Young, Kenneth L.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 6, 2020

12761418 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 6, 2020)

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.
12/761,418 04/16/2010 Kenneth L. Young 328929.01 1123
69316 7590 03/06/2020
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
EXAMINER
FABER, DAVID
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2177
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/06/2020 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):
chriochs@microsoft.com
usdocket@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KENNETH L. YOUNG1
____________

Appeal 2019-001805
Application 12/761,418
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and IRVIN E. BRANCH
Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC. Appeal
Brief 1. We refer to the real party in interest as “Appellant.”
Appeal 2019-001805
Application 12/761,418

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1–12 and 21–28, which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Illustrative Claim
1. A computer-implemented method for automatically
generating executable computer code in a visual layout system
for transitioning a user interface between user interface layouts,
the method comprising:
receiving a first declarative template definition that
defines a user interface layout of one or more controls
associated with one or more first states of the user interface that
will be displayed;
receiving a second declarative template definition that
defines a user interface layout of one or more controls
associated with one or more second states to which the user
interface will transition based on specified user actions within
the user interface;
identifying one or more differences between the first
template definition and second template definition; and
automatically generating editing operations based on the
identified differences that comprise procedural instructions in
new un-compiled computer code that, when compiled and
executed by a computer, cause a transition of the user interface
from the user interface layout defined by the first template
definition to the user interface layout defined by the second
template definition, the editing operations including modifying
a property of, adding, or removing a control,
wherein the preceding steps are performed by at least one
processor.

Appeal 2019-001805
Application 12/761,418

3
Prior Art
Name Reference Date
Kupkova US 2004/0103124 A1 May 27, 2004
Wei US 2004/0143823 A1 July 22, 2004
Bernstein US 7,185,288 B1 Feb. 27, 2007
Begun US 7,281,018 B1 Oct. 9, 2007
Bailor US 2009/0150394 A1 June 11, 2009
Jiang US 20014/0250360 A1 Sept. 4, 2014
Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1–4, 6, 8–12, 21–24, 26, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Kupkova, Begun, Wei, and Jiang.
Claims 5 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Kupkova, Begun, Wei, Jiang, and Bailor.
Claims 7 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Kupkova, Begun, Wei, Jiang, and Bernstein.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final
Action and Examiner’s Answer as our own. We agree with the Examiner
for the reasons given by the Examiner in the Final Action and Examiner’s
Answer. We address the following arguments from the Reply Brief to
complete the record.
Appellant contends that the document disclosed by Kupkova does not
describe “a user interface layout of one or more controls.” Reply Br. 3–7.
According to Appellant, “UIs are known in the art as displayed interfaces by
which a user interacts via interactive controls with programs/applications
executing on a computing device. An XML document, or a document
generally, is not capable of this functionality and interfacing.” Id. at 4.
Appeal 2019-001805
Application 12/761,418

4
The Examiner finds that Begun describes a document containing data
entry fields, which are “controls” within the meaning of claim 1. Final Act.
7, citing Begun, 3:40–48 (“Each section in the exemplary electronic form
template 130 can include one or more data entry fields for received input
from the editing user 108, such as data entry field 132. The data entry fields
are also referred to herein as ‘editing controls.’”). Appellant does not
respond to the Examiner’s finding that Begun’s description of a document
with data entry fields, or “editing controls,” teaches “a user interface layout
of one or more controls” as claimed.
Appellant contends that Kupkova does not describe transitioning
between user interfaces as claimed. Reply Br. 7–10. In particular,
Appellant contends that Kupkova does not describe new computer code that
is generated for editing operations that cause the UI to transition between UI
layouts defined by different template definitions and to have controls so
defined. Id. at 8. Appellant’s contention is based on the premise that the
documents of Kupkova do not describe a user interface layout as claimed.
See id. at 9 (“Thus the Examiner’s assertion . . . that a UI layout is a
‘document’ is incorrect.”); id. at 10 (“In fact, there is no logical basis for the
Examiner’s conclusion that an XML document has a user interface.”).
However, we agree with the Examiner that the combined teachings of
Kupkova and Begun teach that an XML document with data entry fields
teaches “a user interface layout of one or more controls” within the meaning
of claim 1. See Final Action 7.
In addition, the Examiner relies on the combined teachings of
Kupkova, Begun, and Wei to teach “automatically generating editing
operations . . . that comprise procedural instructions in new un-compiled
Appeal 2019-001805
Application 12/761,418

5
computer code that . . . cause a transition” as claimed. See Final Action 8–9.
Appellant does not respond to the Examiner’s finding that the combined
teachings of Kupkova, Begun, and Wei teach the “new un-compiled
computer code that . . . cause a transition” as claimed.
Appellant contends that “visual layout system” recited in the preamble
of claim 1 is entitled to patentable weight. Reply Br. 11–12. The Examiner
finds that (a) “visual layout system” is not entitled to patentable weight
because the process steps and structural limitations recited in the body of the
claim are able to stand alone, and (b) even if “visual layout system” were
entitled to patentable weight, this term does not distinguish the claim from
the prior art in terms of patentability, because the prior art teaches a visual
layout system. Ans. 9. We agree with the Examiner, that “visual layout
system” is not entitled to patentable weight because the limitations in the
body of the claim are able to stand alone, and even if we were to give weight
to this term, the prior art teaches a “visual layout system” as claimed. See
Final Action 2–7, 20–27; Ans. 9.
Appellant contends that the prior art does not teach automatically
generating editing operations based on the identified differences that
comprise procedural instructions in new computer code that, when executed
by a computer, cause a transition of the user interface from one defined
layout to another as claimed. Reply Br. 12–16. The Examiner interprets the
scope of “new un-compiled computer code that, when compiled and
executed by a computer, cause a transition of the user interface”2 as claimed

2 Appellant’s Specification as originally filed does not disclose
“automatically generating editing operations based on the identified
differences that comprise procedural instructions in new un-compiled
Appeal 2019-001805
Application 12/761,418

6
in light of Paragraph 18 of Appellant’s Specification (Ans. 12), and finds
that the combination of Kupkova, Begun, and Wei teaches this limitation
(Ans. 12–15; Final Action 8–9). We agree with the Examiner.
Paragraph 18 of Appellant’s Specification discloses:
The second approach uses templates at design time, and
deltas at runtime. In other words, although the system is
presented to the designer as a set of multiple templates,
internally the system treats the setup as a single template with a
set of deltas to transition states. In some embodiments, the
system compiles the design time representation with a compiler
that produces a runtime version of the interface. The compiler
is responsible for determining template correspondence and
rewriting each state into a set of editing operations.
The scope of “new un-compiled computer code that, when compiled and
executed by a computer, cause a transition of the user interface,” read in
light of Paragraph 18 of Appellant’s Specification, encompasses a system
that uses a template and a delta to produce a second version of the interface
at runtime.
Kupkova teaches a differential document setting forth changes
between a first version and a second version of a document, where the
second version can be produced by applying the changes in the differential
document to the first document. Kupkova, Abstract, ¶ 3, Fig. 2. Begun
teaches designing an original version of a form template, using the original
version to create a revised version, detecting the changes between the
original and revised versions, and using the differences to display a revised
version. Begun, 4:54–5:30, 8:10–9:5, 15:5–16:5, Figs. 3, 5a, 5b, 9a, 9b. We

computer code” as recited in claim 1. In the event of further prosecution, the
Examiner should consider whether the claims comply with the written
description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, 1st paragraph.
Appeal 2019-001805
Application 12/761,418

7
find that the combination of Kupkova and Begun teaches “new un-compiled
computer code that, when compiled and executed by a computer, cause a
transition of the user interface,” as read in light of Paragraph 18 of
Appellant’s Specification.
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claims 2–
12 and 21–28, which were not argued separately, fall with claim 1.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1–4, 6, 8–12, 21–24, 26, and 28 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kupkova, Begun, Wei, and Jiang is
affirmed.
The rejection of claims 5 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kupkova, Begun, Wei, Jiang, and Bailor is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 7 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kupkova, Begun, Wei, Jiang, and Bernstein is affirmed.

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6, 8–12,
21–24, 26, 28
103 Kupkova, Begun,
Wei, Jiang
1–4, 6, 8–
12, 21–24,
26, 28

5, 25 103 Kupkova, Begun,
Wei, Jiang, Bailor
5, 25
7, 27 103 Kupkova, Begun,
Wei, Jiang,
Bernstein
7, 27
Overall
Outcome
1–12, 21–
28

Appeal 2019-001805
Application 12/761,418

8
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. §
41.50(f).

AFFIRMED