Ex Parte Wheeler et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 201613049823 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/049,823 03/16/2011 29973 7590 06/02/2016 CRGOLAW ATTN: STEVEN M. GREENBERG, ESQ. 7900 Glades Road SUITE 520 BOCA RATON, FL 33434 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR David Wheeler 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. 1301-017U 1443 EXAMINER AUGUSTINE, NICHOLAS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2141 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/02/2016 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): docketing@crgolaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DAVID WHEELER, CLINT ORAM, MAJED ITANI, LAM HUYNH, and LILA TRETIKOV Appeal2014-008808 Application 13/049,823 Technology Center 2100 Before: ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, SCOTT B. HOW ARD, and STACY B. MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2014-008808 Application 13/049,823 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1- 11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. THE INVENTION The claimed invention is directed to a navigation system of a business software application that is enriched with an adoptable learning process that may be implemented to automate the navigation system (Spec. 12). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A business software application, comprising: a computing device with a processing unit; a database; an application having a plurality of lines of computer code wherein the plurality of lines of computer code are executed by the processing unit of the computing device to generate a business application that accesses the database using one or more modules and one or more controllers, that has a user interface and that has a workflow with one or more screens in the workflow; and wherein the user interface further comprises one or more navigation elements displayed on a screen of the computing device, configured based on a prior use of the business application by a particular user, that allow the particular user to navigate to a particular screen within the workflow of the business application, the prior use being determined by learning a pattern of navigation events performed by the particular user in prior interactions with the application. REFERENCE The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Stein et al. US 2004/0189718 Al Sept. 30, 2004 2 Appeal2014-008808 Application 13/049,823 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claim 1-11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C §102(b) as being anticipated by Stein. THE ISSUE The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that Stein teaches the limitation of "configured based on a prior use of the business application by a particular user, that allow the particular user to navigate to a particular screen within the workflow of the business application, the prior use being determined by learning a pattern of navigation events peiformed by the particular user in prior interactions with the application" as recited in claim 1. ANALYSIS Appellants argue that Stein's disclosure of a presentation of workflows previously traversed for a patient is quite different than the claimed "configured based on a prior use of the business application by a particular user, that allow the particular user to navigate to a particular screen within the workflow of the business application, the prior use being determined by learning a pattern of navigation events performed by the particular user in prior interactions with the application" as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 6). Appellants assert that the entirety of Stein is devoid of any teaching of any navigation element configured to allow a user to navigate to a particular screen within a workflow (App. Br. 6). Appellants also argue that in 3 Appeal2014-008808 Application 13/049,823 paragraph 130 of Stein, it is the prior interactions for the patient, not the user, that is recorded (App. Br. 7). We do not agree with Appellants' arguments. We adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions in the Answer and Final Action and we add the following primarily for emphasis. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Stein discloses that the user is immediately able to see a patient's history as the user traverses the different steps of the work flow (Stein i-f 18) and a healthcare practitioner (i.e., user) can navigate through the workflow intuitively, starting from a patient concern, suspected diagnosis, or exhibited symptom (Stein i-f 20) (Ans. 4 and Final Act. 2-3). Also, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that the user can see the summary previously traversed and recorded, can select a relevant workflow, and can "continue with the patient journey" (Ans. 2-5; Stein i-fi-1130, 18, 62). In addition, we agree with the Examiner, that it is the user of the system (i.e., the healthcare practitioner) in Stein, not the patient as argued by Appellants, that navigates the user interface, and builds a history of navigation for ease of future navigation by using the method (Ans. 6). Thus, we agree that Stein discloses the disputed claim limitation and affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and for the same reasons the rejections of claims 2-11. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in finding that Stein teaches the limitation of "configured based on a prior use of the business application by a particular user, that allow the particular user to navigate to a particular screen within the workflow of the business application, the prior use being determined by 4 Appeal2014-008808 Application 13/049,823 learning a pattern of navigation events performed by the particular user in prior interactions with the application" as recited in claim 1. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-11 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) (2009). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation