Ex Parte Williams et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 23, 2011

11135500 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 23, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte EVELYN LOUISE WILLIAMS, BIRGITTA HETTLER,
MARKO LAMOT, and JANKO SPASOVSKI
________________

Appeal 2009-013325
Application 11/135,500
Technology Center 2100
________________

Before DAVID M. KOHUT, JASON V. MORGAN, and
BRUCE R. WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-013325
Application 11/135,500

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1 – 26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm.
Exemplary Claim
1. A method for presenting attributes of an object managed
within a data model, the attributes being displayable in a user
dialog, the method comprising:

collecting, from the data model, a first attribute and a
second attribute of the object, the first and second attributes
relating to respective application programs configured to use
the data model; and

including the first and second attributes on a single page
of the user dialog.

ISSUES
Is the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1 – 26 unsustainable
because the Examiner erred in finding that Weidenfeller (U.S. 6,028,602)
discloses first and second attributes or first and second objects relating to
respective application programs?
Is the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 15 – 26 unsustainable
because the Examiner erred in finding that Weidenfeller discloses providing
a software link between first and second pages?
Appeal 2009-013325
Application 11/135,500

3
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellants’ contentions. We adopt as our own the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken and in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’
Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner.
Whether the Examiner erred in finding that Weidenfeller discloses first and
second attributes or first and second objects relating to respective
application programs
Claim 1 recites “first and second attributes relating to respective
application programs.” Claim 10 recites “first and second objects relating to
respective application programs.” Claims 15, 16, and 21 each recite “first
and second attributes and objects each relating to respective application
programs.”
We do not agree with Appellants (App. Br. 5 – 7; Reply Br. 2) that
Weidenfeller’s attributes and objects relate to a single application program.
We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 11 – 12) that Weidenfeller’s disclosure of
a managed object tree data model for a telecommunication management
system discloses multiple application programs (e.g., Transmitter TX, Time
Slot RX Receiver TS, Interface Switch IS, etc.) (fig.4; col. 4, ll. 29 – 51,
table 1).
Whether the Examiner erred in finding that Weidenfeller discloses providing
a software link between first and second pages
We do not agree with Appellants that “Appellant’s claimed ‘page’ is
not analogous to the ‘window’ as disclosed by [Weidenfeller]” (App. Br. 8).
Appeal 2009-013325
Application 11/135,500

4
We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 9 – 10 and 12) that the windows
disclosed by Weidenfeller fall within a broad, but reasonable, interpretation
of the claimed pages. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997).
CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner has demonstrated that claims 1 – 26 are unpatentable
because the Examiner did not err in finding:
that Weidenfeller discloses first and second attributes or first and
second objects relating to respective application programs and
that Weidenfeller discloses providing a software link between first
and second pages.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 – 26.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc