Ex Parte Shatalin et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 27, 201714089663 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 27, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 14/089,663 11/25/2013 Mikhail Shatalin 330581-US-CNT 7676 69316 7590 10/31/2017 MICROSOFT CORPORATION ONE MICROSOFT WAY REDMOND, WA 98052 EXAMINER HO, RUAY L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2175 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/31/2017 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): u sdocket @ micro soft .com chriochs @microsoft.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MIKHAIL SHAT ALIN, GUNJAN A. SHAH, SHAWN T. OSTER, JONATHAN D. SHELLER, ASHRAF A. MICHAIL, AKHILESH KAZA, and ALAN C.T. LIU Appeal 2017-004541 Application 14/089,663 Technology Center 2100 Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention separates rendering of information from receiving the information for display systems so that the rendering portion can be displayed quickly to the user, and the data can arrive as it is available to provide further detail. Spec. 1 5. In one embodiment, a display system displays items of a user interface without waiting for a retrieval of the Appeal 2017-004541 Application 14/089,663 information each of the items represent. Id. 127. According to the Specification, this allows the user interface to constantly update independent of network conditions. Id. Claim 1, reproduced below with our emphasis, is illustrative: 1. A computing device for displaying a user interface, the computing device comprising: a memory configured to store instructions; and a processor configured to execute the stored instructions, wherein execution of the stored instructions causes the computing device to: send information retrieval requests to one or more remote devices requesting information items; while waiting for the requested information items, independently render a display that includes multiple interface elements, the multiple interface elements being individually associated with respective ones of the requested information items; receive at least one of the requested information items; determine which of the multiple interface elements is associated with the at least one received information item; bind the at least one received information item to the determined interface element; and update the display with the at least one received information item. 2 Appeal 2017-004541 Application 14/089,663 THE REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claim 14 under 35U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as indefinite. Final Act. 6—7.1 The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Baumgartner (US 2010/0153997 Al; June 17, 2010). Final Act. 7—9. The Examiner rejected claims 2—6, 8—11, 13, 14, and 16—19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Baumgartner and Matsuura (US 2006/0129636 Al; June 15, 2006). Final Act. 9-15. The Examiner rejected claims 7, 12, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Baumgartner, Matsuura, and Bala (US 2003/0018644 Al; Jan. 23, 2003). Final Act. 15—16. THE INDEFINITENESS REJECTION The Examiner finds that displaying a second portion without rerendering a user interface recited in claim 14 renders the claim indefinite because it is said to raise a question “how to render or re-render a display without rendering the user interface.” Ans. 3. Appellants argue that claim 14 is definite to a skilled artisan since without rerendering a user interface covers the instance the user interface is not rendered again. App. Br. 7. According to Appellants, a skilled artisan 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed April 18, 2016 (“Final Act.”); (2) the Appeal Brief filed August 30, 2016 (“App. Br.”); (3) the Examiner’s Answer mailed December 1, 2016 (“Ans.”); and (4) the Reply Brief filed February 1, 2017 (“Reply Br.”). 3 Appeal 2017-004541 Application 14/089,663 would understand that rendering is a distinct action from displaying. Id. at 8. ISSUE Under § 112, second paragraph, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 14 by finding that displaying a second portion without rerendering the user interface renders the claim indefinite? ANALYSIS We will not sustain the Examiner’s indefmiteness rejection of claim 14 for the reasons indicated by Appellants. App. Br. 6—8; Reply Br. 2—3. To the extent the Examiner finds that claim 14 raises a question how to render or re-render a display without rendering the user interface (Ans. 3), we first note that claim 14 includes all the limitations of independent claim 8 from which claim 14 depends. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.75. Independent claim 8 recites, in pertinent part, (1) rendering a user interface, and (2) displaying a second portion of the rendered user interface. Thus, the rendering of step (1) is not the displaying of step (2). In fact, the rendering of step (1) occurs before the displaying of step (2) because the second portion of “the rendered user interface” is displayed in step (2). Claim 14 recites “wherein displaying the second portion includes displaying the second portion without rerendering the user interface.” We interpret the displaying of the second portion of claim 14 as referring to step (2) of independent claim 8. The term “re,” as used in the term “rerendering” of claim 14, is a prefix. The prefix “re-” is defined as “again : anew .” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 971 (10th ed. 4 Appeal 2017-004541 Application 14/089,663 1993) {prefix 1.). Thus, claim 14 recites displaying the second portion of step (2) without again rendering the user interface of step (1). On this record, then, we find that claim 14 is sufficiently clear. Therefore, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 14 under § 112, second paragraph. THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION The Examiner finds that Baumgartner discloses every recited element of independent claim 1 including, among other things, independently rendering a display that includes multiple interface elements while waiting for requested information items. Ans. 4 (citing Baumgartner, Abstract). Appellants argue, among other things, that the Examiner does not provide adequate reasoning as to why Baumgartner discloses independently rendering a display that includes multiple interface elements while waiting for requested information items. App. Br. 13—14; Reply Br. 3—6. ISSUE Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding that Baumgartner discloses independently rendering a display that includes multiple interface elements while waiting for requested information items? ANALYSIS We begin with claim construction. To this end, we give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 5 Appeal 2017-004541 Application 14/089,663 Claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, “while waiting for the requested information items, independently render a display that includes multiple interface elements.” Therefore, to resolve the question of patentability under § 102, we construe the term “render.” A computer dictionary defines the term “render” as “/t]o create something, as in a graphics image.” Dan Gookin & Sandra Hardin Gookin, Illustrated Computer Dictionary for Dummies 254 (4th ed. 2000) (emphasis added). Another computer dictionary defines the term “render” similarly as “/t]o create an image suitable for outputting on a VDU [visual display unit] or printer from a geometrical description of that image.” Dick Pountain, The Penguin Concise Dictionary of Computing 373 (2003) (emphasis added). Moreover, the term “create” is defined as “to bring into existence.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 272 (10th ed. 1993) (vt def. 1). Thus, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the term “render” is to bring into existence, and the term “render a display” is to bring a display into existence. Notably, bringing a display into existence does not require displaying the display. Although the Examiner interprets “independently render” as “render” (Ans. 13), each element in a claim is material to define the scope of the invention. See Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 29 (1997); see also Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[CJlaims are interpreted with an eye toward giving effect to all terms in the claim.”). Although the term “independent” is not defined in Appellants’ Specification to so limit its interpretation, the term “independent” is defined in a dictionary as “not requiring or relying on something else,” Merriam- 6 Appeal 2017-004541 Application 14/089,663 Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 591 (adj def. lb(l)); the suffix “-ly,” in turn, is defined as “in a (specified) manner,” id. 695 (adv suffix def. la). Thus, given these definitions, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the term “independently render” is to bring into existence in a specified manner not requiring something else. We next construe the recited independently rendering the display while waiting for requested information items. Notably, the Examiner finds the term “while waiting” does not carry patentable weight because “there is no precondition for [a] displaying or [an] updating operation to ‘waif for.” Ans. 14 (citing Spec. 127). Yet the Examiner cites paragraph 27 of the Specification to interpret the term “while waiting” as “during the time” or “when” waiting. Given this construction, the Examiner apparently gives the term “while waiting” patentable weight despite the Examiner’s statement to the contrary. See Ans. 14. We, therefore, deem any error associated with this statement harmless on this record. Here, claim 1 recites “[a] computing device for displaying a user interface” that “send[s] information retrieval requests to one or more remote devices requesting information items.” Because the claimed computing device and remote devices are separate devices, there is a distance between the computing device and the remote devices. Thus, the computing device sends information retrieval requests before it receives the requested information items, and thus the computing device waits between the two times for the requested information items. The term “while” is defined as “during the time that.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 1347 (conj def. la). Thus, the computing device, during the time (the claimed “while”) waiting for the requested information items, brings into 7 Appeal 2017-004541 Application 14/089,663 existence in a specified manner and not requiring something else (the claimed “independently render”) a display that includes multiple interface elements. With this construction, we see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Baumgartner’s vendor-specific interface screen functionality in the rejection as anticipating the disputed limitation. See Ans. 4 (citing Baumgartner Abstract). Baumgartner’s television application allows a user to request media-on-demand programming from vendors by displaying a main menu screen that includes on-screen options that correspond to video-on-demand content vendors. Baumgartner, Abstract; H 165—166; Fig. 25. In response to the user selecting an on-screen option, Baumgartner’s television application displays a vendor-specific interface screen. Id., Abstract; 11 166—167, 178; Fig. 26. Baumgartner’s television application generates the vendor-specific interface screen by first incorporating vendor-specific interface elements into an interface template. Id., Abstract; 1 178, 196; Fig. 29 (step 550). Baumgartner’s interface template screen is shown in Figure 28 reproduced below. 