Ex Parte Volkov et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 31, 201611004934 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111004,934 12/07/2004 62730 7590 09/02/2016 SAP SE 3410 HILL VIEW A VENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94304 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Alla Volkov 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. 2004P00153US 5210 EXAMINER NGUYEN, LEV ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2174 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/02/2016 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): APRIL.MENG@SAP.COM GIPinhouse@sap.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ALLA VOLKOV, ORIT HAREL, ZIV HOLZMAN, BERND ERNEST!, and OLIVER RADMANN Appeal2015-005223 Application 11/004,934 Technology Center 2100 Before JASON V. MORGAN, MELISSA A. HAAPALA, and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-14, 16-26, 28-36, and 38. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is SAP SE. App. Br. 3. Appeal2015-005223 Application 11/004,934 THE INVENTION Appellants' invention "relates to systems, methods and computer readable media for customization of user interfaces, and for rendering user interfaces so as to be suitable for display on a variety of display screens." Spec. ii 1. 1. A method, performed by a computer system, for rendering content to a display screen of one device of a plurality of devices utilizing an application run by the system, the method compnsmg: identifying the one device from among the plurality of devices; receiving attributes of the display screen of the one device, the attributes indicating whether the display screen is of character or graphical type and further indicating a size of the display screen; retrieving a template data structure for the screen based on the received attributes, the template data stn1cture defining a plurality of data fields for displaying rendered content on the display screen of the indicated type and size; receiving screen content from the application; mapping the received screen content into the template data structure; and rendering the mapped content to the device for display on the screen. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26, 28, 31, 33, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jay et al. (US 2005/0109828 Al; May 26, 2005), Pather et al. 2 Appeal2015-005223 Application 11/004,934 (US 2004/0002972 Al; Jan. 1, 2004), and Ivfohr et al. (US 6,826,727 Bl; Nov. 30, 2004). Final Act. 2-6.2 The Examiner rejects claims 5, 6, 8, 17, 18, 20, 29, 30, 32, 36, and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jay, Pather, Mohr, and Altomare (US 2003/0050897 Al; Mar. 13, 2003). Final Act. 7-8. 3 The Examiner rejects claims 11, 23, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jay, Pather, Mohr, and Morscheck et al. (US 6,076,080; June 13, 2000). Final Act. 8-9. The Examiner rejects claims 12 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jay, Pather, Mohr, and Salvato (US 2005/0139679 Al; June 30, 2005). Final Act. 9-10. ANALYSIS Appellants present three groups of claims under separate heading: independent claims 1, 13, and 25; independent claims 36 and 38; and dependent claims 2, 4-12, 14, 16-24, 26, and 28-35. App. Br. 14, 17-18. However, all arguments address claim 1 or assert patentability in view of a claim's dependency or similar subjected matter. Accordingly, we direct our analysis to claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2014) (representative claims). We have reviewed the rejection of claim 1 in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants' arguments. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner and 2 The statement of rejection incorrectly denotes canceled claims 3, 15, and 27. Final Act. 2 (listing canceled claims). 3 The statement of rejection incorrectly denotes canceled claim 37. Final Act. 2 (listing canceled claim). 3 Appeal2015-005223 Application 11/004,934 adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken, particularly as explained by the Examiner's Answer. We highlight the following. Appellants argue "[neither] the cited paragraphs of Pather nor any other paragraphs constitute a teaching of 'receiving attributes of the screen of the one device, the attributes indicating the type and size of the display screen' and 'retrieving a template data structure for the screen based on the received attributes, the template data structure defining a plurality of data fields for displaying rendered content on the display screen of the indicated type and size,' as recited in claim 1 (emphases added). App. Br. 17. Appellants further contend the rejection mischaracterizes Pather' s teachings. App. Br. 14-17. The Examiner explains that Pather teaches the attributes as claimed- i.e., attributes indicating a display screen's type and size-and notification schemas and templates based on such attributes. Final Act. 3--4 (citing Pather ,-i,-i 144, 646, 650-651, 653); Ans. 11-12 (citing Pather ,-i,-i 40, 448, 612, 599, 650-51). The Examiner further explains that Pather's notification schemas utilize the following parameters: a display screen type insofar as identifying a device type, e.g., laptop computer with graphical capability, cellphone with only text capability, etc.; and a display screen size insofar as identifying a display resolution representing the quantity and dimensions of pixels. Ans. 11-12. In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue: [N]one of Pather 's attributes constitutes the claimed attributes indicating a type and size of a display screen, as the Answer alleges. 4 Appeal2015-005223 Application 11/004,934 Paragraphs [0645], [0646] and [0650] of Pather relate generally to conveyance of notifications, specifically, to the "loss of value of the information within the notification that can result from different forms of specified allowed truncation and/or summarization" and to the "manner by which the notification devices communicate semantic information about their nature and capabilities with the notification engine." ... Therefore, Pather, at best, describes fidelity tradeoffs that may affect the nature or degree of completeness (e.g. through truncation, loss of graphics, or the display of a portion of the full resolution) of an original content associated with a notification. Reply Br. 2-4. Appellants' arguments are not persuasive of error. We agree with the Examiner's findings that Pather teaches or suggests the claimed "attributes" and retrieving a template data structure based on these attributes. Pather recognizes that the user devices have different screen sizes and different graphical or character based screen types. Pather iJ 612 ("[A] desktop computer typically has ... a relatively large color display .... Conversely, many cell phones have a smaller display that can be black and white ... . ");see also Pather ii 653 ("The fidelity/rendering capability is a description of the text, graphics, and audio/tactile capabilities of a device, also given a mode.") Pather teaches that these attributes may be provided within a schema template which records the device class, modes of signaling and fidelity/rendering capabilities. Pather ii 650. The Examiner plainly and reasonably cites these portions of Pather as indicating a device's display screen type and size (for purposes of structuring notifications). See Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 11-12. Appellants have not shown any error in these findings. Instead, Appellants' arguments address the general aim of Pather' s notification schemas without explaining 5 Appeal2015-005223 Application 11/004,934 why the schemas accordingly fail to teach or suggest display screen type and size attributes as claimed. As such, these arguments are unpersuasive. DECISION For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 2, 4-14, 16-26, 28-36 and 38 are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation