INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 20, 2021

2020003830 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 20, 2021)

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.
14/133,987 12/19/2013 BRIAN G. FARN CA920110005US2 4952
11480 7590 08/20/2021
IBM Corporation - Patent Center
1701 North Street
B/256-3
Endicott, NY 13760
EXAMINER
CHIUSANO, ANDREW TSUTOMU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/20/2021 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):
edciplaw@us.ibm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRIAN G. FARN
Appeal 2020-003830
Application 14/133,987
Technology Center 2100

Before HUNG H. BUI, AMBER L. HAGY, and DAVID J. CUTITTA II,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20, which are all of the pending
claims. See Final Act. 1–2; Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 “Appellant” herein refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as International
Business Machines Corporation. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-003830
Application 14/133,987

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The subject matter of the present application pertains to creating
summary views of nodes in a serial sequence of nodes in a data processing
system. See Spec. ¶ 42. For instance, “a function call stack of a single
threaded software program may be represented as a serial sequence of nodes
with the bottom of the stack as a parent of the next entry in the stack, and so
on until the top of the stack is reached.” Id. ¶ 2. Nodes may be represented
in a hierarchical tree structure. Id. ¶ 46. “A useful visual presentation of a
tree hierarchy typically considers the importance of information a user needs
to view when the hierarchy of data is initially presented and a capability for
a user to configure the amount of detailed information shown.” Id. ¶ 4.
Selecting a particular node may cause to be displayed a separate visual entity
that shows information about that node. Id. ¶¶ 76–79.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below with
disputed limitation italicized, is representative:
1. A method comprising:
receiving in a processor unit from a storage device of a
data processing system the includes memory, a storage device
and a display, hierarchical tree data of a node hierarchy;
determining by the processor unit from the hierarchical
tree data if the node hierarchy is to be presented in a summary
view state in which the node hierarchy is to be initially presented
with all serial sequences of the node hierarchy collapsed but all
leaf nodes remaining visible; and,
on condition that the node hierarchy is determined by the
processor unit to be in a summary view state:
determining whether a node in the node hierarchy is
a start node of a serial sequence of nodes;
responsive to a determination that the node in the
node hierarchy is a start node of a serial sequence of nodes,
Appeal 2020-003830
Application 14/133,987

3
identifying an end node of the serial sequence of nodes
beyond which multiple branches of nodes exist, changing
a collapse control of the start node in the serial sequence
of nodes to a collapsed state;
determining a count of intervening nodes between
the start node and an end node of the serial sequence of
nodes;
hiding the intervening nodes to form hidden
intervening nodes;
creating a segment using the start node with
collapse control and the end node using the count in place
of the hidden intervening nodes but leaving nodes beyond
the end node in an expanded state; and
creating a hierarchical tree view using the segment
and also creating a path list display with a call stack as a
context menu to a selected node in the hierarchical tree
view, the call stack comprising a top entry indicating a
function at a current location in a computer program and a
bottom entry indicating a start of execution of the
computer program and a set of entries therebetween
indicating a function invocation path leading to the
function at the current location from the start of execution,
and
displaying the view by the processor unit in the
display and storing the view in the storage device.

Appeal Br. 20–21.

Appeal 2020-003830
Application 14/133,987

4
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Name Reference Date
Bertram2 US 2007/0203920 A1 Aug. 30, 2007
Kui US 7,493,562 B2 Feb. 17, 2009
Wright US 2009/0063547 A1 Mar. 5, 2009
Warren US 2010/0107145 A1 Apr. 29, 2010
Zheng US 2010/0318852 A1 Dec. 16, 2010
Webster US 2011/0138339 A1 June 9, 2011
Abdelwahab Hamou-Lhadj, Techniques to Simplify the Analysis of
Execution Traces for Program Comprehension. Doctoral thesis. Ottawa-
Carleton Inst. for Computer Science, (2005) (“Hamou-Lhadj”).
REJECTIONS3
Claims 1, 8, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)4 as
obvious over the combined teachings of Bertram, Hamou-Lhadj, Warren,
and Zheng. Final Act. 4–8.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combined teachings of Bertram, Hamou-Lhadj, Warren,
Zheng, and Applicant Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”). Final Act. 8–9.

2 All references are cited using the first-named inventor.
3 The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejection of claims 1–20 for failing to
comply with the written description requirement was withdrawn in the
Answer and is, therefore, not before us. See Ans. 3.
4 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) included revisions to 35
U.S.C. § 103 that became effective on March 16, 2013. Because the present
application claims the benefit of an application filed before March 16, 2013
(see Spec. ¶ 1), the Examiner applies the pre-AIA version of the statutory
basis for unpatentability.
Appeal 2020-003830
Application 14/133,987

5
Claims 3, 10, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combined teachings of Bertram, Hamou-Lhadj, Warren,
Zheng, AAPA, and Kui. Final Act. 9–11.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combined teachings of Bertram, Hamou-Lhadj, Warren,
Zheng, and Wright. Final Act. 12.
Claims 5–7, 12–14, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as obvious over the combined teachings of Bertram, Hamou-Lhadj,
Warren, Zheng, Wright, and Webster. Final Act. 13–16.
OPINION
We have considered Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 14–19; Reply
Br. 2–6) in light of the Examiner’s findings and explanations (Final Act. 4–
17; Ans. 3–5). For the reasons set forth below, we are not persuaded of
Examiner error in the rejections of the pending claims, and we, therefore,
sustain the Examiner’s rejections.
Appellant argues only claim 1 with particularity, and argues the
remaining claims collectively with claim 1. See Appeal Br. 14–19.
Therefore, based on Appellant’s arguments, we decide the appeal of claims
1–20 based on claim 1 alone. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019).
The Examiner relies on a combination of Bertram, Hamou-Lhadj,
Warren, and Zheng as teaching or suggesting the subject matter of claim 1.
With regard to the disputed limitation “creating a path list display with a call
stack as a context menu to a selected node in the hierarchical tree view,” the
Examiner relies on Zheng’s disclosure of a call stack displayed in response
to selecting a node. Final Act. 7 (citing Zheng ¶¶ 61, 70).
Appeal 2020-003830
Application 14/133,987

6
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s findings are in error, asserting
that Zheng does not teach a “menu . . . let alone a specific type of menu—a
context menu.” Appeal Br. 18 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner responds
by first noting that Appellant’s Specification “does not provide a definition
or use the term ‘context[] menu.’” Ans. 3. The Examiner then refers to
Figure 9 and paragraphs 76–79 of the Specification as describing the subject
matter of the disputed limitation (id. at 3–4), which is consistent with
Appellant’s description in the Summary of Claimed Subject Matter (Appeal
Br. 3). In particular, Appellant’s Specification describes:
View 912 provides an example of a path information
display in which a contracted node hides some of the associated
descendent nodes. A separate visual entity can be used to show
information about a particular node, including associated
surrounding nodes that may be hidden. The view of the example
is especially useful for obtaining a node path leading to a leaf
node.
View 912 illustrates how a hierarchical path of a node such
as node N 914, including hidden nodes of node L (list item 922),
node Q (list item 924) and node R (list item 926), can be
displayed using a list such as list 918.
List 918 provides a sequence listing of nodes. For
example, a node of interest such as node 914 is provided in list
918 as list item 920 with adjacent nodes also listed. All nodes
along a sequential path defined between node A 928 and node S
916 containing the identified node of interest node N 914 are
included in entries of list 918. Using list 918 enables a user to
display path information including nodes that were otherwise
hidden when using a graphic representation in a tree view.
When implemented as a list, list 918 selections can be used
to selectively include or exclude entries. For example, filters
including a configurable parameter may be set to limit a
predefined number of list items before and after a node of interest
or another parameter may be set to not display portions of a path
Appeal 2020-003830
Application 14/133,987

