Ex Parte Falkner et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 25, 201611950440 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 111950,440 12/05/2007 James H. Falkner 51344 7590 02/29/2016 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. /Oracle America/ SUN I STK 1000 TOWN CENTER, TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238 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. SUNM070616PUS 6560 EXAMINER PAN, YONGJIA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2171 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/29/2016 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): docketing@brookskushman.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JAMES H. FALKNER and MANPREET SINGH OBEROI Appeal2014-002696 1 Application 11/950,440 Technology Center 2100 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JASON V. MORGAN, and DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-18. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appellants' Invention Appellants' invention is directed to a method and system for dynamically generating a configuration interface for software installation 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Sun Microsystems, Inc. App. Br. 1. Appeal2014-002696 Application 11/950,440 and configuration at runtime on a target computer having a particular interface type. Spec. 2:6-8. In particular, upon receiving a view definition file (24) specifying a user interface control, a format converter (26) converts the view definition file (24) into a plurality of description fragments so that a template engine (28) can merge one of the fragments with a corresponding page template to generate a merged page (80) based on the interface type of the target computer. Id. at 2:8-14. A generation engine (30) with an interface matching the interface type of the page template is subsequently selected to display the information contained in the merged page. Id. at 2:14--19. Illustrative Claim Independent claim 1 is illustrative and reads as follows: 1. A system for dynamically generating a configuration interface for software installation and configuration at run time on a target computer having a particular interface type, the particular interface type one of a plurality of different user interface types, the system comprising: licensing information, a plurality of view definition files, each view definition file specifying at least one user interface control independent of information relating to any of the plurality of different user interface types; a format converter operative to convert each of the plurality of view definition files to at least one description fragment describing at least one interface control property; a template engine in communication with the format converter, the template engine generating a merged page by merging at run time the at least one description fragment with one of a plurality of page templates selected based on the particular interface type of the target computer; and 2 Appeal2014-002696 Application 11/950,440 at least one of a plurality of generator engines in communication with the template engine, each generator engine corresponding to a particular one of the plurality of different user interface types for software installation and configuration, a particular interface being generated based on system information, the system information including at least one of user preference, operating system information, security information, and other programs loaded on the target computer each generator engine operative to display the information contained in the merged page if the generator engine interface type matches the interface type of the page template used to generate the merged page. Prior Art Relied Upon Steichen US 2002/0118223 Al Aug. 29, 2002 Myers US 6,996,781 Bl Feb. 7,2006 Anderson US 2007/0157078 Al July 5, 2007 Antos US 2008/0256495 Al Oct. 16, 2008 Saikaly US 7,734,995 Bl June 8, 2010 Chad Bumstead, How to ModifY Add to Cart/Wish List Buttons (July 6, 2007). Hereinafter "Buttons." Rejections on Appeal Appellants request review of the following Examiner's rejections: Claims 1--4, 6-10, 12-16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Anderson, Saikaly, Antos, Steichen, and Buttons. 3 Appeal2014-002696 Application 11/950,440 Claims 5, 11, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Anderson, Saikaly, Antos, Steichen, Buttons, and Myers. ANALYSIS We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 4--9, and the Reply Brief, pages 1-2.2 Dispositive Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Anderson, Saikaly, Antos, Steichen, and Buttons teaches or suggests upon receiving a view definition file specifYing a user interface control, a format converter converts the file into a plurality of description fragments such that a template engine can merge one of the fragments with a corresponding page template to thereby create a merged page, which a generator engine subsequently displays on a similar type interface, as required in independent claim l? We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments. We are unpersuaded by Appellants' contentions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejections from which appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 1, 2013), the Reply Brief (filed December 16, 2013), and the Answer (mailed October 15, 2013) for their respective details. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012). 4 Appeal2014-002696 Application 11/950,440 Appeal Brief. See Ans. 2-9; Final Act. 2-32. However, we highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows. Appellants argue the combination of Anderson, Saikaly, Antos, Steichen, and Buttons does not teach or suggest the disputed limitations emphasized above. App. Br. 4--8, Reply Br. 1-2. Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. As correctly noted by the Examiner, Appellants' arguments are tantamount to an individual attack against the cited references. Ans. 3--4. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking the references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). First, we agree with the Examiner Anderson's disclosure of a user interface for selecting one of a plurality of XML packages (305, 315, 325) containing a configuration file, which is customized to include runtime/ defined parameters before the configured file is converted into a plurality of document segments (310, 320, 330), teaches converting a selected view definition file into a plurality of description segments. Ans. 4--5 (citing Anderson i-fi-155---63, Figs. 2-3). Thus, although Anderson's XML packages are capable of containing queries for performing searches, we do not agree with Appellants that they are so limited. App. Br. 4--5. Instead, each of the disclosed XML packages relates to a corresponding interface control, which can be selected to specify a related XML file associated therewith that can be configured on a target computer. Anderson i120. We further echo the Examiner's finding that Buttons' disclosure of adding buttons to XML 5 Appeal2014-002696 Application 11/950,440 packages to facilitate the selection of a package shows that the disclosed XML packages were well-known in the art for use as user control interfaces for installing and configuring software. Ans. 7-8 (citing Buttons). Likewise, the Examiner's reliance upon the disclosures of Antos and Steichen of generating and customizing user interfaces to install and configure software based upon a user's preferences and operating system information supports the Examiner's finding that customizing a user interface to configure and install software was an endeavor within the purview of the ordinarily skilled artisan. Ans. 6-7 (citing Antos i-fi-121-25, Steichen i127). Second, we agree with the Examiner that Saikaly's disclosure of merging into a single file a defined segment with a corresponding template file teaches the claimed template engine, which would complement Anderson's teaching by allowing users to utilize the disclosed XivIL configuration interface to merge a description fragment with a corresponding page template to yield a single merged page. Ans. 5---6 (citing Saikaly 9:42- 47, 12:20-27, Figure 5B). Because the Examiner does not rely upon Saikaly to teach the interface, Appellants' attack against Saikaly on this point is unavailing. App. Br. 7. Accordingly, because Anderson, Antos, Saikaly, Steichen, and Buttons disclose known elements that perform their ordinary functions to predictably result in an interface that can be customized at runtime according to a target computer to thereby allow a user to configure or install software, we agree that the proposed combination is proper. Ans. 8 (citing KSR Int 'l 6 Appeal2014-002696 Application 11/950,440 Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007)). Likewise, we concur with the Examiner's conclusion that modifying the resulting system to generate an interface based on security information as well as other programs on the target computer would have also been within the purview of the ordinarily skilled artisan in light of the combined teachings of the cited references. Ans. 8-9. Therefore we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Anderson, Antos, Saikaly, Steichen, and Buttons teaches or suggests the disputed limitations. It follows Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Regarding the rejection of claims 2-18, because Appellants have either not presented separate patentability arguments or have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for patentability of claim 1 above, claims 2-18 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012). 7 Appeal2014-002696 Application 11/950,440 DECISION3 We affirm the Examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1-18. 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). AFFIRMED 3 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner may wish to consider whether claims 13-18 are directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the cited claims recite a computer-readable storage medium, which is not defined in the Specification to exclude transitory media. Ex parte Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857 (PTAB 2013) (precedential). 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation