Ex Parte UdlerDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 16, 201310888154 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 16, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ARTHUR UDLER ____________ Appeal 2011-009610 Application 10/888,154 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before ERIC B. CHEN, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and MIRIAM L. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judges. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-009610 Application 10/888,154 2 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final rejection of claims 2, 3, 5-10, 12, 13, 15-20, 22, 23, and 25-38. Claims 1, 4, 11, 14, 21, and 24 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The invention relates to data processing, and more particularly, to a system and method for dynamic generation of a graphical user interface. Spec. 1, ll. 6-7. Details of the appealed subject matter, with disputed claim language emphasized, are recited in representative claim 31, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief: 31. A method for generating a graphical user interface (GUI), comprising: selecting, at a server, a GUI profile associated with a client from a GUI descriptor file based on a client request received from the client, the received client request comprising data source information, the GUI descriptor file comprising an XML file, the selected GUI profile comprising a first and second descriptor element; retrieving, from a data provider, data based on the data source information; automatically generating a GUI, at the server, based on at least a portion of the selected GUI profile, wherein automatically generating the GUI comprises: generating, at the server, a first graphical element based on the first descriptor element, the first descriptor element comprising information regarding a general interface; Appeal 2011-009610 Application 10/888,154 3 generating, at the server, a second graphical element based on the second descriptor element, the second graphical element embedded in the first graphical element, determining, at the server, whether at least one of the generated first graphical element or the generated the second graphical element includes a data field to be populated with the data retrieved from the data provider, and populating, at the server, the data field determined to be included in the at least one of the generated first graphical element or the generated second graphical element with the data retrieved from the data provider, wherein the descriptor elements included in the selected GUI profile are arranged in a hierarchical structure, such that the second descriptor element is a child of the first descriptor element. As evidence of unpatentability of the claimed subject matter, the Examiner relies on the following references at pages 3 to 9 of the Answer: Kanevsky US 6,300,947 B1 Oct. 9, 2001 Burkett US 6,476,828 B1 Nov. 5, 2002 Chen US 7,124,398 B2 Oct. 17, 2006 The Examiner provides the following ground of rejection, of which Appellant seeks review: Claims 2, 3, 5-10, 12, 13, 15-20, 22, 23, and 25-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kanevsky, Chen, and Burkett (Ans. 3-9). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s contentions and arguments, which are directed to representative claim 31. Appeal 2011-009610 Application 10/888,154 4 App. Br. 8 (identifying disputed limitations recited in claim 31 and relying on the similarity to recited features in independent claims 32-34). Further, we have reviewed the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments. Appellant raises one dispositive issue in its Appeal Brief. The issue pertains to whether Kanevsky’s display mode message is “associated with a client” in accordance with claim 31. App. Br. 10. The Examiner finds that in response to a display mode message sent by the client, Kanevsky adapts web pages for that particular client based on a URL/CGI file. Ans. 9-10. In opposition, Appellant argues that the display mode message “merely identifies a display screen size, not a particular client.” App. Br. 10. In other words, Appellant characterizes Kanevsky as failing to teach selection of a GUI profile associated with a “specific client machine[] 100 or display device[] 113.” Id. (emphasis added). We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase “associated with a client” does not support Appellant’s distinction over Kanevsky. Appellant’s claims recite the disputed phrase in the plain and ordinary meaning sense, which does not preclude an “association” of the GUI profile and the client based on the display characteristics of the client. And Appellant’s Specification is in accord. Specifically, the Specification describes the “association” between the GUI profile and the client as being “based on any appropriate characteristic . . . of client 102.” Spec. 9, ll. 9-10. The Examiner finds that Kanevsky’s server selects the appropriate URL/CGI file with instructions corresponding to a particular display mode (“GUI profile”). Ans. 9. We Appeal 2011-009610 Application 10/888,154 5 agree with the Examiner’s finding that Kanevsky’s display mode is “associated with a client” as claimed. Appellant proffers an additional argument based on the premise that Kanevsky fails to teach a “GUI profile associated with a client.” App. Br. 10. Because we have found no error in the Examiner’s findings in that regard, Appellant’s additional argument is not persuasive. Finally, we do not consider Appellant’s arguments raised for the first time in the Reply Brief. See Reply 3-5 (revealing for the first time arguments under headings A(1), A(2), and B). “Any bases for asserting error, whether factual or legal, that are not raised in the principal brief are waived.” Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative). See also Optivus Tech., Inc. v. Ion Beam Appl’ns. S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[A]n issue not raised by an appellant in its opening brief . . . is waived.”) (citations and quotation marks omitted). The Examiner’s Answer states the same findings set forth in the Final Rejection. See Final Rejection 2-3 (identifying: (1) Kanevsky’s client request message 108 with display mode message 103 as the claimed “in response to a client request received from a client,” (2) Kanevsky’s selection of a display mode as the claimed “GUI profile,” (3) Kanevsky’s GUI descriptor file as the claimed “URL/CGI file,” (4) Kanevsky’s URL/CGI file instructions as the claimed “descriptor elements,” and (5) Kanevsky’s automatic transformation of web pages as the claimed “generating the GUI, at the server” step). We find nothing in the Answer that would have prompted raising new arguments based on those findings in the Reply. Therefore, we conclude that Appellant Appeal 2011-009610 Application 10/888,154 6 could have raised the arguments in the Appeal Brief, and that the basis for asserting error is waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). CONCLUSION We conclude that Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s findings that Kanevsky teaches a “GUI profile associated with a client,” as recited in representative claim 31. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We group remaining pending claims 2, 3, 5-10, 12, 13, 15-20, 22, 23, 25-30, and 32-38 with independent claim 31. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2011). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2, 3, 5-10, 12, 13, 15-20, 22, 23, and 25-38. 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)(2011). AFFIRMED msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation