Ex Parte WilsonDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 10, 201612425510 (P.T.A.B. May. 10, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation