Ex Parte Taylor et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 9, 2017

12432086 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 9, 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.
12/432,086 04/29/2009 Jacob Taylor 1301-015U 6416
29973 7590 02/13/2017
CRGO LAW
ATTN: STEVEN M. GREENBERG, ESQ.
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, EL 33434
EXAMINER
SYED, FARHAN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2165
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/13/2017 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):
docketing@crgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JACOB TAYLOR, LILA ALEXEI TRETIKOV, MAJED ITANI,
JOSEPH PARSONS, TRAVIS SWICEGOOD, MATT HEITZENRODER,
ANDREW WU, ROGER SMITH, and JOHN MERTIC
Appeal 2015-004519
Application 12/432,086
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE,
and DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges.
KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2015-004519
Application 12/432,086
STATEMENT OF CASE1
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1 and 3—8.2 We have jurisdiction over the appeal
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a business software system for providing
customer relationship management. Spec. 1:16—18. Claim 1 is illustrative
of the invention and is reproduced below:
1. A business software application system, comprising:
a computing device with a processing unit;
a business software application having a plurality of lines
of computer code wherein the plurality of lines of computer code
are executed by the processing unit of the computing device to
generate a user interface of the business software application
comprising a plurality of tabs each of the tabs corresponding to
a different portions of the business software application;
a database containing a plurality of pieces of information,
and
the business software application further comprising a
tracker unit that tracks one or more user actions in the business
software application and displays in the computing device a
tracker bar comprising different tabs of the business software
application visited by an end user interacting with the tracker bar.
1 Our decision makes reference to Appellants’ Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,”
filed March 13, 2015), and Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed August 25,
2014), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed January 13, 2015) and
Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed March 24, 2014).
2 Claim 2 was cancelled previously.
2
Appeal 2015-004519
Application 12/432,086
REFERENCE
Michael J. R. Whitehead, Implementing SugarCRM, Packt Publishing,
Ltd. (2006).
REJECTION AT ISSUE
Claims 1 and 3—8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Whitehead. Final Act. 5—8.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding Whitehead discloses “a tracker bar
comprising different tabs of the business software application,” as recited in
independent claim 1?
ANALYSIS
We select claim 1 as representative of the group comprising claims 1
and 3—8 as Appellants have not argued any other claims with particularity.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Independent claim 1 recites “a tracker bar
comprising different tabs of the business software application.” The
Examiner interprets the claimed “tracker bar” as a bar that includes a user’s
navigation history where the navigation history appears in the form of items
of a business software application most recently visited by a user. Final Act.
6; see also Spec. 12:12—15. As a result, the Examiner finds that the “Last
Viewed” bar of Whitehead, which is described as “[a] useful trail of recent
records you have viewed” and displays parts of a software application
recently visited by the user in the form of hyperlinked records, is the same as
the claimed “tracker bar.” Final Act. 6 (citing Whitehead 61); Ans. 3.
Appellants contend the Examiner has misinterpreted the definition of
a “tracker bar” because the Examiner misinterprets Appellants’
3
Appeal 2015-004519
Application 12/432,086
Specification. App. Br. 6—8; Reply Br. 4—5. Specifically, Appellants argue
that an “activity map” or a “history map,” as indicated in the Specification
contains navigation history, not a tracker bar. See App. Br. 7 (citing Spec.
12:12—15); see also Reply Br. 4—5. We disagree with Appellants.
The Specification recites “[t]he [navigation] history may appear in a
form of an activity map or a tracker bar that may display the items or tabs
of the application most recently visited by the user.” Spec. 12:13—15
(emphasis added). We agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 6) and find that
this citation to the Specification indicates that the navigation history is
represented in either an activity map or a tracker bar. Therefore, an
interpretation of “tracker bar” to include or represent the navigation history
is consistent with the Specification. Therefore, Whitehead’s “Last Viewed”
bar is the same as a “tracker bar” because the “Last Viewed” bar represents
the navigation history. .
Appellants also argue that Whitehead’s “Last Viewed” bar fails to
disclose the claimed tracker bar because Whitehead’s list of hyperlinked
records are not different tabs of a business software application because
Whitehead’s records are not tabs. App. Br. 7—8; Reply Br. 5—6.
Specifically, Appellants contend that. We disagree with Appellants.
Both Appellants’ Specification and claims fail to specifically define
the term “tabs.” However, in reviewing Appellants’ Specification, it is clear
that when a tab (i.e., home, “My portal,” calendar, activities, contacts,
accounts, leads, opportunities, etc.) is selected it directs the user to a page to
view specific information. Spec. 5—6. In this same fashion, the records in
Whitehead, when selected, direct the user to view specific information
related to a previously visited part of a software application. As such,
4
Appeal 2015-004519
Application 12/432,086
Whitehead’s “records” disclose the same functionality as that of the claimed
“tabs,” and, accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Whitehead’s
“records” disclose the claimed “tabs.” See Whitehead 60, 61, 63, 64.
Lastly, Appellants argue that because the Examiner has already
equated the tabs of the user interface to the tabs of the “Home Screen,” the
Examiner cannot now equate the tabs of the tracker bar to the hyperlinks of
recent records. App. Br. 8. However, Appellants’ argument does not
explain why the Examiner’s findings are insufficient. Additionally,
Appellants’ claims indicate that the user interface tabs are separate and
distinct tabs from the tracker bar tabs
For reasons indicated above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1 and 3—8.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding “a tracker bar comprising
different tabs of the business software application,” as recited in independent
claim 1.
SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 3—8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Whitehead 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).
AFFIRMED
5