Ex Parte Mourra

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 22, 2013

10906592 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 22, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/906,592 02/25/2005 John Mourra CA920040044US1 3592
46320 7590 11/22/2013
CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''''KEEFE, LLP
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, FL 33434
EXAMINER
VU, TUAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2193
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/22/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOHN MOURRA
____________

Appeal 2013-009294
Application 10/906,592
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
ERIC B. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2013-009294
Application 10/906,592

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 4-11, which are all the claims remaining in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Representative Claim
4. A method for accommodating multi-style application
component invocation comprising the steps of:

registering a plurality of commands for invocation within
a multi-style application component invocation framework;

configuring at least one invocation adapter to morph to a
specified one of said registered commands that has been
registered to be invoked within a multi-style application
component invocation framework; and,

invoking said specified one of said registered commands
through said configured invocation adapter.

Prior Art
Coulthard US 2004/0003091 A1 Jan. 1, 2004
Nick Edgar et al. Eclipse User Interface Guidelines Version 2.1 IBM
Corporation (February 2004)

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 4-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Coulthard and Edgar.

Appeal 2013-009294
Application 10/906,592

3
ANALYSIS
Claim 4 recites “configuring at least one invocation adapter to morph
to a specified one of said registered commands that has been registered to be
invoked within a multi-style application component invocation framework.”
Appellant contends that the combination of Coulthard and Edgar does
not teach a specified registered command that has already been registered.
App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 2-3. The Examiner finds that paragraphs 62 and 63 of
Coulthard teach registered commands. Ans. 10-11. Paragraph 62 of
Coulthard teaches that adapters look for registered menu items, such as the
commands listed in the menu shown in Figure 9. We find that Coulthard,
contrary to Appellant’s contention, does teach a specified registered
command that has already been registered.
Appellant contends that the remote system adapter objects and remote
system adapters taught in paragraph 62 of Coulthard do not teach the
claimed “at least one invocation adapter” which is configured to morph to a
specified one of the registered commands that has been registered to be
invoked within a multi-style application component invocation framework.
Reply Br. 5-6. The adapters of Coulthard return commands that can be run
using a run command. ¶ 62. Appellant has not provided a definition of at
least one invocation adapter which is configured to morph to a specified one
of the registered commands that has been registered to be invoked within a
multi-style application component invocation framework that excludes the
adapter that returns commands to be run as taught by Coulthard.
Appellant contends that Coulthard does not teach “invoking said
specified one of said registered commands through said configured
invocation adapter” as recited in claim 4. Appellant argues this limitation
Appeal 2013-009294
Application 10/906,592

4
for the first time in the Reply Brief. Appellant could have argued this
limitation in the Appeal Brief, such that we would have had benefit of the
Examiner’s evaluation of the arguments in the responsive Answer.
Appellant does not explain what good cause there might be to consider the
new arguments. Appellant’s new arguments are thus untimely and have,
accordingly, not been considered. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b).
We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final
Rejection and Examiner’s Answer as our own. We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer. We sustain
the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellant does not present
arguments for separate patentability of claims 5-11, which fall with claim 4.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 4-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Coulthard and Edgar is affirmed.
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

gvw