8 Appeal 2017-004541 Application 14/089,663 430 --V.434 A FEAioMQVlE^438 COMEDY ACTION -440 ™r~ 45 2 B v-444 A- ROMANCE - FAMILY - MYSTERY- 454 4S0 FIG. 28 o y- 3. 458 D "t~ 460 462 y- ■466 -446 ■448 -450 Baumgartner’s Figure 28 showing an interface template screen As shown above, Baumgartner’s Figure 28 shows an interface template screen before inserting or incorporating vendor-specific interface elements. Id. 1179. Baumgartner’s interface template screen is stored on user equipment. Baumgartner 1192. As shown in Figure 28, Baumgartner’s interface template screen includes elements such as advertisements (436), navigational icons (452-462), and menu options (438— 450). Id. Appellants’ Specification does not define the term “display” in claim 1. We, therefore, construe the term “display” according to its plain meaning, namely a “composition . . . designed to catch the eye.” Merriam- Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 335 (n def. lc). Given this definition, Baumgartner’s interface template screen in Figure 28 is a composition designed to catch the eye, and thus a “display” under its broadest reasonable interpretation. 9 Appeal 2017-004541 Application 14/089,663 Baumgartner’s displayed vendor-specific interface screen is shown in Figure 26 reproduced below. 330 368 333 3?G 372 374 376 FIG. 26 Baumgartner’s Figure 26 showing a vendor-specific interface screen “FIG. 26 shows an illustrative vendor-specific interface screen.” Baumgartner 145. Baumgartner’s screen (338) includes vendor-specific interface elements not included in the interface template screen illustrated in Figure 28, including a “vendor logo 340, vendor screen background 342, vendor menu title 344, and vendor option labels 346.” Id. 1167. Baumgartner’s vendor-specific interface elements are provided by a remote server. Id. 11 187, 195. Baumgartner’s television application retrieves the vendor-specific elements from the remote server after the user directs the television application to display a vendor-specific interface screen of the corresponding vendor. Id. 188, 193—95; Fig. 29 (steps 520 to 540). Accordingly, Baumgartner independently renders a display, namely by bringing into existence an interface template screen in a specified manner not requiring something else, where this display includes “multiple interface 10 Appeal 2017-004541 Application 14/089,663 elements” including advertisements (436), navigational icons (452-462), and menu options (438 450) illustrated in Baumgartner’s Figure 28. Notably, this rendering occurs while waiting for the requested “information items” from the remote server, namely the vendor-specific interface elements such as the vendor logo (340), vendor screen background (342), vendor menu title (344), vendor option labels (346), and various other graphical elements, including the rectangular boxes surrounding options (348—364) and navigational icons (348—364) that are added to the template as shown in Baumgartner’s Figure 26. Compare Baumgartner Fig. 28 with Baumgartner Fig. 26. On this record, then, we see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Baumgartner’s vendor-specific interface screen functionality in the rejection as anticipating the disputed limitation. See Ans. 4. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and claim 15 not argued separately with particularity. See App. Br. 14. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER BAUMGARTNER AND MATSUURA We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 2 (Ans. 5) reciting that a rendition of a display includes receiving layout information for a display, the layout information defining a visible area and a precached area. Despite Appellants’ arguments that Matsuura’s precache control unit precaches a webpage, and not an area of a display (App. Br. 14—15), Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s finding that Matsuura’s 11 Appeal 2017-004541 Application 14/089,663 precached webpage occupies an area of a display (Ans. 15). Even assuming, without deciding, that Matsuura’s precached webpage is not layout information defining the precached area for the display, the Examiner’s rejection is not based solely on Matsuura, but rather the collective teachings of Baumgartner and Matsuura. As such, Appellants’ arguments regarding Matsuura’s individual shortcomings do not show nonobviousness where, as here, the rejection is based on the cited references’ collective teachings. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Accordingly, the weight of the evidence on this record favors the Examiner’s position. Therefore, for the reasons noted above and by the Examiner, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 2, and claims 3—6, 8—11, 13, 14, and 16—19 not argued separately with particularity. THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 7, 12, and 20. Ans. 10-11. Because this rejection is not argued separately with particularity, we are not persuaded of error in this rejection for the reasons previously discussed. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in rejecting claim 14 under § 112, second paragraph. The Examiner did not err in rejecting (1) claims 1 and 15 under § 102(a), and (2) claims 2—14 and 16—20 under § 103. 12 Appeal 2017-004541 Application 14/089,663 DECISION2 The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—20 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)(l)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED 2 We leave to the Examiner to consider whether the recited computer- readable storage medium recited in independent claim 15 is ineligible under §101 as encompassing transitory media. See Ex parte Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857, 1862 (PTAB 2013) (precedential) (holding recited machine- readable storage medium ineligible under § 101 because it encompassed transitory media). 13 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation