Ex Parte T S et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 9, 2016

12955667 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 9, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/955,667 11/29/2010
32864 7590 06/13/2016
FISH & RICHARDSON, P,C (SAP)
PO BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sabarish TS
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.
19796-0042001 I
2010P0034
CONFIRMATION NO.
7925
EXAMINER
HOPE, DARRIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2173
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/13/2016 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):
P ATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SABARISH T S, SAGAR JOSHI, GANESH KUDV A,
SURESH HONN APP ANA VAR, V ARUN VS, and
NARENDRA N. SHUKLA
Appeal2014-006904
Application 12/955,667
Technology Center 2100
Before LINZY T. McCARTNEY, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-21, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify SAP AG as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-006904
Application 12/955,667
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention generally relates to the
dynamic generation of a computer software graphical user interface. Spec.
iTiT 1, 2.2
Claim 1 is representative and reads as follows:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
identifying a user interface of an application
designated for presentation to a particular end user in a
plurality of end users of the application, the user interface
rendered based at least in part on a user interface template,
the user interface template including a plurality of
placeholders, and the user interface adapted to receive user
inputs;
identifying at least one attribute of the particular end
user;
selecting a first set of user interface (UI) building
blocks from a plurality UI building blocks, the first set of
UI building blocks including at least one configurable UI
building block dynamically selected from a set of
configurable UI building blocks based on the identified
attribute of the particular end user;
populating at least one placeholder of the user
interface template with the first set of UI building blocks
to render the user interface for presentation to the
particular end user; and
2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed July 2, 2013 ("Final
Act."); Appellants' Appeal Brief filed Dec. 2, 2013 ("App. Br."); the
Examiner's Answer mailed Mar. 27, 2014 ("Ans."); Appellants' Reply Brief
filed Apr. 14, 2014 ("Reply. Br."); and the Specification filed Nov. 29, 2010
("Spec.").
2
Appeal2014-006904
Application 12/955,667
presenting the user interface to a user of the
application, the user interface rendered for presentation to
the particular end user.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-3, 9, 13, and 16-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Haut (US 2003/0110448 Al; published June 12,
2003).
Claim 4--8, 10-12, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Haut in view ofMisovski (US 2007/0150805 Al;
published June 28, 2007).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellants' conclusions. Unless otherwise noted, we
adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Office Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-20) and in the
Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 2--4), and
we concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. For emphasis, we
consider and highlight specific arguments as presented in the Briefs.
Appellants contend Haut fails to disclose a dynamic user interface for
a single application. App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 1-2. In particular, Appellants
argue independent claims 1, 13, 16, 20, and 21 recite "an application" and
"the application," which a person of ordinary skill in the art would
understand refers to a single application. App. Br. 7-8. In regard to the
3
Appeal2014-006904
Application 12/955,667
Examiner's finding that the portlet GUls disclosed in Hunt disclose the
claimed user-interface building blocks, Appellants argue
"the portlet GUis are interfaces for different applications, not a single
application." Id. at 8. Appellants further argue:
In particular, the claim is directed to a user interface to an
application that may be configured differently using the UI
building blocks. Even though Haut teaches that the portlet
GUis can be configured differently, the collection of these
portlet GUis is still a collection of multiple interfaces to
multiple applications. Thus, Haut fails to teach or suggest that
selecting different sets of portlet GUis configures different user
interfaces for a single application.
Id; see also Reply Br. at 2.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has
erred. Although Appellants argue claim 1 recites identifying a user interface
of "an" application and Haut's portlet GUis do not constitute the claimed
user=interface building blocks because they are different interfaces for
multiple applications, rather than a single application (see App. Br. 7-8), the
usual rule is that '"a' or 'an' in patent parlance carries the meaning of 'one or
more' in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase 'comprising."'
KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed.Cir.2000).
This convention is overcome only when "the claim is specific as to the
number of elements" or "when the patentee evinces a clear intent to ... limit
the article." Id. Here, the term "single" is not used in the claims, and
Appellants have failed to persuasively demonstrate a clear intent in the
Specification to limit claim 1 as argued. Thus, the recitation of a user
interface for "an" application in claim 1 does not limit the claim to only a
user interface for a single application.
4
Appeal2014-006904
Application 12/955,667
We are also not persuaded by Appellants arguments that Haut does not
disclose the "selecting," "populating," and "presenting" limitations of claim
1, as well as the similar limitations of claims 13, 16, 20, and 21. See App.
Br. 7; Reply Br. 1. Appellants have not provided sufficient explanation or
reasoning in rebuttal to the Examiner's findings concerning these limitations
to persuade us of error. Merely asserting that the cited prior art references
do not disclose a claim limitation is insufficient to show error. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(iv)(2013); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir.
2011 ). To the extent these arguments are based on Appellants' argument that
Haut's portlet GUis are not user-interface building blocks because they are
interfaces for more than a single application, we do not agree with
Appellants for the reasons stated supra.
Based upon the Examiner's findings, on this record, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on Haut as disclosing the
disputed limitations of claim 1, nor do we find error in the Examiner's
finding that Haut anticipates claim 1, as well as claims 13, 16, 20, and 21,
which are argued together with claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 13, 16, 20, and 21under35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b). We also sustain the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) of dependent claims 2, 3, 9, and 17-19, which are not separately
argued. See App. Br. 8; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Regarding the
Examiner's rejection of claims 4--8, 10-12, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a), Appellants argue these claims are allowable "at least because they
depend from one of allowable Claims 1 and 13." See App. Br. 8. Because
we sustain the Examiner's findings that claims 1 and 13 are not allowable
5
Appeal2014-006904
Application 12/955,667
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 4--8,
10-12, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 9, 13, and
16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 4--8, 10-12, 14,
and 15 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
6