Ex Parte Taieb et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 8, 2011

11426100 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 8, 2011)

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.
11/426,100 06/23/2006 David Taieb CAM920060062US1 (136) 1355
46321 7590 11/08/2011
CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
950 PENINSULA CORPORATE CIRCLE
SUITE 2022
BOCA RATON, FL 33487
EXAMINER
TILLERY, RASHAWN N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/08/2011 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DAVID TAIEB, TOMEN TSE, and YOSHITO UMAOKA
____________

Appeal 2010-001271
Application 11/426,100
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and
CAROLYN D. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention assigned and manages label mnemonics for user
interfaces. See generally Spec. ¶¶ 0001, 0008-12. Claim 1 is illustrative
with key disputed limitations emphasized:
Appeal 2010-001271
Application 11/426,100

2
1. A dynamic label mnemonic assignment method
comprising:
generating a run-time set of label mnemonics for a set of
labels in a user interface for a computer program;
determining if any of the run-time generated label
mnemonics are not unique for the set of label mnemonics;
responsive to determining that any of the run-time
generated label mnemonics are not unique for the set of label
mnemonics, generating a different set of label mnemonics for
the set of labels; and,
rendering the user interface for the computer program.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Koch US 2004/0075696 A1 Apr. 22, 2004
Denholm US 7,263,669 B2 Aug. 28, 2007
(filed Nov. 8, 2002)

THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-3 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Koch. Ans. 3-4.1
2. The Examiner rejected claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Koch and Denholm. Ans. 4-5.

THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION
The Examiner finds that Koch discloses every recited feature of
representative claim 1 including (1) generating a run-time set of label
mnemonics (which the Examiner equates to Koch’s generating mnemonics

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed April 29, 2009
and the Examiner’s Answer mailed August 3, 2009.
Appeal 2010-001271
Application 11/426,100

3
corresponding to dynamically-generated menu items), and (2) generating a
different set of label mnemonics if any of the run-time generated mnemonics
are not unique (i.e., not already assigned to other menu items). Ans. 3-6.
Appellants argue that Koch does not generate a different set of label
mnemonics if any mnemonics of an initially-generated run-time mnemonic
set are not unique as claimed. Br. 3-6.

ISSUE
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Koch (1) generates a run-time set of label mnemonics for a set of labels
in a user interface, and (2) generates a different set of label mnemonics if
any run-time generated label mnemonics for the mnemonic set are
determined to be not unique?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
1. Koch’s mnemonics generator 108 automatically assigns
mnemonics (e.g., characters, numbers, or other data that can be input via a
keyboard) to dynamically-generated menu items on a user interface to
enable selection via a keyboard. Koch, ¶¶ 0005, 0014, 0019-20, 0023; Figs.
1-2.
2. Koch assigns mnemonics to menu items according to global
preferences by assigning a character specified in a preference table as the
mnemonic, provided that the mnemonic preference has not already been
assigned to another menu item. Koch, ¶ 0033; Fig. 5 (step 515).
Appeal 2010-001271
Application 11/426,100

4
3. If there are no mnemonic preferences, Koch chooses the first
available character in the menu item’s title (i.e., a free character that has not
been used) as a mnemonic. Koch, ¶ 0034; Fig. 6 (steps 610-625).

ANALYSIS
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1
essentially for the reasons indicated by the Examiner. Ans. 5-6. As the
Examiner indicates (Ans. 6), by automatically assigning label mnemonics to
dynamically-generated menu items, Koch therefore generates a
corresponding run-time set of label mnemonics. See FF 1. And as the
Examiner indicates (Ans. 5), if a particular mnemonic in Koch has already
been assigned to other menu items, it is not unique, at least with respect to
its previous assignment. See FF 2-3.
For example, if a character in a menu item’s title in Koch is
unavailable (i.e., not a “free” character), it is not unique since it was
previously assigned. See FF 3. In that circumstance, the system searches
the title for the first available character (i.e., one that has not been previously
assigned), and assigns that character as a mnemonic. Id. Therefore, Koch
generates a different set of label mnemonics (i.e., available characters) if any
of the run-time generated mnemonics are not unique. Appellants’ arguments
regarding Koch’s shortcomings in this regard (Br. 3-6) are unavailing for
they are not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 1, and claims 2, 3, and 5 not separately argued with
particularity.

Appeal 2010-001271
Application 11/426,100

5
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
We likewise sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 4
over Koch and Denholm. Ans. 4-5. Although Appellants contend that the
Examiner’s rationale for combining the references is flawed due to the cited
prior art’s failure to teach or suggest the limitations of claim 1 (Br. 6-8), we
are unpersuaded by these arguments for the reasons previously discussed.
We also find the Examiner’s reason to combine the teachings of Koch and
Denholm supported by articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 4.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting (1) claims 1-3 and 5 under §
102, and (2) claim 4 under § 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-5 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

pgc