Ex Parte Urim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 11, 2016

13043382 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/043,382 03/08/2011
91230 7590 08/15/2016
Baker Botts L.L.P.
2001 Ross Avenue. 6th Floor
Dallas, TX 75201
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Alexander Urim
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. CONFIRMATION NO.
079894.0257 8744
EXAMINER
GARCIA-CHING, KARINA J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2449
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/15/2016 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):
ptomaill@bakerbotts.com
ptomail2@bakerbotts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALEXANDER URIM, LEE WILLIAMS BYRON,
WAYNE JIN CHANG, and PHILLIP FUNG
Appeal2014-007031
Application 13/043,382
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R MACDONALD, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
JOHN F. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judges.
HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the Examiner's
rejections of claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-007031
Application 13/043,382
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
The invention is directed to device-specific handling of user interface
components. Spec. i-f 1.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a computer server, a request for a display of
a user interface (UI) of a software application from a client
device, wherein the display comprises one or more UI
components;
determining, by the computer server, a set of features of
the client device, based on information provided by the client
device;
for each UI component contained in the display,
generating, by the computer server, first code for rendering and
displaying the UI component on the client device based on the
set of features of the client device; and
sending, by the computer server, the first code to the client
device.
Trinh
Ba yang
REFERENCES
US 7,509,374 B2
US 2008/0282172 Al
REJECTIONS
Mar. 24, 2009
Nov. 13, 2008
Claims 1-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Bayang and Trinh. Final Act. 3.
2
Appeal2014-007031
Application 13/043,382
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
contentions, and adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief.
We highlight the following for emphasis.
Claims 1, 2, 5---8, 11-14, 17 and 18
Issue 1: Whether the combination of Bayang and Trihn teaches
a computer server generating first code for rendering and
displaying UI components on a client device based on features
of the client device.
The Examiner finds Bayang teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but
does not explicitly mention a computer server generating first code for
rendering and displaying UI components of the client device based on
features of the client device as recited in claim 1. 1 Final Act. 3--4. The
Examiner finds Trinh teaches or suggests generating the first code on a
computer server, and concludes it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Bayang and Trinh to
"effectively display[] and interact[] with ... ubiquitous web content using a
mobile device." Id. at 4--5.
1 As explained infra, we disagree with the Examiner's finding that Bayang
does not disclose this limitation. Nonetheless, we analyze the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-18 under the assumption that this limitation is not
disclosed by Bayang.
3
Appeal2014-007031
Application 13/043,382
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because
neither Trinh nor Bayang teach or suggest that a computer server generates
the first code for rendering customized UI components on client devices.
App. Br. 7. In particular, Appellants argue the Examiner erred because Trinh
discloses it is the client device-and in particular a logic engine on the client
device-that generates the customized GUI on the client device using
customization code received from a server. Id. at 7-8; Reply Br. 2--4. We
are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments.
Although we agree with Appellants that Trinh discloses generating the
customization code on the client device, we also agree with the Examiner
that Trinh teaches or suggests to a person skilled in the art that the
customization code can be generated on a server. That is, we agree with the
Examiner's conclusion that a person of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading
Trinh, would have known that Trinh's customized application code could
have been generated by Trinh's server rather than Trinh's client, and would
have been motivated to generate the code at the server to decrease the
workload on the client. See Ans. 20.
We are equally unpersuaded by Appellants' argument that claim 1 is
patentable over the combination of Bayang and Trinh because the Examiner
admitted that Trinh fails to teach generating the customized application code
on the server. Reply. 2--4. "The test for obviousness is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art." In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (emphasis added).
Thus, an 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
4
Appeal2014-007031
Application I3/043,382
the art would employ." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 4I8
(2007). We agree with the Examiner's conclusion that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have understood that Trinh's customized application
code could have been generated at a server, such as Bayang's server, even
though Trinh discloses generating the code at the client device.
We note that Bayang itself supports the Examiner's conclusion that it
would have been obvious to generate client-customized GUI application
code at a server rather than at a client device. Bayang teaches "a method,
computer program product, and system for rendering a Graphical User
Interface (GUI)." Ba yang i-f I 0. Ba yang' s system includes a server I 00
having a GUI controller I20 and a GUI view infrastructure I30. Id. i-f 23,
Fig. IA. GUI controller I20 "maintains rendering packages" for different
client devices I50/170. Id. i-fi-123, 30, Fig. IA. GUI view infrastructure I30
"selects a rendering package for [a] device," and uses the selected rendering
package to "render[] a GUI for the device depending on the capabilities of
the device." Id. i-f 37. According to Bayang, a selected rendering package is:
execution code that renders a GUI using the [device]
capabilities. The rendering package may be described as a set
of code that as input takes [device] capabilities and as output
produces a GUI. For example, ifthe GUI were a web page, the
rendering package would output HTML. As another example, if
the GUI were being generated by a JAVA® application, the
rendering package would output a GUI using the native GUI
components of the JAVA® language. As yet another example, if
the GUI were being generated by the C programming language,
the rendering package would generate native calls to an
operating system.
Id. i-f 46 (emphases added).
5
Appeal2014-007031
Application 13/043,382
Thus, Bayang's server 100 generates code for rendering client-customized
GUis, and transmits the code to client devices 150/170 in the form of web
pages written in HTML, application programs written in C, or JavaScripts
written in JAVA. Id. ifif 37, 46, Fig. IA.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and of
claims 2, 5-8, 11-14, 17, and 18, which are not separately argued. See App.
Br. 9-13.
Claims 3, 9, and 15
Issue 2: Whether the combination of Bayang and Trihn teaches
a computer server determining whether each UI component
contained in a display should be rendered and displayed on a
client device.
Claim 3 depends from claim 1, and further recites:
for each UI component contained in the display,
determining whether the UI component should be rendered and
displayed on the client device based on the set of features of the
client device,
wherein the first code for rendering and displaying the UI
component is generated for and sent to the client device only if
the UI component is to be displayed on the client device.
The Examiner finds the combination of Bayang and Trinh teaches the
additional limitations recited in claim 3. In particular, the Examiner finds
Bayang, teaches "render[ing] a GUI specific to a device based on the
capabilities of the device," Final Act. 5---6 (quoting Bayan if 23), and Trinh
teaches different widgets that define "certain features or feature sets that
may be called upon by the customization code," including menus, tables,
buttons, lists, and checkboxes, and a widget layout component that "can
6
Appeal2014-007031
Application 13/043,382
specify the user interface layout along with what widgets are to be
displayed." Ans. 21 (quoting Trinh 3:59--4:5, 8:39--47).
Appellants argue the combined teachings of Bayang and Trinh, and in
particular, the passages of Bayang and Trinh cited by the Examiner, do not
teach or suggest the limitations recited in claim 3. App. Br. 10-11; Reply
Br. 4--5. We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments.
Trinh teaches a widget layout component that specifies which widgets
to include in a client-customized application (e.g., menus, tables, lists,
buttons, checkboxes, etc.), how those widgets are to be laid out in the GUI,
and how those widgets are to be used. Trinh 3:59--4:5, 8:39--47. Bayang
teaches a view infrastructure 130 that generates and sends a rendering
package to a client device to render a customized GUI based on the client
device's capabilities, where the rendering package "combines views that are
rendered into a single GUI," and where a view is "the graphical portion of
[the] GUI that [the] user interacts with." Bayang i1i123, 37, 50. Thus, both
Trinh and Bayang teach selecting only those GUI components (widgets or
views) that are incorporated into a client-customized GUI, i.e., they both
teach "determining whether the UI component [widget/view] should be
rendered and displayed on the client device based on the set of features of
the client device," and generating the first code "only if the UI component is
to be displayed on the client device," as recited in claim 3. Moreover, as
discussed supra, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it
obvious to generate the first code on a server rather than a client device (e.g.,
as taught by Trinh), because Bayang explicitly teaches generating the first
code (rendering package) on a server and sending it to a client device. See
Bayang i-fi-f 37, 46, Fig. IA.
7
Appeal2014-007031
Application 13/043,382
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 3, and of
claims 9 and 15, which are not separately argued. See App. Br. 11; Reply
Br. 5.
Claims 4, 10, and 16
Issue 3: Whether the combination of Bayang and Trihn teaches
a computer server generating second code for responding to user
interactions with a UI component displayed on a client device
Claim 4 depends from claim 1, and further recites:
for each UI component contained in the display,
generating second code for responding to one or more user
interactions with the UI component performed on the client
device based on the set of features of the client device, and
sending the second code to the client device.
The Examiner finds the combination of Bayang and Trinh teaches the
additional limitations recited in claim 4. In particular, by incorporating his
findings in response to Appellants' arguments regarding claim 3 (see Ans.
23), the Examiner finds Trinh teaches or suggests the claim 4 limitations.
Ans. 21 (citing Trinh 3:59--4:5, 8:39--47).
Appellants argue the combined teachings of Bayang and Trinh, and in
particular, the passages of Bayang and Trinh cited by the Examiner, do not
teach or suggest the limitations recited in claim 4. App. Br. 12-13; Reply
Br. 6. We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments.
Trinh teaches a widget layout component that provides "coded
instructions identifying widgets that are to be used in a customized
application, and how they are to be used." Trinh 3:66--4:2 (emphasis added);
see also id. at 8:39--47. Trinh's widgets correspond to GUI components, and
8
Appeal2014-007031
Application 13/043,382
include components such as menus, tables, lists, radio buttons, checkboxes,
and other customizable GUI features. Id. at 3:64---66. The coded
instructions generated by Trinh's widget layout component include
instructions for an event handler component 408, which "defines the actions
to take when the user of the handset [client device] presses a key." Id. at
8:48--49. Thus, Trinh teaches "generating second code for responding to one
or more user interactions with the UI component [widget] performed on the
client device based on the set of features of the client device" as recited in
claim 4. Moreover, as discussed supra, a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have found it obvious to generate the second code on a server rather
than on a client device, and to send the second code to the client device as
recited in claim 4. Indeed, Bayang explicitly teaches generating a GUI
rendering package on a server and sending it to the client device. See
Bayang i-fi-f 37, 46, Fig. IA.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 4, and of
claims 10 and 16, which are not separately argued. See App. Br. 13; Reply
Br. 6.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-18 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
9