Harding, Jeff et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 29, 2019

13231669 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2019)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/231,669 09/13/2011 Jeff Harding 04190-P0259A 5960
137670 7590 10/29/2019
ABB - Whitmyer IP Group LLC
600 Summer Street
Stamford, CT 06901
EXAMINER
TODD, GREGORY G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2457
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/29/2019 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JEFF HARDING, PETTER DAHLSTEDT, THOMAS PAULY,
and JOAKIM OLSSON
____________

Appeal 2018-003463
Application 13/231,6691
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOHN A. EVANS, MATTHEW J. McNEILL, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant2 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Non-Final Rejection of all pending claims, i.e., Claims 1–16, 18,
and 19. Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.3

1 An oral hearing was held October 8, 2019.
2 We refer collectively to the inventors as “Appellant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appeal Brief identifies ABB Schweiz AG, as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
3 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed August 23, 2017, “Appeal Br.”), the Reply
Appeal 2018-003463
Application 13/231,669

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to a method for control in a process control system.
See Abstract.

INVENTION
Claims 1, 10, 18, and 19 are independent. Appeal Br. 8. An
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
representative Claim 14, which is reproduced below with some formatting
added:
1. A method for control in an industrial process control
system, the industrial process control system including control
objects configured to monitor and control an industrial process
or equipment in the industrial process control system, said
method comprising the steps of:
running a client application locally in a first computer
processing environment on a computer or workstation, which is
communicatively connected to the process control system, said
client application executing processes to control and monitor
said industrial process or equipment, said client application
providing a first graphical user interface which includes graphic
representations of one or more of said control objects for
monitoring and controlling said industrial process or
equipment;
running a second application locally in a second
computer processing environment for monitoring and

Brief (filed February 12, 2018, “Reply Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer
(mailed December 13, 2017, “Ans.”), the Non-Final Action (mailed March
3, 2017, “Non-Final Act.”), and the Specification (filed June 6, 2013,
“Spec.”) for their respective details.
4 Appellant states independent “Claims 10, 18, and 19 variously recite the
above features of claim 1.” Appeal Br. 10.
Appeal 2018-003463
Application 13/231,669

3
controlling at least one of said control objects, said second
computer processing environment is communicatively
connected to the process control system and is separate from
said first computer processing environment, said second
application providing a second different graphical user interface
which includes graphic representations of said at least one of
said control objects, said second graphical user interface being
different from the first graphical user interface;
generating a graphic image output of said second
graphical user interface, said graphic image output is
configured for transmission to the first computer processing
environment;
sending said graphic image output in a graphic output
format from said second application to said first computer
processing environment via an intermediate service;
integrating said second graphical user interface, by
means of view integration, into said first graphical user
interface so that a single integrated graphical user interface
concurrently displays data processed by the client application
and data processed by the second application;
accepting user input to said second graphical user
interface within said integrated graphical user interface; and
sending information from said user input via said
intermediate service to said second application, said second
application processing said information in said second
computer processing environment.

References and Rejection
Claims 1–16, 18, and 19 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
103(a) as unpatentable over Adams (US 2009/0254854 A1; published
October 8, 2009) and Mazzaferri (US 2009/0070404 A1; published March
12, 2009).
Appeal 2018-003463
Application 13/231,669

4

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejection of Claims 1–16, 18, and 19 in light of
Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. Appellant persuades us the
Examiner has erred. We consider Appellant’s arguments as they are
presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 8–15.

CLAIMS 1–16, 18, AND 19: OBVIOUSNESS OVER ADAMS AND MAZZAFERRI.
Because Appellant argues all claims on the basis of Claim 1 (see
Appeal Br. 10, 15), we analyze the rejection on the basis of Claim 1 and
refer to the rejected claims collectively herein as “the claims.” See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Integrating a second graphical interface into a first graphical interface.
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “integrating said second graphical user
interface, by means of view integration, into said first graphical user
interface so that a single integrated graphical user interface concurrently
displays data processed by the client application and data processed by the
second application.” The Examiner finds Adams generally teaches the
claimed invention, but Adams fails to teach the above, accused limitation.
Non-Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds Mazzaferri teaches an integrated
desktop environment where resources generated on a local machine and on a
remote machine are shown. Non-Final Act. 5. The Examiner further finds a
user of remote machine requests execution of a local resource displayed in a
remote display whereby the user interacts with a graphical representation
Appeal 2018-003463
Application 13/231,669

5
and a remote agent sends the request to a local agent for displaying in both a
local window and a corresponding remote window. Id.
Appellant contends Mazzaferri teaches a method for generating a
desktop environment of a remote machine for display on a local machine.
Appeal Br. 11. Appellant argues the Mazzaferri method merely provides
access to the resources of the local and remote machines wherein the
desktop environment of the remote machine is displayed on a local machine.
Id. However, Appellant argues Mazzaferri does not integrate the remote and
local GUI into a single, integrated GUI which concurrently displays the data
processed by the remote and local applications. Id.
In the Non-Final Action, the Examiner found Adams fails to disclose
“integrating said second graphical user interface, by means of view
integration, into said first graphical user interface.” Non-Final Act. 4. With
respect to Mazzaferri, the Examiner made no finding regarding integration
of multiple windows into a single window. See Non-Final Act. 5. Neither
finding relied upon a finding under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 6th paragraph. See Id.
at 4–5.
The Answer, in contrast to the Non-Final Action, found
if interpreted under 35 USC 112 6th paragraph, the limitation is
marginally afforded a more narrow interpretation than that of
the limitation as a whole, at most having streaming the GUI
(via a technique similar to RDP [Remote Desktop Protocol], but
no additional structure defined as to the technique necessarily
being used by view integration).
Ans. 3 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner further finds “the limitation is
marginally afforded a more narrow interpretation than that of the limitation
Appeal 2018-003463
Application 13/231,669

6
as a whole, at most having streaming the GUI.” Id. Thus, the Examiner
reads the “view integration” limitation out of the claims.
Appellant contends, in contrast to prior approaches, the present
invention integrates “a second graphical user interface (provided by a
second, remote application running in a second computer processing
environment) into a first graphical user interface (provided by a client
application running in a first computer processing environment on a
computer or workstation where a user is located) using View Integration.”
Reply Br. 2. Appellant quotes the Specification:
The principle advantage of the present invention is that it
provides a solution where user interfaces of integrated
applications can be integrated in a single system user interface
without installing any code components from those
applications. This is referred to as View Integration. The
invention involves remote viewing, or sharing a view, and does
not involve sharing an executable computer application or
program.
Spec., ¶ 12.
View Integration, in meaning used in this description, is
when the user interface (UI) of a non-core application, or
extended application, is streamed to an integrated view in the
control systems user interface (UI), using a technique similar in
principle to the Windows service called Remote Desktop.
Spec., ¶ 13.
Appellant argues the second application runs in the second computer
processing environment, separate from the first computer processing
environment, and graphical information on the second GUI is intercepted
and sent as pixel information to the first computer processing environment
where the control system’s user interface (provided by the client application
Appeal 2018-003463
Application 13/231,669

7
for core functions) is running. Reply Br. 3 (citing Spec., ¶ 14). Appellant
argues the two, separate graphical user interfaces are then integrated into a
single integrated GUI. Id.
The Examiner finds Adams fails to teach integration of first and
second windows. Non-Final Act. 4. The Examiner relies upon Mazzaferri
to teach integration of windows. Id. at 5.
We find neither Mazzaferri, nor Adams, teaches integration of local
and remote GUI into a single GUI. Mazzaferri (relied upon by the
Examiner) discloses a remote agent transmits to a local agent “a z-order
entry for the window displaying the plurality of icons.” Mazzaferri, ¶ 9.
Mazzaferri further discloses “a window 206e in the plurality of data objects
206a-n has a z-order entry such that it is displayed beneath the other
windows in the plurality of data objects 206a-n.” Id. ¶ 76. Microsoft
discloses:
The z-order of a window indicates the window’s position
in a stack of overlapping windows. This window stack is
oriented along an imaginary axis, the z-axis, extending outward
from the screen. The window at the top of the z-order overlaps
all other windows. The window at the bottom of the z-order is
overlapped by all other windows.
Microsoft, Windows Features (emphasis omitted).5 In disclosing a z-order
entry, Mazzaferri fails to teach integration of multiple windows, but rather
teaches overlapping of a plurality of windows.

5 Microsoft, Windows Features, https://docs.microsoft.com/en-
us/windows/win32/winmsg/window-features#z-order, 05302018 (accessed
10/10/2019).
Appeal 2018-003463
Application 13/231,669

8
Because we find the prior art fails to teach at least one limitation, we
decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 1–16, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).

DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1–16, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
REVERSED.
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–16, 18,
19
103(a) Adams,
Mazzaferri
1–16, 18, 19

REVERSED