Ex Parte Volkov et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2016

11004934 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2016)

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