13004743 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 2018)

Ex Parte Zhang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 25, 2018

13004743 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. 13/004,743 146568 7590 Entit Software LLC 500 Westover Drive #12603 Sanford, NC 27330 FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 01/11/2011 Han Zhang 05/30/2018 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. 82264316 1099 EXAMINER NG,AMY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2141 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/30/2018 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): software.ip.mail@microfocus.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HAN ZHANG, NAI-LONG WEN, and PING WANG Appeal2017-011006 Application 13/004,743 1 Technology Center 2100 Before ERIC S. FRAHM, SCOTT B. HOW ARD, and JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP. App. Br. 1. Appeal2017-011006 Application 13/004,743 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-20, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. Appellants disclose (Spec. ,r,r 1, 16; Title; Abstract) and claim (independent claims 1, 9, and 13) a method and apparatus for generating a wizard application. Claim 1 is exemplary, and is reproduced below with emphases added: 1. A method to generate a wizard application, the method compnsmg: storing, by executing a computer readable instruction with a processor, a first definition of a graphical user interface for the wizard application in a file, the first definition identifying a type and a name of an element to be rendered in the graphical user interface, the first definition further identifying a position of the element relative to other user interface elements of the graphical user interface; and transferring, by executing a computer readable instruction with the processor, the file and an engine to a computer, the engine including a first user interface renderer to render the graphical user interface as a first type to present the element from the first definition and a second user interface renderer to render the graphical user interface as a second type to present the element from the first definition, wherein the engine is to render the graphical user interface as the first type to present the element from the first definition when the first user interface Tenderer is selected by a user input and to, render the graphical user interface as the second type to present the element from the first definition when the second user interface Tenderer is selected by the user input. 2 Appeal2017-011006 Application 13/004,743 We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 6-18) and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 1-11) that the Examiner's rejections of: (i) claims 1-9, 13-15, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Saad et al. (US 2006/0101458 Al; published May 11, 2006) ("Saad") and Falkner et al. (US 2009/0150773 Al; published June 11, 2009) ("Falkner") (Final Act. 4--15; Ans. 3-14); (ii) claims 10-12 and 20 as being unpatentable over Saad, Falkner, and Gauthier (US 6,574,791 Bl; issued June 3, 2003) ("Gauthier") (Final Act. 16-18; Ans. 14--16); and (iii) claims 16-18 as being unpatentable over Saad, Falkner, and Ho (US 2005/0066284 Al; published Mar. 24, 2005) ("Ho") (Final Act. 18-20; Ans. 16-19) are in error, and the Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief (Ans. 19-23). Saad discloses an application wizard that renders a custom interface 360 using a definition that is stored in an XML file 100 (Abstract; ,r,r 25, 29 39, 41--43), but is silent as to producing multiple different interfaces. The Examiner relies (Final Act. 6-7, 13-15; Ans. 5, 12-13) upon Falkner (i-fi-f 38, 39) as teaching or suggesting rendering multiple different interfaces using the same definition (i.e., "the first definition" recited in claims 1, 9, and 13). Although we agree with the Examiner that Falkner discloses rendering a GUI 34 and a custom user interface 40 (see Fig. 1; ,r 39) (Final Act. 6-7, 14; Ans. 5, 12), we agree with Appellants (Reply Br. 8) that Falkner produces the multiple different interfaces using plural different definitions (,I 38 describing using "view definition files 24" to define the interfaces). 3 Appeal2017-011006 Application 13/004,743 In this light, we agree with Appellants (App. Br. 10-16) that neither Saad, Falkner, nor their combination teaches or suggests rendering two types of GUis that present elements from the same first definition, as recited in each of claims 1, 9, and 13. 2 Therefore, we find that the Examiner has not properly established factual determinations and articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness for independent claims 1, 9, and 13, resulting in a failure to establish prima facie obviousness. In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1-20 over the base combination of Saad and Falkner. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in rejecting (i) claims 1-9, 13-15, and 19 over the combination of Saad and Falkner; (ii) claims 10-12 and 20 over the combination of Saad, Falkner, and Gauthier; and (iii) claims 16-18 over the combination of Saad, Falkner, and Ho. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20. 2 We recognize that Appellants' arguments present additional issues. Because we were persuaded of error by this issue - Saad and Falkner's failure to teach or suggest rendering two types of GUis that present elements from the same first definition, as recited in claims 1, 9, and 13, we do not reach the additional issues, as the first definition issue is dispositive of the appeal. 4 Appeal2017-011006 Application 13/004,743 REVERSED 5