Ex Parte WernerDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 27, 201814161752 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/161,752 01/23/2014 79326 7590 08/29/2018 Fujitsu Technology & Business of America 2318 Mill Road, Suite 1420 Alexandria, VA 22314 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Steffen Werner 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. FTS.11-00821 1092 EXAMINER ABOUELSEOUD,MOHAMED ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2172 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/29/2018 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): fpc-mailroom@us.fujitsu.com eoamule@system.foundationip.com tiep.nguyen@us.fujitsu.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STEFFEN WERNER Appeal 2018-000117 Application 14/161,752 Technology Center 2100 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, ADAM J. PYONIN, and JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 6 and 8-26. Claims 1-5 and 7 have been canceled. See App. Br. 26 (Claims App'x). We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Fujitsu Limited. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2018-000117 Application 14/161,752 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant's Invention Appellant's invention generally relates to "providing a user interface for a computer system." Spec. ,r 1. Claim 6, which is illustrative of the claimed invention, reads as follows: 6. A computer system with program code that executes at least one application, comprising: a configuration entity that stores and provides a plurality of configuration values assigned to configuration parameters for an application of the at least one application; a communication server that provides a plurality of automatically generated, client-specific user interfaces for the application, the user interface comprising a configuration interface that retrieves the plurality of configuration parameters and retrieves and/ or changes the configuration values assigned to the configuration parameters; and at least one middleware layer comprising at least one configuration module and a template management component that retrieves configuration values for configuration parameters assigned to the at least one configuration module from the configuration entity using predetermined methods of the at least one configuration module, to enter said values into generic, client-specific templates, the templates being generic with respect to the at least one configuration module for presenting and/or changing the configuration values for the plurality of automatically generated, client-specific user interfaces and to output at least one of the templates filled with entered configuration values via the communication server based on the type of a client system used by a user. 2 Appeal 2018-000117 Application 14/161,752 Rejections2 Claims 6, 8-12, 15-19, and 22-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as being anticipated by Ray et al. (US 2011/0087988 Al; published Apr. 14, 2001) ("Ray"). Final Act. 2-8. Claims 13, 14, 20, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ray and Huynh et al. (US 2007/0169021 Al; published July 19, 2007) ("Huynh"). Final Act. 9-10. Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ray and Kottomtharayil et al. (US 2009/0063765 Al; published Mar. 5, 2009) ("Kottomtharayil"). Final Act. 10-11. ANALYSIS Dispositive Issue: Did the Examiner err by finding Ray discloses "a communication server that provides a plurality of automatically generated, client-specific user interfaces for the application," as recited in claim 6? Appellant contends Ray fails to disclose the claimed communication server because Ray does not disclose "a plurality of automatically generated, client-specific user interfaces." App. Br. 15-16. Appellant argues Ray, instead, discloses "display[ing] all of the graphical control elements 34 in a single GUI 32 on a single client terminal 30." App. Br. 15. Appellant 2 The Final Office Action indicates that claims 13, 14, 20, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) based on Ray and Huynh and that claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) based on Ray and Kottomtharayil. See Final Act. 9, 10. We find this to be a typographical error and treat these claims as being rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) herein. 3 Appeal 2018-000117 Application 14/161,752 argues Ray's graphical control elements ("GCEs") do not disclose automatically generated, client-specific user interfaces because the building management system ("BMS") device corresponding to each GCE is not a "client," as required by claim 6. App. Br. 16. The Examiner finds Ray discloses providing a plurality of GCEs that are configured to summarize, analyze, or present information for a piece of equipment or system included in the BMS. Ans. 5 ( citing Ray Fig. 2; ,r 39). The Examiner finds Ray teaches that each GCE allows the user to monitor, command, and control the corresponding system or piece of equipment associated with the GCE. Id. The Examiner finds the term "client" refers to "any hardware or software that has the ability to receive some kind of service over a network." Ans. 4. Based on this interpretation of the term, the Examiner finds Ray's BMS equipment "are the clients that receive the setting or configuration service that is entered by the user through the server" and, therefore, that Ray's graphical control elements disclose the claimed client-specific user interfaces. Ans. 4 ( citing Ray ,r 39); see also Ans. 5 ( citing Ray ,r 55). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the words of the claim must be given their ordinary and customary meaning unless the meaning is inconsistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The definition of"client" includes "a process, such as a program or task, that requests a service provided by another program" and "[ o ]n a local area network or the Internet, a computer that accesses shared network resources provided by another computer." Microsoft Computer Dictionary 128 (2002) (emphasis added). We find, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would 4 Appeal 2018-000117 Application 14/161,752 understand "client" as referring to a computer or process that requests or accesses a service or resource provided by another computer or program, which is consistent with Appellant's Specification. See e.g., Spec. ,r 28; see also Ray ,r 30 ("Client terminal 30 is configured to access BMS subsystems or data sources 10." (emphasis added)). Ray discloses that each GCE "may be associated with at least one service, subsystem, feature, piece of equipment, or group of equipment of the BMS." Ray ,r 31. While this disclosure may suggest that a GCE can be specific to a client ( e.g., a subsystem or piece of equipment that requests or accesses a service provided by the BMS), this is not the standard for rejecting a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Instead, we find Ray fails to expressly or inherently discloses that the service, subsystem, feature, piece of equipment, or group of equipment of the BMS represented by each GCE requests or accesses a service or resource provided by another computer or program. As such, we agree with Appellant (App. Br. 16) that Ray fails to disclose the claimed client-specific user interfaces. Accordingly, we are constrained by the record to not sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claim 6. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 15 and 22, which recite corresponding limitations, and claims 8-12, 16-19, and 23-25, which depend from claims 6, 15, and 22. Claims 13, 14, 20, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Ray and Huynh. Final Act. 9-10. Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Ray and Kottomtharayil. Final Act. 10-11. The Examiner does not find that the teachings of Huynh or Kottomtharayil cure the deficiencies in the disclosure of Ray discussed above with respect to 5 Appeal 2018-000117 Application 14/161,752 claim 6. See Final Act. 9--11. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 13, 14, 20, 21, and 26 for the reasons discussed supra. We do not reach Appellant's further allegations of error because we find the issue discussed above to be dispositive as to the rejection of all the pending claims. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 6, 8-12, 15-19, and 22-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 13, 14, 20, 21, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation