Ex Parte Falk et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 18, 2018

13739125 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/739, 125
85305 7590
Kenneth F. Kozik
43 Mohawk Drive
Acton, MA 01720
FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
01/11/2013 Alexander Falk
07/20/2018
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.
ALT14-0l 8562
EXAMINER
RUTTEN, JAMES D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2197
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/20/2018 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):
kfkozik@verizon.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALEXANDER FALK and VLAD ISLA VGA VRIELOV 1
Appeal2016-007594
Application 13/739, 125
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Altova GMBH. See
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2016-007594
Application 13/739, 125
STATEMENT OF CASE2
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1, 3-13, 15-22, and 24--30. Claims 2, 14, and 23 are cancelled.
We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm.
Disclosed Invention and Exemplary Claims
Appellants' application relates to visual data mapping and code
generation to support data integration. Title. Claims 1 and 11, reproduced
below with emphases added to disputed limitations, are exemplary of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
in a computing device having a processor and a memory,
visually loading structured data objects in a graphical user
interface (GUI), the structured data objects selected from the
group consisting of Extensible Markup Language (XML)
schemas, database tables and Electronic Data Interchange (EDI)
documents, each structured data object automatically derived
directly from a source and comprising one or more elements;
enabling visual mappings between and among the one or
more elements of the structured data objects in the GUI; and
generating software code that programmatically
implements the visual mappings in a run-time environment.
2 Throughout this opinion we refer to Appellants' substitute Specification
filed January 21, 2014 ("Spec."); the Final Office Action mailed December
5, 2014 ("Final Act."); the Appeal Brief filed April 28, 2015 ("Br."); and the
Examiner's Answer mailed May 19, 2016 ("Ans.").
2
Appeal2016-007594
Application 13/739, 125
11. An apparatus comprising:
a processor, a memory, and a display, the memory
generating a graphical user interface (GUI) on the display, the
GUI comprising:
a library pane;
a mapping project area displaying structured data objects
automatically derived directly from a source and comprising
one or more elements and displaying graphical elements used to
create mappings between displayed structured data object
schemas; and
a validation pane.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Sugino us 5,202,996 Apr. 13, 1993
Parthasarathy us 6,064,816 May 16, 2000
Molina-Moreno US 2004/0153992 Al filed Jan. 31, 2003
Beazley US 2003/0149594 Al Aug. 7,2003
Panditharadhya US 2005/0132282 Al filed Dec. 15, 2003
Englehart US 7,823,122 Bl filed Dec. 16, 2003
Kuznetsov US 2006/0265689 Al filed Dec. 22, 2003
Chari US 2005/0138222 Al filed Jan. 8, 2004
3
Appeal2016-007594
Application 13/739, 125
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections: 3
(1) Claims 15-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellants regard as the invention.
Final Act. 5-6. Specifically, the Examiner found the preambles ("The
apparatus") lacks antecedent basis and, for purposes of compact prosecution,
interprets the claims as ultimately depending from claim 11 ( apparatus
claim) instead of claim 1 (method claim). Final Act. 6.
(2) Claims 1, 4--8, 22, and 24--28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over the combination of Chari, Panditharadhya, and Beazley. Final
Act. 9-13.
(3) Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
combination of Chari, Panditharadhya, Beazley, and Kuznetsov. Final Act.
13-14.
(4) Claims 9 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
the combination of Chari, Panditharadhya, Beazley, and Englehart. Final
Act. 14--15.
(5) Claims 10 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
the combination of Chari, Panditharadhya, Beazley, and Sugino. Final Act.
15.
3 The Examiner withdraws the obviousness-type double-patenting rejection
over parent application 10/844,985 because that application was abandoned.
Ans. 3.
4
Appeal2016-007594
Application 13/739, 125
(6) Claims 11, 15-18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over the combination of Chari and Molina-Moreno. Final Act. 15-
18.
(7) Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
the combination of Chari, Molina-Moreno, and Parthasarathy. Final Act.
18-19.
(8) Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
combination of Chari, Molina-Moreno, and Englehart. Final Act. 19.
(9) Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
combination of Chari, Molina-Moreno, and Panditharadhya. Final Act. 19-
20.
Issues on Appeal
Based on Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief (Br. 15-25), the
following principal issues are presented on appeal:
(1) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 15-21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, for being indefinite because "[t]he apparatus of
claim 1" and "[t]he apparatus of claim 14"4 lack antecedent basis;
(2) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1 and 22, along with
dependent claims 3-10 and 24--30, 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
4 Claim 14 is cancelled.
5 Although claim 15 formally depends from claim 1, the Examiner rejects
claim 15 as lacking antecedent basis for "[t ]he apparatus of claim 1" and
interprets claim 15 as dependent from claim 11. The Examiner similarly
rejects and interprets claim 16, which depends from claim 15. A review of
the record of the prosecution history reveals that claim 15 originally
depended from claim 14, which depended from claim 11. When claim 14
was cancelled, claim 15 was amended by Appellants to depend from claim
5
Appeal2016-007594
Application 13/739, 125
combination of Chari, Panditharadhya, and Beazley because the combination
fails to teach or suggest visually loading structured data objects in a
graphical user interface (GUI), as recited in representative claim 1 ?6
(3) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 11, along with dependent
claims 12, 13, and 15-21, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of
Chari and Molina-Moreno because the combination fails to teach or suggest
displaying structured data objects, as recited in representative claim 11 ?7
(4) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 11, along with dependent
claims 12, 13, and 15-21, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of
Chari and Molina-Moreno because the combination fails to teach or suggest
a validation pane, as recited in representative claim 11?
1. We treat claim 15 as depending from claim 11 in accordance with the
Examiner's interpretation. Final Act. 6. Accordingly, claims 15 and 16 will
be treated with the issues raised regarding independent claim 11.
6 Appellants' arguments for claim 1 are the same as the arguments for claim
22 (compare Br. 15-21 with Br. 24--25). Appellants do not present separate
patentability arguments for any of dependent claims 3-10 and 24--30.
Therefore, we select claim 1 as representative of claims 1, 4--8, 22, and 24--
28 rejected over the combination of Chari, Panditharadhya, and Beazley.
Because Appellants have not presented separate patentability arguments for
dependent claims 3, 9-10, 29, and 30, they stand/fall for the same reasons as
representative claim 1.
7 As discussed supra, the Examiner rejects claims 15-21 as indefinite for
lacking antecedent basis and interprets claims 15-21 as depending from
claim 11. Final Act. 6. Appellants argue claim 11, and do not present
separate patentability arguments for any of dependent claims 15-21.
Therefore, we select claim 11 as representative of claims 1, 15-18, and 20
rejected over the combination of Chari, and Molina-Moreno. Because
Appellants have not presented separate patentability arguments for
dependent claims 19 and 21, they stand/fall for the same reasons as
representative claim 11.
6
Appeal2016-007594
Application 13/739, 125
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions in the Appeal Brief (Br. 15-25) that the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellants' arguments. We adopt as our own (1) the findings
by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-
20), and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer
in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 4--7). We highlight and
amplify certain teachings and suggestions of Chari and Molina-Moreno as
follows.
Issue (1): Indefiniteness
The Examiner rejects claims 15-21 as indefinite for lacking
antecedent basis for "[t]he apparatus." Final Act. 5-6; see Ans. 2 (indicating
that the definiteness rejection was maintained). Appellants did not
satisfactorily respond because Appellants merely state in their Appeal Brief,
"Appellants will amend these claims to correct typographical errors when
the Board reverses the examiner on the above discussed prior art rejections."
Br. 25, emphasis added.
A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose
meaning is unclear. In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2014). A
claim is properly rejected as being indefinite when the USPTO issues a well-
grounded rejection why the claim is indefinite and appellants fail to
satisfactorily respond with "a modification of the [claim] language identified
as unclear, a separate definition of the unclear language, or in an appropriate
case, a persuasive explanation for the record of why the [claim] language at
issues is not actually unclear." Packard, 571 F.3d at 1311.
7
Appeal2016-007594
Application 13/739, 125
Appellants' conditional statement of intent to amend the claims does
not satisfy Appellants' burden to respond as to why the Examiner erred as to
this ground of rejection. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) ("The arguments
shall explain why the examiner erred as to each ground of rejection
contested by appellant."). Therefore, we summarily sustain the Examiner's
definiteness rejection of claims 15-21 because Appellants fail to respond.
Issue (2): Obviousness of Claim 1
Appellants contend (Br. 15-21) that Chari does not teach or suggest
"visually loading structured data objects in a graphical user interface (GUI),"
as recited in claim 1. Although Appellants acknowledge Chari teaches
loading data structures (e.g., Br. 1 7) and visually creating a mapping routine
for the data structures using a visual editor (e.g., Br. 18), Appellants assert
Chari teaches loading data structures non-visually, instead of visually (e.g.,
Br. 17), as required by the disputed limitation. We disagree with Appellants
for the reasons that follow.
When construing claim terminology (such as "visually loading
structured data objects") during prosecution before the Office, claims are to
be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, reading claim language in light of the specification as it would
be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). "Construing claims broadly
during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant ... because the applicant
has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim
coverage." Id. The specification is the best guide to the meaning of a
disputed term. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582
(Fed. Cir. 1996).
8
Appeal2016-007594
Application 13/739, 125
Appellants' Specification (Spec. 3:24--29; see Br. 6, citing page 3,
lines 24--29 of the specification as support for claim 1 's disputed limitation)
explains their invention is "to simply load structured data objects ... and to
visually draw mappings between and among elements in the data objects."
The recited "visually loading structured data objects," as disclosed in
Appellants' Specification, is actually two steps: ( 1) loading structured data
objects; and (2) visually mapping elements of the structured data objects.
The Examiner finds (Ans. 4) Chari teaches loading two data structures
into the visual editor (shown in Chari Fig. 5). The Examiner also finds (Ans.
4) Chari Figure 5 teaches a graphical user interfaces visually representing
the two data structures as trees. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that
Chari teaches or suggests visually loading structured data objects, as claimed
and as supported by Appellants' Specification.
Issues (3) & (4): Obviousness of Claim 11
Appellants contend (Br. 21-22) that Chari does not teach or suggest
"displaying structure data objects" as recited in independent claim 11
because Chari' s data structures are not viewed or displayed in the visual
editor. These contentions are substantively similar to those raised with
respect to independent claim 1 's "visually loading structure data objects."
In short, the Examiner finds (Ans. 5---6) Chari teaches two data
structures visually displayed in the visual editor (Chari Fig. 5). Therefore,
we agree with the Examiner and disagree with Appellants because Chari
teaches or suggests "displaying structured data objects," as recited in
independent claim 11.
Appellants further contend (Br. 23-24) that Molina-Morena does not
teach or suggest "a validation pane," as recited in independent claim 11.
9
Appeal2016-007594
Application 13/739, 125
Appellants' contention does not respond to the Examiner's findings because
the contention attacks Molina-Morena individually instead of presenting
argument to the combination of teachings from Chari and Molina-Morena.
See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (finding one
cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejections are based on combinations of references). The Examiner finds
(Ans. 6) Chari teaches a GUI providing a plurality of panes (Chari Figs. 5 &
6). The Examiner also finds (Ans. 6-7) Molina-Morena teaches validation
capable of displaying failure results in an editor graphical user interface
(e.g., Molina-Morena Fig. 2). We agree with the Examiner that Molina-
Morena's validation displaying failure results in a graphical user interface
combined with Chari' s graphical user interface having panes teaches or
suggests "a validation pane," as recited in independent claim 11.
We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting as
obvious claims 1, 11, and 22, as well as claims 3-13, 15-22, and 24--30,
which were not specifically argued separately. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 15-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite
for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which applicant regards as the invention.
(2) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 3-13, 15-22,
and 24--30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
10
Appeal2016-007594
Application 13/739, 125
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3-13, 15-22,
and 24--30.
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
11