Ex Parte Glein et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2013

11320668 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHRISTOPHER A. GLEIN, DAVID ETHAN ZOLLER,
DAVID R. FULMER, FRANCIS M. HOGLE, JOHN E. ELSBREE,
MARK J. FINOCCHIO, and MICHAEL E. CREASY
____________

Appeal 2011-005679
Application 11/320,668
Technology Center 2100
____________

ERRATUM
The Decision on Appeal for the above identified application mailed on
August 30, 2013, contains a typographical error. The Decision incorrectly
lists on page 1 the authoring judge as “SNEDDEN, Administrative Patent
Judge.” Page 1 is changed to list the authoring judge as “JENKS,
Administrative Patent Judge.”
A corrected Decision reflecting this change is attached. All other
portions of this Decision remain unchanged. Any time periods established
by the original Decision, mailed August 30, 2013, also remain unchanged.
If there any questions pertaining to this Erratum, please contact the Patent
Trial and Appeal Board at 571-272-9797.

UWJ/cdc

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHRISTOPHER A. GLEIN, DAVID ETHAN ZOLLER,
DAVID R. FULMER, FRANCIS M. HOGLE, JOHN E. ELSBREE,
MARK J. FINOCCHIO, and MICHAEL E. CREASY
____________

Appeal 2011-005679
Application 11/320,668
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before FRANCISCO C. PRATS, ULRIKE W. JENKS, and
SHERIDAN K. SNEDDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

JENKS, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a method
of generating a graphical user interface. The Patent Examiner has rejected
the claims as anticipated. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
reverse.

1 Appellants state that the real party in interest is Microsoft Corporation.
(App. Br. 2.)
Appeal 2011-005679
Application 11/320,668

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Specification provides that:
[D]evelopers write code associated with data interactions and
transformation, and designers write code associated with
display and layout of elements or data on the graphical user
interface. The designers and developers communicate
frequently about the visual aspects of the graphical user
interface because the underlying data may drastically affect the
layout of elements on the graphical user interface. The delays
associated with the communications between designers and
developers may increase the cost associated with generating the
graphical user interface of an application. Furthermore, the
graphical user interface for the applications designed utilizing
conventional methods are not reusable by remote applications
that communicate with the applications.
(Spec., 1: ¶0003.)
Claims 1-16 and 18-20 are on appeal, and can be found in the Claims
Appendix of the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 18-22). Claims 1, 6, and 13 are
illustrative of the claims on appeal, and read as follows (emphasis added):
1. A computer-implemented method to generate a graphical
user interface, the method comprising:
generating a plurality of graphical user interfaces (GUIs)
based upon a respective plurality of application programming
interfaces (APIs), wherein some of said GUIs are associated
with a plurality of primary applications and others of said
GUIs are associated with a plurality of third party applications;
receiving a declarative description defining a collection
of elements utilized by each of said plurality of GUIs;
parsing the declarative description to detect rules
associated with the collection of elements, wherein the rules are
utilized to manipulate the elements of each of said plurality of
GUIs, and wherein the rules represent logic that controls a state
of each of said plurality of GUIs;
utilizing said APIs to coordinate concurrent
communication and display of said plurality of GUIs associated
Appeal 2011-005679
Application 11/320,668

3
with said respective plurality of primary and third party
applications; and
rendering multimedia content of said plurality of primary
and third party applications via said APIs for display on a
display device,
wherein said plurality of APIs control a layout and data
associated with each respective said plurality of GUIs.
6. A computer-implemented method to generate a graphical
user interface for a secondary application, the method
comprising:
receiving a declarative page from a secondary
application, wherein the declarative page includes a description
of a view that defines the behavior of elements included on the
graphical user interface and provides control of the layout,
animation, painting, and multimedia integration, and wherein
the secondary application is designed to interface with a
primary application through an application program interface;
parsing the declarative page to determine where graphical
user interface elements should be generated;
utilizing the application program interface to coordinate
concurrent communication and display the graphical user
interface associated with each of the primary and the secondary
applications; and
rendering multimedia content of the primary and the
secondary applications for display on a display device,
wherein the application program interface controls a
layout and data of the graphical user interface.
13. A computer readable medium having an application
program interface for generating graphical user interfaces, the
application program interface comprising:
a model to represent values for elements on a graphical
user interface,
wherein the model provides the logic behind the
graphical user interfaces and services that enable
communications between the model and a view;
Appeal 2011-005679
Application 11/320,668

4
said view to define the behavior of the elements included
on the graphical user interface, wherein the view utilizes rules
to control the elements on the graphical user interface, and
wherein the view provides control of the layout,
animation, painting, and multimedia integration; and
a renderer to display the combined elements based on the
model and the view.

The Examiner has rejected claims 1-16 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Dewa.2

I. The Issue: Anticipation
Does the preponderance of the evidence of record support the
Examiner’s finding that Dewa anticipates the claims?

Findings of Fact
FF 1. Dewa disclosed:
[A] display controlling method that can easily generate various
interface displays. A user generates a program including: nodes
n1 to n9, for example, each serving as a data group indicating a
static attribute of a link to referential data or actual referential
data and each serving as a constitutive unit of a drawing; and
views v1 to v4, for example, each serving as a data group for
specifying the node carrying out the drawing and a drawing
style on a screen of the node, and in accordance with the
program, the view is automatically selected, and an image
corresponding to the node specified by the selected view is
displayed on a screen in the drawing style specified by the
view.
(Dewa, Abstract; Ans. 4, 5, 13.)

2 Yoshiharu Dewa et al., US 2002/0122047 Al, published Sep. 5, 2002.
Appeal 2011-005679
Application 11/320,668

5
FF 2. Dewa disclosed “a display controlling method, a program and a
display controlling apparatus, which can easily carry out centralized
management of menu screens or the like for a plurality of electronic
apparatuses.” (Dewa, 1: ¶ 0010; Ans. 11.)
FF 3. Dewa disclosed:
[A] display controlling method . . . carries out a process in
which a view is selected and an image corresponding to a node
specified by the selected view is processed in the drawing style
specified by the view. This view selection is done based on a
program including a plurality of nodes each serving as a data
group indicating a static attribute of a link to referential data or
actual referential data and each serving as a constitutive unit for
a drawing; and a plurality of views each serving as a data group
for specifying: the node carrying out the drawing and a drawing
style corresponding to the node.
(Dewa, 1: ¶ 0012; Ans. 5, 9, 10, 12.)
FF 4. Dewa disclosed that “the display controller 52 shown in FIG. 5
generates the display information to display the image corresponding to the
node specified by the view selected by the view selector 51, in accordance
with the tree structure information, on the GUI screen in the drawing style
specified by the view.” (Dewa, 5: ¶ 0097; Ans. 11.)
FF 5. Dewa disclosed that:
[A]part from the node for specifying the link to the referential
data or the actual referential data, the concept of the view
serving as the data group for specifying the node carrying out
the drawing and the drawing style on the screen of the node is
introduced. In addition, based on the program including
(describing) the view, the views are selected in sequence in
order to, accordingly, displaying the image corresponding to the
node. As a result, the user can easily generate various interface
displays.
Appeal 2011-005679
Application 11/320,668

6
(Dewa, 1: ¶ 0013.)
FF 6. The Specification provides that “third-party applications may
utilize the application-programming interfaces to generate graphical user
interfaces that have the ‘look and feel’ of a primary application.” (Spec., 4:
¶ 0014.)
FF 7. The Specification provides that “third party applications . . .
such as, remote or add-in applications that increase the functionality
associated with [the] primary application. . . . The third-party application
122 may be stored locally on the client device 130 or remotely on the server
device 150.” (Spec., 5: ¶ 0018.)

Principle of Law
“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or
on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” In
re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
In order for a prior art reference to serve as an anticipatory reference,
it must disclose every limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or
inherently. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). To
anticipate, every element and limitation of the claimed invention must be
found in a single prior art reference, arranged as in the claim. Karsten Mfg.
Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

Analysis
With respect to claims 1, 2, 4, and 5, Appellants contend that “Dewa
is completely silent regarding some GUIs associated with primary
applications and other GUIs associated with third party applications” (App.
Appeal 2011-005679
Application 11/320,668

7
Br. 11), and that “a third party application implies that the application is
provided or offered by an entity other than the primary application entity.”
(Reply Br. 5.)
The Examiner takes the position that Dewa disclosed the use of a third
party application. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Dewa disclosed that:
[S]ome GUIs associated with primary applications and other
GUIs associated with third party applications (such as, a user
performs operation of a menu screen of an application program
currently in execution through a keyboard, a mouse and/or the
like (primary applications) so that execution of another, new
application program, such as, a process in which a view is
selected and an image corresponding to a node specified by the
selected view is processed in the drawing style specified by the
view (third party applications), paragraph [0012].
(Ans. 8-9.)
We agree with the Appellants’ position. “[D]uring examination
proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification.” In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed.
Cir. 2000). The Examiner appears to interpret “third party” or “third party
application” to be “a user [that] performs operation of a menu screen of an
application program currently in execution through a keyboard, a mouse
and/or the like (primary applications)” (Ans. 8-9). Although claims are
given the broadest reasonable interpretation during examination
proceedings, this interpretation should be consistent with the Specification.
Here, the Specification provides that third-party applications are
applications, such as remote or add-on applications, that increase the
functionality of the primary application (FF7). Additionally, the
Specification provides that the third-party application is stored on a device
(id.). The term third-party application in the Specification is consistent with
Appeal 2011-005679
Application 11/320,668

8
Appellants’ argument that a third-party application is offered by an entity
that is different from the primary application (Reply Br. 5). Because a third-
party application can be stored on a device, we find the Examiner’s
interpretation of “a user” as a third party is unreasonable in light of the
Specification. Accordingly we interpret a third-party application to be a
program that can be used to further the functionality of a primary
application.
The Examiner is relying on paragraph [0012] of Dewa as providing
support for the use of third-party applications. The Examiner asserts that “a
node specified by the selected view is processed in the drawing style
specified by the view (third party applications)” (Ans. 8-9; FF 2). Paragraph
¶ 0012 provides that the view selection is done based on “a program
including a plurality of nodes each serving as a data group indicating a static
attribute of a link to referential data or actual referential data and each
serving as a constitutive unit for a drawing” (FF 3). We find that the
Examiner has not adequately explained how the referential data is
necessarily associated with a third-party application or a plurality of third-
party applications. The “very essence of inherency is that one of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that a reference unavoidably teaches the
property in question.” Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc., 567
F.3d 1366, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (emphasis added). Because the Examiner
has not adequately explained how Dewa meets the claimed limitation that
“GUIs are associated with a plurality of primary applications and others of
said GUIs are associated with a plurality of third party applications,” we
reverse the rejection with respect to independent claim 1. We are not
persuaded that the preponderance of evidence on this record as explained by
Appeal 2011-005679
Application 11/320,668

9
the Examiner supports a finding that Dewa teaches Appellants’ claimed
invention. The rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Dewa is reversed.
With respect to claims 6-11, Appellants contend that “Dewa does not
describe the cited features of a secondary application designed to interface
with a primary application through an application program interface.”
(Reply Br. 6.) Appellants contend that “Dewa does not describe a
declarative page from a secondary application, which describes a view that
defines the behavior of elements on the GUI and provides control of the
layout, animation, painting, and multimedia integration.” (Id. at 7.)
Additionally, Appellants concede that “Dewa possibly describes multimedia
integration (¶¶ [0012-0013 and 0065-0067]), but is silent as to animation
and painting.” (App. Br. 12.)
The Examiner finds that “Dewa describe secondary application (such
as, a user performs operation of a menu screen of an application program
currently in execution through a keyboard, a mouse and/or the like (primary
applications)” (Ans. 10). The Examiner relies on paragraphs ¶¶ 0012 and
0082 to show that Dewa provides control of the layout, animation, painting
and multimedia integration (id.).
We find that Appellants have the better position. Claim 6 requires a
secondary application, and specifically requires receiving declarative page
information about the secondary application that defines the behavior of the
elements on the graphical user interface. As discussed above, we are not
persuaded by the Examiner’s interpretation that third-party application can
reasonably be interpreted to be a user of a primary application interface by
use of a mouse or keyboard (FFs 6, 7). For similar reasons, we are not
Appeal 2011-005679
Application 11/320,668

10
persuaded that a computer users’ use of the keyboard or mouse via the
primary application interface can reasonably be interpreted to be a
“secondary application” in view of the Specification. The Specification
provides that “secondary applications utilize the application programming
interfaces to extend the graphical user interfaces associated with a primary
application. The secondary application may utilize the views and models of
the primary application as a base to create complex graphical user interfaces
having the look and feel of the primary application.” (Spec. 2: ¶ 0006.)
Even though “secondary application” is not specifically defined in the
Specification, the Specification does provide that the secondary applications
utilize programing interfaces which implies that more than just a mouse or
keyboard command may be involved.
We are not persuaded that the combination of paragraphs ¶¶ 0012,
0013, 0065, 0066, 0067, 0082, and abstract (Ans. 5. 10) as relied on by the
Examiner provides all the claim limitations. The Specification provides that
“[d]eclarative descriptions define a collection of elements utilized by the
graphical user interfaces” (Spec, 2: ¶0004). The Examiner has not explained
how a user’s operation of a primary application through the use of a mouse
or keyboard would meet the limitation of “receiving a declarative page from
a secondary application” and how that information “provides control of the
layout, animation, painting, and multimedia integration” as required by
claim 6. We are therefore not persuaded that the preponderance of evidence
on this record as explained by the Examiner supports a finding that Dewa
teaches Appellants' claimed invention. The rejection of claims 6-12 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Dewa is reversed.

Appeal 2011-005679
Application 11/320,668

11
With respect to claims 13-15 and 18, Appellants contend that “[e]ven
if Dewa possibly describes a layout of a view, there is no animation and/or
painting and/or multimedia integration in Dewa.” (Reply Br. 8; see also
App. Br. 14.)
The Examiner finds that claim 13 is similar in scope to claim 1 (Ans.
6). Additionally, the Examiner finds that the graphical user interface uses
rules for “a display controlling method, a program and a display controlling
apparatus, which can easily carry out centralized management of menu
screens or the like for a plurality of electronic apparatuses, paragraph
[0010]” (Ans. 11). The Examiner asserts that Dewa discloses animation and
painting citing ¶ 0097 in support (id.).
We find that Appellants have the better position. We are not
persuaded by the Examiner’s contention that ¶ 0097 of Dewa provides for
the animation and painting as claimed. The paragraph describes that the
display controller generates information to display image corresponding to a
particular view by the view selector (FF 4). We agree with the Appellants
that the cited portions of Dewa are silent with respect to painting and
animation. “[T]he examiner bears the initial burden . . . of presenting a
prima facie case of unpatentability.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445. We
find that the Examiner has not adequately explained how the cited portions
of Dewa provide the limitation of “control of the layout, animation, painting,
and multimedia integration” as required by claim 13. The Examiner has not
explained how a data group for specifying the node carrying out the drawing
and a drawing style corresponding to the node (FFs 1, 3, 4, 5) would
necessarily control the animation and painting as required by claim 13. We
are therefore not persuaded that the preponderance of evidence on this
Appeal 2011-005679
Application 11/320,668

12
record as explained by the Examiner supports a finding that Dewa teaches
Appellants’ claimed invention. The rejection of claims 13-16 and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Dewa is reversed.

SUMMARY
We reverse the rejection of claims 1-16 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Dewa.

REVERSED

cdc