Ex Parte Wilson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 10, 2016

12425510 (P.T.A.B. May. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/425,510 04/17/2009
106095 7590 05/12/2016
Baker Botts LLP
2001 Ross Avenue, 6th Floor
Dallas, TX 75201
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Russell Wilson
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.
063170.9546 2727
EXAMINER
KEATON, SHERROD L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2142
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/12/2016 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):
PTOmaill@bakerbotts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RUSSELL WILSON
Appeal2014-005815
Application 12/425,510
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 3, 9, and 13. Claims 1, 2, 4 through 8, 10 through 12, and 14
through 16 have been cancelled.
We affirm.
INVENTION
Appellant's application relates to a graphical user interface with an
embedded command driven interface that allows repetitive tasks to be more
easily entered without the use of a mouse. Abstract. Claim 3 is illustrative
of the invention and is reproduced below:
3. A system for efficiently entering commands for use with
a graphical user interface (GUI), the system comprising:
Appeal2014-005815
Application 12/425,510
a graphical user interface (GUI) embedded on a computer
readable storage medium, said GUI for exposing user
interaction through program icons; and
an embedded command line interface programmatically
coupled to said GUI, said embedded command line interface
enabling the input of character strings exposing a programmatic
functionality; wherein:
the programmatic functionality of one or more inputted
character strings is equivalent to functionality of one or more of
the program icons, the system presenting the inputted character
strings within the display of the GUI; and
the embedded command line interface and the program
icons are displayed simultaneously within the display of the
GUI.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 3 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon Bach (US 6,141,660; issued Oct. 31, 2000), Glennie (US
2007/0204241 Al, published Aug. 30, 2007), and Raviv (US 2011/0004457
Al; published Jan. 6, 2011). 1 Non-Final Office Action 2-5.2
The Examiner has rejected claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
upon Bach, Glennie, Raviv, and Solt (US 2006/0026601 Al; published Feb.
2, 2006). Non-Final Office Action 5---6.
1 We note the statement of the rejection in the Non-Final Office action
contains a typographical error in that it identifies claim 1 and not claim 3.
2 Throughout this Opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief filed September 26,
2013, Reply Brief, filed April 14, 2014, Non-Final Office Action mailed
April 26, 2013, and the Examiner's Answer mailed on February 13, 2014.
2
Appeal2014-005815
Application 12/425,510
Claim 3
ISSUES
Appellant argues, on pages 6 through 10 of the Appeal Brief, that the
Examiner's rejection of independent claim 3 is in error. These arguments
present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the
combination of Bach, Glennie, and Raviv teaches that the embedded
command line interface and program icons are displayed simultaneously and
that one or more of the icons are for programmatic functionality equivalent
to that of one or more inputted character stings of the command line
interface as recited in claim 3?
Claim 13
Appellant argues, on pages 10 through 12 of the Appeal Brief, that the
Examiner's rejection of independent claim 13 is in error. These arguments
are similar to those presented with respect to claim 3 and present us with the
following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of the
references teaches the command line interface and graphical user interface
provide access for a user to provide network settings to networked
components and that the functionality of the icons and command from the
command line interface are functionally equivalent?
Claim 9
Appellant argues, on pages 12 through 13 of the Appeal Brief, that the
Examiner's rejection of independent claim 9 is in error. These arguments
present us with the issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination
3
Appeal2014-005815
Application 12/425,510
of Bach, Glennie, Raviv, and Solt teach the command line is configured to
accept plural parallel commands as recited in claim 9?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner's response to Appellant's arguments. We disagree with
Appellant's contention that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 3, 9, and
13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 3
Appellant argues that Raviv does not teach that icons 124 of Figures
4---6 have the equivalent functionality of inputted character strings of the
command line interface and Raviv's wizard for defining icon attributes
shown in Figures 7 A-7D cannot teach the equivalent functionality with the
command line interface because the wizard is not simultaneously displayed
with the command line interface. App. Br. 6-10, Reply Br. 2-5. The
Examiner provides a comprehensive response to Appellant's arguments on
page 3 of the Answer. We have reviewed the Examiner's response to
Appellant's arguments and the cited evidence and concur with the Examiner.
We add the following for emphasis.
Claim 3 is a system claim that recites the "programmatic
functionality" of one or more inputted character strings is equivalent to
functionality of one or more of the program icons. As cited by the Examiner
(see Ans. 3), Raviv discloses a user terminal "arranged to interact with the
user using at least one interface type selected from a group of types
consisting of a graphical user interface (GUI) and a command line interface
4
Appeal2014-005815
Application 12/425,510
(CLI)." Raviv i-f 29. Further, Raviv states that "[a]ny suitable man-machine
interface (MMI) or external API can be used for entering the logical system
definition," listing as examples a graphical user interface with "predefined
icons that represent logical objects" and, "additionally or alternatively, the
logical system definition can also be specified using a suitable command-
line interface (CLI)." Raviv i-f 83. As Raviv teaches that both interfaces can
be used to enter logical system definitions, for example, we agree with the
Examiner that it would have been obvious to to the skilled artisan that some
icons (or combination of icons) perform the same programmatic
functionality as the commands entered in the command line interface, and at
least Figures 4---6 teach or suggest simultaneous display of such icons and
the command-line interface. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error with
respect to the rejection of independent claim 3 and sustain the Examiner's
rejection.
Claim 13
Appellant's argument directed to claim 13 focuses on Raviv and
asserts that even if Raviv teaches access to network settings as claimed, the
reference does not teach the graphical user interface and command line
interface provide such access. App. Br. 12. We are not persuaded of error
in the Examiner's rejection by this argument. The Examiner finds that
Raviv teaches the interfaces allows the user to define attributes of a
networked connections in a diagram of the network. Answer 3. Further, the
Examiner finds that either of the interfaces can be used to construct the
5
Appeal2014-005815
Application 12/425,510
network diagrams. Answer 4. \Ve concur with the Examiner and sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 13.
Claim 9
Appellant argues the Examiner's rejection improperly focuses on
Solt's teachings that the final outcome of a command is the result of
processing parallel commands and does not show that the command line
interface is configured to receive parallel commands as recited in claim 9.
App. Br. 13, Reply Br. 6-7. Specifically, Appellant argues that Solt teaches
a command line interface that accepts one command that results in execution
of parallel commands whereas claim 9 recites an interface that accepts
parallel commands. App. Br. 13. The Examiner provides a comprehensive
response on page 4 of the Answer, with which we concur. We are not
persuaded of error by Appellant's arguments; the argued difference is a
difference without a distinction. Appellant in essence argues that Solt
teaches different syntax to perform parallel commands and the claim, which
is a system claim, does not recite a limitation to differentiate the two.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 9.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 3, 9, and 13 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
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).
AFFIRMED
6