7
where the path branches to multiple children or multiple parents.
The entries in the displayed list therefore follow the nodes of the
serial sequence from a root node to an end node of the path
containing the identified node of interest. Alternatively, a
separate visual entity may display a subset of the tree hierarchy
centered on a node of interest in a hierarchical tree form.
Spec. ¶¶ 76–79. Based on this disclosure, the Examiner finds “Figure 9
shows a node of interest ‘N’ and a display object comprising a list of items
labeled ‘Call stack.’ The corresponding text description refers to the display
object as a ‘separate visual entity.’” Ans. 3. The Examiner also finds
[t]he specification says the node of interest can be indicated, “by
a user response to a user interface prompt,” (Spec. ¶ [0096]), and
shows a cursor adjacent to the node of interest in figure 9. The
specification does not disclose that the user can interact with or
select any items within the “separate visual entity.”
Id.
The Examiner then finds Zheng discloses the same subject matter. Id.
at 4–5. In particular, the Examiner finds Zheng “discloses that a call stack is
displayed when a user selects a node in a hierarchical tree.” Id. at 4 (citing
Zheng ¶ 61, Fig. 7). The Examiner also finds Zheng “states a node in a tree
can be selected to reveal a list of call events.” Id. (citing Zheng ¶ 70). The
Examiner also notes that “paragraph 63 of Zheng, in further describing
embodiments of figure 7, says that ‘clicking on a node opens up a menu.’”
Id.
With regard to Appellant’s arguments that Zheng does not disclose a
context menu, the Examiner states that “the broadest reasonable
interpretation of ‘context menu’ includes the menu of Zheng.” Id. As
support, the Examiner notes that Appellant’s Specification does not mention
the terms “menu” or “context menu,” much less define them. Id. Rather,
Appeal 2020-003830
Application 14/133,987

8
“[t]he specification simply refers to the object comprising the call stack in
figure 9 as a ‘separate visual entity.’” Id.; see Spec. ¶¶ 76, 79. The
Examiner further notes that Appellant’s Specification “does not disclose that
the separate visual entity contains selectable menu items or can be interacted
with in any way: the entity simply displays the list.” Ans. 4. The Examiner
concludes:
In light of the specification, the broadest reasonable
interpretation of “a context menu to a selected node” should
include a “separate visual entity” comprising a call stack (such
as the one shown in figure 9) that is displayed in response to a
user selecting a node. In other words, the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claim should at least include what is
disclosed by the specification.
Id. at 4–5. The Examiner then reiterates that paragraphs 61 and 70 of Zheng
“explicitly disclose a separate visual entity comprising a call stack
(analogous to the visual entity with call stack shown and described in
Appellant’s specification), the visual entity displayed in response to the user
clicking on a node.” Id.
Appellant counters, in the Reply, that the Examiner’s findings are in
error because they are based on an improper construction of “context menu.”
Reply Br. 3. In particular, Appellant takes issue with the Examiner’s
construction based on disclosure in the Specification, insisting that the
ordinarily skilled artisan “will appreciate that the plain meaning of the term
context menu ‘(also called contextual, shortcut, and pop up or pop-up menu)
is a menu in a graphical user interface (GUI) that appears upon user
interaction, such as a right-click mouse operation.’” Reply Br. 3 (citing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context_menu). Based on this alleged
understanding, Appellant contends “[a]ccordingly, one of ordinary skill in
Appeal 2020-003830
Application 14/133,987

