Ex Parte Tootill

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 9, 2017

10346351 (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.
10/346,351 01/16/2003 David Tootill 019287-0324038 3968
105727 7590 02/13/2017
Pillsihnrv Winthrnn Shaw Pittman T T P (CK Tno ^
EXAMINER
PO Box 10500
McLean, VA 22102
DASGUPTA, SHOURJO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
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):
Docket_IP@pillsburylaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID TOOTILL
Appeal 2015-000784
Application 10/346,3511
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant files this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—7, 9-13, 15—21, 23, 24, 45, and
46. Claims 14, 25, and 35 were allowed. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to the “mouseless navigation of
web applications.” Spec. 1,11. 2—3. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject
matter of the appeal and is reproduced below.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is CA, Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-000784
Application 10/346,351
1. A method for navigation of web-based applications, the
method comprising:
generating a user interface, associated with a web-based
application, for presentation in a display window of a browser,
wherein the user interface includes a plurality of features, and
wherein one or more of the plurality of features includes a
plurality of sub-features;
establishing a first navigation mechanism that provides
navigation to one or more of the plurality of features in
response to one or more of a plurality of first key selections,
wherein the first navigation mechanism and the plurality of first
key selections are associated with a keyboard, and wherein
establishing the first navigation mechanism that provides
navigation to the plurality of features includes establishing a
first plurality of event handlers for the plurality of first key
selections;
establishing a second navigation mechanism that
provides navigation among the plurality of sub-features within
the one or more of the plurality of features in response to one or
more of a plurality of second key selections that include one or
more of an arrow key selection, a Home key selection, an End
key selection, a Shift-arrow key combination selection, a Shift-
Home key combination selection, or a Shift-End key
combination selection, wherein the second navigation
mechanism and the plurality of second key selections are
further associated with the keyboard, and wherein establishing
the second navigation mechanism that provides navigation
among the plurality of sub-features within the one or more of
the plurality of features includes establishing a second plurality
of event handlers for the plurality of second key selections; and
providing the user interface for presentation in the
display window of the browser on a computer coupled to the
keyboard, wherein the computer initiates one of the first
plurality of event handlers to activate one of the plurality of
features in the display window of the browser having a plurality
of sub-features in response to detecting one of the plurality of
first key selections associated with the activated feature, and
2
Appeal 2015-000784
Application 10/346,351
wherein the computer initiates one or more of the second
plurality of event handlers to navigate in the display window of
the browser among the plurality of sub-features within the
activated feature in response to detecting one or more of the
plurality of second key selections while a focus remains on the
activated feature in the display window of the browser.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 9, 13, 15—18, and 23
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of
McCain (US 5,916,310; issued June 29, 1999) and Tervo (US 2002/0036620
Al; published Mar. 28, 2002).
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 5—7, 10-12, 19-21, 24, 45, and
46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of
McCain, Tervo, and Mitchell (US 6,983,331 Bl; issued Jan. 3, 2006).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner erred. In reaching our decision, we consider
all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellant.
We disagree with Appellant’s arguments, and we incorporate herein
and adopt as our own the findings, conclusions, and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in (1) the December 5, 2013 Final Office Action (“Final Act.” 2—
16) and (2) the August 29, 2014 Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 2—23). We
highlight and address, however, specific findings and arguments below for
emphasis.
3
Appeal 2015-000784
Application 10/346,351
(1) Generating a user interface
Appellant argues the combination of Tervo and McCain fails to teach
or suggest “generating a user interface [(“UI”)], associated with a web-based
application, for presentation in a display window of a browser, wherein the
user interface includes a plurality of features and one or more of the plurality
of features includes a plurality of sub-features,” as recited in claim 1. App.
Br. 11. Addressing Tervo, Appellant argues it is silent as to the entire
limitation, and instead teaches “a particular program having a particular
interface.” App. Br. 11, 13; see also Reply Br. 7 (arguing for a distinction
between browser window and display window for rendered HTML in a
browser).
The Examiner finds, and we agree, the combination of McCain and
Tervo teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. See Ans. 15—16.
Specifically, the Examiner finds, and we agree, McCain teaches a browser
receiving a HTML page having UI components, which when the browser
executes the HTML code, “a graphical user interface having the UI
components is necessarily generated for display in the browser,” as part of a
web-based application. Ans. 16 (citing McCain col. 4,1. 62 to col. 6,1. 24).
Our reasoning and findings also apply to these same arguments
Appellant makes with respect to other claims on appeal, including claims 5
and 19.
(2) First and second navigation mechanisms
Appellant argues the combination of McCain and Tervo fails to teach
or suggest navigating among features or sub-features (i.e., the first and
second navigation mechanisms, respectively) in the UI using a keyboard key
selection. App. Br. 11—12; claim 1 (reciting (i) “establishing a first
4
Appeal 2015-000784
Application 10/346,351
navigation mechanism that provides navigation to one or more of the
plurality of features in response to one or more of a plurality of first key
selections” and (ii) “establishing a second navigation mechanism that
provides navigation among the plurality of sub-features within the one or
more of the plurality of features in response to one or more of a plurality of
second key selections”). According to Appellant, McCain instead teaches
(i) conventional data entry into a field feature that already has focus and
(ii) function keys that do not affect any browser functionality. App. Br. 11—
12 (citing McCain col. 5,11. 12—58). Appellant also argues McCain is silent
regarding pull-down menus and teaches away from activating or changing
the focus to another UI feature or sub-feature using a keyboard, especially
by using one of the keys enumerated in claim 1. App. Br. 12—13; Reply Br.
3^4 (citing McCain col. 1,11. 43—63; col. 5,11. 12—26; col. 6,11. 25^44
(arguing McCain merely teaches event handlers to capture keystrokes), 53—
67 (arguing, at best, the “tab” key is taught to navigate among features, and
doing so using other than a key recited in the claim language)).
As to Tervo, Appellant argues, at best, it teaches the first navigation
mechanism (i.e., among features), but “in no way, discloses or suggests the
recited second navigation mechanism that provides navigation among sub­
features in response to a key selection.” App. Br. 12 (citing Tervo Fig. 2,
1123—25). Further, as to Tervo’s Figure 5, — showing features (e.g., File,
Services, Shell, Systems), which the Examiner finds (Ans. 17) comprise
pull-down menus (i.e., features) featuring menu options (i.e., sub-features)
— Appellant argues “there is no disclosure, teaching or suggestion ... of a
key selection navigating among the alleged nested menu options [(i.e., sub­
features)] of the pull-down menu.” App. Br. 12. (citing Tervo Fig. 5, H 23—
5
Appeal 2015-000784
Application 10/346,351
25); see also Reply Br. 4—6 (citing same). Appellant also argues that the
Examiner incorrectly conflates features and sub-features (e.g., menus and
sub-menus) in a browser with the claimed features and sub-features “in the
display window of a browser.'1'’ Reply Br. 6 (emphasis added).
The Examiner finds the combination of McCain and Tervo teaches or
suggests the disputed limitations. Ans. 16—17; Final Act. 4. As to McCain,
the Examiner finds it teaches or suggests using a keyboard to activate focus
on a UI feature (e.g., using the “tab” key to change focus among features)
“and event handlers which are tied to UI features that are responsive to
keystrokes.” See Ans. 16 (citing McCain col. 5,11. 12—58; col. 6,11. 25^44,
53—67; col. 7,1. 62 to col. 8,1. 9); Final Act. 3^4. The Examiner also finds
McCain teaches using keystrokes as an alternative to mouse usage in a UI
environment. Id. (citing McCain col. 1,11. 46—63).
Furthermore, the Examiner finds Tervo teaches or suggests using ALT
+X keystroke commands in relation to UI features (i.e., a keyboard shortcut
to a UI feature). Ans. 17 (citing Tervo Fig. 2 (showing table of ALT + X
keystroke commands), 23—25). The Examiner also finds Tervo teaches or
suggests a UI with a keystroke-accessible menu (e.g., “File” menu marked
with “F” as a shortcut key, “Services” menu marked with “S,” “Shell” menu
marked with “H”), which teaches, or at least suggests that these menus (i.e.,
features) are tied to sub-features (i.e., sub-menus), such as “Open,” “New,”
or “Save” for the File menu, as is well known in the UI arts. See Ans. 17
(citing Tervo Fig. 5; ^fl[ 23—25); see also Final Act. 3^4. The Examiner also
finds Tervo “teaches or at least suggests keystroke-driven navigation at not
just a feature level (e.g., File, Systems, Shell, etc. as marking the pull-down
menu options) but also on a sub-feature level [(i.e., sub-feature menu)
6
Appeal 2015-000784
Application 10/346,351
because] . . . navigation commonly uses arrow keys to traverse upward or
downward among the sub-feature/pull-down menu options.” Ans. 17—18
(citing Tervo Fig. 5). The Examiner concludes that the combined teachings
of McCain and Tervo teach, or at least suggest, the disputed limitations.
Ans. 18; Final Act. 4—6.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and adopt them as our own.
McCain teaches or suggests using a keyboard to change focus among UI
features and using keystrokes as an alternative to mouse usage in a UI
environment. See McCain col. 1,11. 46—63; col. 6,11. 53—67. Tervo teaches,
or at least suggests, using ALT +X keystroke commands in relation to UI
features, including for keystroke-accessible menus (e.g., “File” menu
marked with “F” as a shortcut key, “Services” menu marked with “S,”
“Shell” menu marked with “H”). Tervo Figs. 2, 5; Tflf 23—25. We agree with
the Examiner that the combination at least suggests using keystroke
navigation also at a sub-feature level (i.e., for the sub-menus) to traverse,
inter alia, upward or downward among the sub-feature/pull-down menu
options. See Tervo Figs. 2, 5; 123 (teaching keystrokes associated with an
active screen, as well as other windows, screens, and functions). In contrast,
Appellant provides insufficient evidence or reasoning explaining why one of
ordinary skill in the art would limit the teachings and associated benefits of
keystroke navigation to only the feature level. See McCain col. 1,11. 46—63
(providing reasons why “[sjoftware developers typically implement software
functionality not only in a graphical, point-and-click manner, but also
through a series of keystrokes”) (emphasis added); see also KSR Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[T]he [obviousness] analysis
need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of
7
Appeal 2015-000784
Application 10/346,351
the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and
creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”); In re
Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968) (“[I]t is proper to take into account
not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one
skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.”). We
also find Appellant’s allegations of teaching away unsupported by the
record. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (teaching
away requires a reference to actually criticize, discredit, or otherwise
discourage investigation into the claimed solution).
Our reasoning and findings also apply to the same arguments
Appellant makes with respect to other claims on appeal, including claims 5,
15, 19, 45, and 46. With respect to claims 5 and 19, we further find the
combination of McCain, Tervo, and Mitchell teaches or suggests the above
features can include text boxes. See, e.g., McCain Fig. 1 (illustrating text
field elements (26 and 28) as UI features); col. 4,1. 62 to col. 5,1. 26; see
also Ans. 20 (citing Tervo Fig. 5 (showing UI controls that are text boxes)).
(3) Navigation usins one or more enumerated keys
Appellant argues the combination of McCain and Tervo fails to teach
or suggest “navigation among the plurality of sub-features ... in response to
... an arrow key selection, a Home key selection, an End key selection, a
Shift-arrow key combination selection, a Shift-Home key combination
selection, or a Shift-End key combination selection,” as recited in claim 1.
App. Br. 13. Specifically, Appellant argues the Examiner cited portions of
McCain relate to certain keys reserved for text editing rather than navigating
among sub-features, and thus, teach away from the claimed navigating. Id.
(citing McCain col. 7,1. 62 to col. 8,1. 9). Appellant also contends (i) one of
8
Appeal 2015-000784
Application 10/346,351
ordinary skill in the art would have not used the keys McCain identifies for
editing for navigating among sub-features and (ii) the Examiner presents no
evidence that arrow keys are commonly used for navigating sub-features in a
pull-down menu. Reply Br. 6.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, the combination of McCain and
Tervo teaches, or at least suggests, the disputed limitation. Ans. 17—18. The
Examiner finds, and we agree, McCain teaches or suggests keystroke inputs,
including an arrow key, a home key, and an end key for editing, as well as
keystroke navigation for features and sub-features. See supra (findings for
first and second navigation mechanisms); Ans. 17 (citing McCain col. 1,11.
46—63; col. 5,11. 12—26; col. 6,11. 25^44; col. 7,11. 62 to col. 8,11. 9; Tervo
Fig. 5); see also Tervo Fig. 2 (tabulating ALT + X key commands). We
agree with the Examiner and find the combined teachings of McCain and
Tervo would have at least suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art to use
arrow keys, which were commonly used for UI navigation, to traverse
upward or downward among the sub-features and pull-down menu options.
See id.', supra (findings for first and second navigation mechanisms); see
also KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; In re Preda, 401 F.2d at 826 (“[I]t is proper to
take into account not only specific teachings of the references but also the
inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw
therefrom.”).
Our reasoning and findings also apply to the same arguments
Appellant makes with respect to other claims on appeal, including claims 5,
11, 19, and 24.
9
Appeal 2015-000784
Application 10/346,351
(4) Background color
Appellant argues the combination of McCain and Tervo fails to teach
or suggest that “the computer places the focus on the activated feature in
response to detecting first key selection associated with the activated feature
and changes a background color associated with the activated feature in
response to placing the focus on the activated feature,” as recited in claims 9
and 23. App. Br. 16. Specifically, Appellant argues McCain and Tervo
make no mention of color, and instead, McCain refers to thickening (which
does not change the color) the frame about the perimeter of a button to
indicate current focus. Id. (citing McCain col. 5,11. 15—17); Reply Br. 10.
Appellant argues, at best, the combination teaches changing the color of the
frame around the perimeter of an element rather than its background color.
Id.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, the combination of McCain and
Tervo teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Ans. 19. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, McCain teaches:
The concept of “focus” is well known to those skilled in the art,
and relates to which component on a user interface is the
“active” component. Typically, some graphical representation
is made to inform the user which component currently has the
focus. For example, the frame about the perimeter of a button
may be thickened....
Id. (quoting McCain col. 5,11. 13—19) (emphasis omitted).
We also agree with the Examiner that “McCain sufficiently teaches the
visual modification of the activated/focus-having UI component^ and] . . .
“there are only so many different ways a graphical representation can be
made in relation to a UI component and color is a well-known
graphical/visual descriptor in the art of graphical user interfaces.” Ans. 19;
10
Appeal 2015-000784
Application 10/346,351
see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“If a person of ordinary skill can implement a
predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.”).
(5) Overrides default use
Appellant argues the combination of McCain, Tervo, and Mitchell
fails to teach or suggest “wherein the first navigation mechanism overrides
default use of one or more of the plurality of first key selections by the
program or the second navigation mechanism overrides default use of one or
more of the plurality of second key selections by the program,” as recited in
claim 5 and 19. App. Br. 20-21; Reply Br. 11—12. Appellant argues
Mitchell, which the Examiner relies upon, instead teaches (i) mouse events
(e.g., clicking on a maximize button, dragging a browser window to re-size)
and (ii) “modifying instructions that pertain to events associated with the
browser itself,” rather than refer to overriding default use of key selections
with respect to the display window to change the underlying functionality of
the event. See id. (citing Mitchell col. 3,11. 23—25; col. 9,11. 54—59; col. 12,
11. A-9).
The Examiner finds the combination of McCain, Tervo, and Mitchell
teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Ans. 20; Final Act. 10. As to
McCain, the Examiner finds it teaches or suggests “event handlers which are
tied to UI features that are responsive to keystrokes.” Ans. 20 (citing
McCain col. 6,11. 25 44). The Examiner also finds McCain teaches
changing focus among UI features by tabbing. Id. (citing McCain col. 6,11.
53—67). As to Tervo, the Examiner finds it teaches or suggests using ALT
+X style keystroke commands in relation to UI features (e.g., text boxes,
menus). Ans. 20 (citing Tervo Figs. 2, 5). As to Mitchell, the Examiner
finds it teaches or suggests “overriding of event handlers to augment a
11
Appeal 2015-000784
Application 10/346,351
webpage’s functionality per the selective/additional display command by a
user.” Final Act. 10 (citing Mitchell col. 3,11. 23—26 (teaching “selectively
displaying additional content on a display device within a limited browser
window display area”); col. 12,11. 4—12 (teaching overriding prior event
handlers with a superseding event handler). The Examiner finds that the
combined teachings of McCain, Tervo, and Mitchell teach, or at least
suggest, the disputed limitation. Ans. 20; Final Act. 10.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and adopt them as our own.
For example, we agree McCain teaches event handlers which are tied to UI
features, are responsive to keystrokes, and “enable enhancement of the keys
on the keyboard.” McCain col. 6,11. 25 44. We also agree Mitchell teaches
or suggests having superseding event handlers (i.e., event handlers that
override the default use of the prior event handlers associated with the keys)
to provide additional webpage functionality. Mitchell col. 12,11. 4—11.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to
combine McCain, Tervo, and Mitchell’s teachings to teach, or at least
suggest, using superseding event handlers with HTML UI features (e.g., text
boxes in a display window), rather than limiting Mitchell’s teachings to
events associated with the browser itself, as Appellant suggests. See KSR,
550 U.S. at 418 (“[T]he [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise
teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for
a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.”); In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826
(CCPA 1968) (“[I]t is proper to take into account not only specific teachings
of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would
12
Appeal 2015-000784
Application 10/346,351
reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.”); see also McCain col. 4,1. 62 to
col. 6,1. 44 (describing, inter alia, HTML and browser functions).
Our reasoning and findings also apply to the same arguments
Appellant makes with respect to other claims on appeal, including claims 5,
10, 11, 19, 24, 45, and 46.
(6) Combining Mitchell with McCain and Tervo
Appellant argues “there is no apparent reason to combine the cited
portions of Mitchell with the cited portions of McCain and Tervo.” App. Br.
21. Appellant argues “Mitchell merely instructs how] to provide the
underlying function of an event supplemented by certain instructions. Thus,
there would be no reason to consider Mitchell’s teaching of new instructions
because there are no supplemental instructions need[ed] for the alleged key
selections of McCain and Tervo and their alleged claimed functionality.”
App. Br. 22.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, McCain, Tervo, and Mitchell are
properly combined. Final Act. 11. The Examiner finds, and we agree, one
of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate
(i) Tervo’s hierarchical features (i.e., features and sub-features) with
McCain’s framework to “facilitate] quick selection of features presented in
a robust []UI” and (ii) Mitchell’s event-handler override “to provide a more
flexible framework that allows further modification and design by a
developer.” Id. (citing Tervo ^fl[ 2—5 (discussing the need for quick and easy
UI navigation); Mitchell col. 12,11. 4—11 (teaching enhancing
functionality)). Accordingly, we find the Examiner provides “articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
13
Appeal 2015-000784
Application 10/346,351
Our reasoning and findings also apply to the same arguments
Appellant makes with respect to other claims on appeal, including claims 5,
10, 11, 19, 24, 45, and 46.
(7) Text box with multiple lines
Appellant argues, inter alia, that the combination of McCain, Tervo,
and Mitchell fails to teach or suggest “wherein the activated text box
includes multiple lines,” as recited in claims 6 and 20. App. Br. 25; Reply
Br. 14—15. Appellant argues the Examiner “presents] no evidence of what
feature in FIGs. 2, 5, 7 and 8 of Tervo corresponds to the” disputed
limitation. App. Br. 25.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, the combination teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation. Ans. 20—21. The Examiner finds, and we
agree, “a text box is a mechanism for a user to enter text input into a UI”
feature and the cited references teach or suggest (as discussed above) “the
inclusion of text forms into their navigable []UI environments.” Ans. 21
(citing Tervo Fig. 5). We further agree with the Examiner that “[a] text box
. . . includes at least a single line of text” and can include multiple lines for
text, which “is at least suggested by Tervo and is . . . well-known in the art
of graphical user interfaces.” Id.
(8) Hyperlink label
Appellant argues the combination of McCain, Tervo, and Mitchell
fails to teach or suggest “the label associated with the activated text box
includes a hyperlink, and wherein the computer places a focus on the
hyperlink in the label associated with the activated text box,” as recited in
claims 7 and 21. App. Br. 26; Reply Br. 15—16. Appellant argues “[tjhere is
simply no disclosure, teaching or suggestion from the general disclosure of
14
Appeal 2015-000784
Application 10/346,351
an HTML page of suggestion of a ‘label associated with the activated text
box includes a hyperlink.’” App. Br. 26 (citing McCain col. 4,1. 62 to col.
6,1. 24). Appellant further argues even “if there were an activated text box
in the HTML page of McCain, a person of mere ordinary skill in the art
would consider the focus being on the activated text box itself,” rather than
the hyperlink in the label. Id.
The Examiner finds the combination teaches, or at least suggests, the
disputed limitation. Ans. 21. The Examiner finds “featuring a text label in
association with another []UI element, such as a text box, is well-known in
the art.” Id. Furthermore, the Examiner finds Tervo teaches or suggests text
box UI features having associated labels. See id. (citing Tervo Fig. 5; Final
Act. 8). The Examiner also finds McCain teaches or suggests the UI
“environment is web-based and is in fact a web page,” and it “is well-known
in the art [that a web page can] . . . feature a hyperlink to another web page.”
Ans. 21 (citing McCain col. 4,1. 62 to col. 6,1. 24).
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and adopt them as our own.
The combined teachings of McCain, Tervo, and Mitchell teach, or at least
suggest, having a hyperlink label associated with the activated text box
wherein the hyperlink can be the subject of the focus — because a hyperlink
can be selected, it would have been obvious to provide for it to be the
subject of the focus. See Tervo Fig. 5 (teaching, or at least suggesting, text
boxes with associated labels (e.g., company, first name, last name)); McCain
col. 4,1. 62 to col. 6,1. 24 (teaching, or at least suggesting, (i) HTML web
pages, for which it is well known can include hyperlinks to other web pages
and (ii) that “‘focus’ is well-known to those skilled in the art, and relates to
which component on a user interface is the ‘active’ component”); col. 7,1.
15
Appeal 2015-000784
Application 10/346,351
62 to col. 8,1. 9; see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“[T]he [obviousness]
analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject
matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences
and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”);
id. at 417 (“when a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with each
performing the same function it had been known to perform’ and yields no
more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is
obvious.”) (citation omitted).
(9) Second and third iavascripts
Appellant argues the combination of McCain, Tervo, and Mitchell
fails to teach or suggest “a second JavaScript function to identify the
plurality of control characters from the plurality of labels associated with the
plurality of features, and executes a third JavaScript function to associate the
plurality of control characters with the plurality of Alt-x key combination
selections in the plurality of first key selections,” as recited in claim 11 and
similarly recited in claim 24. App. Br. 31; Reply Br. 18. Appellant argues
the Examiner insufficiently cites to McCain and Mitchell to identify the
teachings or suggestions of the disputed limitations. App. Br. 31. Appellant
further argues McCain and Mitchell actually are silent regarding the specific
functionality claimed. Id.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, the combination of McCain,
Tervo, and Mitchell teaches or suggests the disputed limitations. Final Act.
13—14 (citing (McCain col. 1,11. 46—63, col. 2,11. 28—30 (“discussing the use
of keyboard shortcut commands”), col. 8,11. 3—9 (“discussing the use of the
control key specifically as well as other function keys”), col. 6,11. 25 44
(teaching processing keystroke entry using event handlers, and using
16
Appeal 2015-000784
Application 10/346,351
JavaScript functions to facilitate the processing)); Mitchell col. 3,11. 23—25
(“discussing a selective display of content functionality for web-based
content”), col. 12,11. 4—9 (“discussing the overriding of event handlers to
augment a web-page’s functionality per the selective/additional display
command by a user, the overriding effectively disabling a pre-existing event
handler which is preserved for later use”), col. 7 11. 34^46, col. 10 1. 56 to
col. 11 1. 6 (“discussing . . . using JavaScript”)); see also KSR, 550 U.S. at
418 (“[T]he [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings
directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.”). We find Appellant’s arguments
unpersuasive, including because the Examiner sufficiently identifies the
relevant disclosures of McCain and Mitchell found to teach, or at least
suggest, the disputed limitations. See supra. Furthermore, Appellant
provides no persuasive evidence contrary to this finding. See App. Br. 31;
In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s argument in
a brief cannot take the place of evidence.”).
(10) Separately executes
Appellant argues the combination of McCain, Tervo, and Mitchell
fails to teach or suggest that “the computer separately executes the first
JavaScript function for every letter and every number on the keyboard
within different frames associated with the user interface,” as recited in
claim 12. App. Br. 32. As to McCain, Appellant argues it is silent as to
frames for a user interface, and in particular as to “executing something for
different frames of a user interface.” Id. (citing McCain col. 8,11. 2—9, col.
6,11. 25 44). As to Mitchell, Appellant argues it teaches away from frames,
17
Appeal 2015-000784
Application 10/346,351
and also is “silent regarding . . . executing the claimed first JavaScript
function for every letter and every number on the keyboard within different
frame[s].” Id. (citing Mitchell col. 2,11. 16—39).
The Examiner finds, and we agree, the combination of McCain,
Tervo, and Mitchell teaches, or at least suggests, the disputed limitation. See
Final Act. 14. As to McCain, the Examiner finds, and we agree, it teaches,
or at least suggests re-mapping every letter key and every number key on the
keyboard. Id. (citing McCain col. 8,11. 2—9 (teaching obtaining key press
information for every keyboard key (e.g., “0-9,” “A—Z,” punctuation keys,
control keys, “FI—FI2”))). Further, McCain teaches “us[ing] JavaScript
functions to facilitate the interception and processing of keystroke inputs.”
Id. (citing McCain col. 6,11. 25 44). One of ordinary skill in the art would
have found it obvious to combine the teachings of McCain, Tervo, and
Mitchell to teach, or at least suggest, separately executing the JavaScript
function for every letter and every number within different UI frames. See
supra', KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“[T]he [obviousness] analysis need not seek
out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”); KSR, 550 U.S. at 417
(“If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103
likely bars its patentability.”). We note these findings are further supported
by Tervo’s teachings. See, e.g., Tervo Fig. 2 (listing Alt + X keys for all of
the alphabet, as well as their relation to different frames or screens (e.g.,
BigFind, Results, Categorize)), Fig. 5 (showing “Find” frame and “Result”
frame on web page), 123; see also Spec. 14,11. 15—25 (describing frames as
windows within a web page). We also find Appellant’s allegations of
18
Appeal 2015-000784
Application 10/346,351
teaching away unsupported by the record. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195,
1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (teaching away requires a reference to actually
criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into the claimed
solution).
CONCLUSION
Based on our above findings, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103
rejections of claims 1, 5—7, 9—12, 15, 16, 19-21, 23, 24, 45, and 46. We also
sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2, 4, 13, 17, and 18, for which
Appellant separately did not provide substantive arguments for patentability.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4—7, 9-13,
15-21,23,24, 45, and 46.
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
19