform the corresponding action (paragraphs 72-77 and 38).” Ans. 5-6.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner’s (1) finding that the combination
of Klementiev and Elenburg teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 2
and (2) conclusion that the combination renders claim 2 obvious. Thus, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2.
Claims 3-5 and 9-14
Claim 3, which depends indirectly from independent claim 1, recites,
inter alia, “marking, in the representation, one of the plural alternative
interpretations of the particular user action as an active alternative
interpretation, and another of the plural alternative interpretations of the
particular user action as an inactive alternative interpretation.” (Emphasis
5
Appeal 2017-005862
Application 13/812,600
added). Claim 4, which depends directly from claim 1, contains this same
limitation. Similarly, independent claim 9 recites “wherein one of the plural
alternative interpretations is marked as active while another one of the plural
alternative interpretations is marked as inactive.'1'’ The Examiner relies on
Elenburg as teaching these disputed limitations. Ans. 6-7, 9-10. However,
for the reasons argued by Appellants, we agree with Appellants that
Elenburg does not teach or suggest marking one of the alternative
interpretations of the user action as inactive. See Br. 9-10, 13-14.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of (1)
dependent claims 3 and 4, as well as claim 5, which depends from claim 4,
and (2) independent claim 9, as well as claims 10-14, which depend from
claim 9, for obviousness under § 103(a) based on the combination of
Klementiev and Elenburg.
Claims 15, 16, and 18-20
Appellants argue claim 15 is allowable over the combination of
Klementiev and Elenburg for reasons similar to those argued with respect to
claims 1 and 9. Br. 15. For the reasons discussed above regarding claim 1,
we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Klementiev does not
teach “a container containing information regarding plural alternative
interpretations of a user action made in a user interface.” We also are not
persuaded by Appellants’ argument regarding claim 9 with respect to claim
15 because the claims are different in scope. That is, although claim 9
recites “one of the plural alternative interpretations is marked as active while
another one of the plural alternative interpretations is marked as inactive,”
claim 15 recites “identify one of the plural alternative interpretations as an
active alternative interpretation, wherein execution of automation code
6
Appeal 2017-005862
Application 13/812,600
containing the container causes replaying of the user action according to the
identified active alternative interpretation.” (Emphasis added). In addition,
we agree with the Examiner’s findings and reasons that the combination of
Klementiev and Elenburg teaches or suggests all of the limitations of claim
15, including the aforementioned limitation of the claim, and we adopt those
findings and reasons as our own. See Final Act. 11-13. Thus, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15, and the rejection of dependent claims
16 and 18-20, which are not separately substantively argued.
Rejection of Claims 6—8 and 17 under § 103(a)
Appellants argue that claims 6-8 and 17 are allowable in view of the
allowability of their respective base claims. See Br. 15. Because we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, from which claims 6-8 depend, and the
rejection of claim 15, from which claim 17 depends, we also sustain the
rejection of claims 6-8 and 17.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 6-8, and 15-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 3-5 and 9-14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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-IN-PART
7