9
the art would appreciate that list 918 [in the Specification] is ultimately a
contextual menu — a list of options that appears upon a user interaction
(cursor hovering in the vicinity of node ‘N’).” Id. (emphasis added).
Appellant concedes that Zheng “displays an exploded view of call stack
information associated with a node” (id. at 6 (emphasis omitted)), but asserts
that Zheng “fails to explicitly disclose displaying the call stack as a separate
visual entity in the form of a context menu” (id.) (emphasis added).
It is well settled that the terms of a claim must be given the broadest
reasonable interpretation, consistent with Appellant’s Specification, as they
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in this art. In re Morris, 127
F.3d 1048, 1054–55 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321–22
(Fed. Cir. 1989). As the Examiner notes, Appellant’s Specification does not
describe or even mention a “context menu.” Ans. 3. The Examiner,
therefore, turns to disclosure in the Specification of the apparent
corresponding subject matter regarding a “separate visual entity”—which is
the same disclosure that Appellant asserts in the Appeal Brief is the
disclosure underlying the claimed “context menu.” See Ans. 4–5; Appeal
Br. 3; Spec. ¶¶ 76–79, Fig. 9. The Examiner determines that “context
menu,” given a broad but reasonable construction in light of the
Specification, includes “a separate visual entity [that] display[s] a subset of
the tree hierarchy centered on a node of interest in a hierarchical tree form,”
as described in the Specification. See Ans. 4–5; Spec. ¶ 79.
Appellant, on the other hand, proposes in the Reply Brief a
construction of “context menu” as one premised on the alleged
understanding of an ordinarily skilled artisan, asserting that the ordinarily
skilled artisan “would appreciate” that a context menu is “a list of options
Appeal 2020-003830
Application 14/133,987

10
that appears upon user interaction.” Reply Br. 3 (citing Wikipedia entry).5
Appellant does not, however, cite to any portion of the Specification that is
consistent with this construction. In particular, to the extent that Appellant
attempts to differentiate over the prior art by asserting the ordinarily skilled
artisan would have understood that the claimed “context menu” includes
user-selectable “options,” Appellant does not explain sufficiently how this
alleged understanding is consistent with any disclosure in Appellant’s
Specification.
Appellant’s arguments are unavailing of demonstrating Examiner
error in the rejection. In particular, Appellant does not persuade us that the
Examiner erred in determining that “context menu,” given a broad but
reasonable construction in light of the Specification, includes “a separate
visual entity [that] display[s] a subset of the tree hierarchy centered on a
node of interest in a hierarchical tree form,” as described in the
Specification. See Ans. 4–5; Spec. ¶ 79. Appellant also does not persuade
us of Examiner error in finding that Zheng discloses that a user may select a
node in a visual representation of a tree (such as by clicking on a node with a
mouse), and doing so will cause to be displayed “call stack events”
associated with that node. Ans. 3–5 (citing Zheng ¶¶ 38, 61, 70). Nor does
Appellant persuade us of Examiner error in finding that Zheng’s disclosure

5 Appellant’s construction first appears in Appellant’s Reply Brief, and is
arguably untimely. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1473–74 (BPAI
2010) (informative opinion) (absent a showing of good cause, the Board is
not required to address an argument newly presented in the reply brief that
could have been presented in the principal brief on appeal). Nevertheless, in
view of the Examiner’s expanded analysis in the Answer regarding
construction of “context menu,” we consider Appellant’s argument fully.
Appeal 2020-003830
Application 14/133,987

11
falls within the broad but reasonable construction of “context menu” based
on the Specification. See Ans. 4–5. Therefore, we are not persuaded of
Examiner error in the finding that Zheng discloses “creating a path list
display with a call stack as a context menu to a selected node in the
hierarchical tree view,” as recited in claim 1.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in
the rejection of claim 1, and we, therefore, sustain that rejection, along with
the rejection of independent claims 8 and 15, and all of the dependent
claims, which are all argued collectively with claim 1. See Appeal Br. 14–
19.
CONCLUSION

The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1–20 are sustained.

Appeal 2020-003830
Application 14/133,987

12
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 8, 15 103(a) Bertram, Hamou-
Lhadj, Warren, Zheng
1, 8, 15
2, 9, 16 103(a) Bertram, Hamou-
Lhadj, Warren, Zheng,
AAPA
2, 9, 16
3, 10, 17 103(a) Bertram, Hamou-
Lhadj, Warren, Zheng,
AAPA, Kui
3, 10, 17
4, 11, 18 103(a) Bertram, Hamou-
Lhadj, Warren, Zheng,
Wright
4, 11, 18
5–7, 12–
14, 19, 20
103(a) Bertram, Hamou-
Lhadj, Warren, Zheng,
Wright, Webster
5–7, 12–14,
19, 20

Overall
Outcome:
1–20

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED