Arvindam, Sunil et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 16, 2020

14337519 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 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.
14/337,519 07/22/2014 Sunil Arvindam 22135-0368001/131267US01 2743
32864 7590 10/16/2020
FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. (SAP)
PO BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
EXAMINER
POSIGIAN, DAVID S.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2179
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/16/2020 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):
PATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SUNIL ARVINDAM, GAURAV CHADHA,
ASHOK VEILUMUTHU, and SURESH VENKATASUBRAMANIYAN
___________

Appeal 2019-003844
Application 14/337,519
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ERIC B. CHEN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and JAMES B. ARPIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the Examiner’s decision
rejecting claims 1–11, 13–15, and 17–20, all of the pending claims. Final
Act. 2.2 Claims 12 and 16 are canceled. Id. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies the real party-in-interest as SAP SE. Appeal Br. 3.
2 In this Decision, we refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
January 8, 2019) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed April 18, 2019); the
Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed September 18, 2018) and the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed February 20, 2019); and the
Specification (“Spec.,” filed July 22, 2014). Rather than repeat the
Examiner’s findings and Appellant’s contentions in their entirety, we refer to
these documents.
Appeal 2019-003844
Application 14/337,519

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims recite
systems, methods, and computer readable media for dynamically
configuring a graphical user interface (“GUI”). In various
implementations, data describing user interactions (e.g., user
input) with a GUI throughout one or more user sessions is
leveraged. In some examples, a GUI for interacting with the
application is modified based on the data.
Spec. ¶ 13.
As noted above, claims 1–11, 13–15, and 17–20 are pending.
Claims 1, 19, and 20 are independent. Appeal Br. 18–19 (claim 1), 21–24
(claims 19 and 20) (Claims App.). Claims 2–11, 13–15, 17, and 18 depend
directly or indirectly from claim 1. Id. at 18–21.
Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized, is
illustrative.
1. A computer-implemented method for dynamically
configuring a user interface for facilitating interaction between a
user and an application, the method being executed using one or
more processors and comprising:
receiving, by the one or more processors, user input, the
user input having been provided through the user interface during
a current user session;
in response to receiving the user input, determining, by the
one or more processors, one or more expected user-actions based
on a graph accessed through an in-memory database and the user
input, the graph modeling user interactions with the application
and comprising a plurality of nodes and edges, the nodes
representing actions performable using elements of the user
interface, the elements being grouped based on classes of users
and the edges representing a relationship between the nodes and
comprising weights that indicate a strength of the relationship
between connected nodes, the weights being determined based
on a number of user interactions sequentially selecting the
connected nodes and an amount of time between the user
Appeal 2019-003844
Application 14/337,519

3

interactions corresponding to the connected nodes and the
expected user-actions defining a likely user interaction indicated
by the graph;
obtaining, by the one or more processors, one or more
user-interface modifications based on the one or more expected
user-actions;
transmitting, by the one or more processors, in real-time
during the current user session as the user interacts with the
application, instructions to modify the user interface based on the
one or more modifications; and
modifying, by the one or more processors, the user
interface by combining at least two of the elements of the user
interface based on the instructions and a measured efficiency
rating to minimize an amount of computing resources required
to accomplish a task through the user interface, the measured
efficiency rating being based on a testing technique of the user
interactions indicating the amount of computing resources
associated to different versions of the user interface.
Id. at 18–19 (emphases added). Claims 19 and 20 recite corresponding
limitations to those recited in claim 1.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following references:
Name3 Reference No. Publ’d/Issued Filed
Morioka US 5,367,626 Nov. 22, 1994 Jan. 13, 1994
Raz US 2001/0037400 A1 Nov. 1, 2001 Dec. 22, 2000
Knight US 2004/0012624 A1 Jan. 22, 2004 Aug. 31, 2001
Stockton US 2005/0044508 A1 Feb. 24, 2005 Aug. 21, 2003
Kuzmanovic US 2009/0049389 A1 Feb. 19, 2009 Jan. 8, 2008
Elias US 2013/0326427 A1 Dec. 5, 2013 May 30, 2012
Chung US 2014/0208231 A1 July 24, 2014 Jan. 22, 2013

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2019-003844
Application 14/337,519

4

The Examiner rejects claims 1–11, 13–15, and 17–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(a) as lacking adequate written description in the Specification. Final
Act. 3–6. Further, the Examiner rejects claims 1–11, 19, and 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Stockton, Raz,
Elias, and Morioka (id. at 7–28); claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over the combined teachings of Stockton, Raz, Elias, Morioka, and
Kuzmanovic (id. at 28–30); claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
the combined teachings of Stockton, Raz, Elias, Morioka, and Knight (id. at
30–31); and claims 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the
combined teachings of Stockton, Raz, Elias, Morioka, and Chung (id. at 31–
34).
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the contentions and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential). Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). The Examiner and Appellant focus their findings and
contentions on claim 1; so do we. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 11, 13. Unless
otherwise indicated, we adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Final Office
Action and the Answer as our own and add any additional findings of fact
for emphasis. We address the rejections below.
ANALYSIS
A. Lack of Adequate Written Description
As noted above, claim 1 recites, in the claimed method,
modifying, by the one or more processors, the user
interface by combining at least two of the elements of the user
interface based on the instructions and a measured efficiency
rating to minimize an amount of computing resources required
Appeal 2019-003844
Application 14/337,519

5

to accomplish a task through the user interface, the measured
efficiency rating being based on a testing technique of the user
interactions indicating the amount of computing resources
associated to different versions of the user interface.
Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.) (emphases added). The Examiner finds, that
Paragraphs 27, 28, 32, and 33 of the Specification do not provide written
description in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the
relevant art that, at the time the application was filed, Appellant had
possession of this limitation of the claimed method. Final Act. 3–6. In
particular, the Examiner finds Paragraph 27 does not mention “a measured
efficiency rating” and “does not provide any connection between a measured
efficiency rating, a testing technique of the user interactions, and an
indication of the amount of computing resources associated to different
versions of the user interface.” Id. at 5. The Examiner further finds
paragraphs 28 and 32 of the Specification suffer from the same deficiencies.
Id. at 5 (discussing Spec. ¶ 28), 6 (discussing Spec. ¶ 32).
In Paragraph 33, the Specification explains:
In some implementations, multiple default GUIs can be
generated and used to employ an A/B testing technique for
selecting a preferred GUI. The multiple default GUIs can be
generated based on data provided by the graph store 212 using
different node graphs (e.g., node graphs of different users or
different classes of users) and/or different techniques for
conducting graph analysis. In some implementations, an A/B
testing technique[4] includes generating first and second default

4 We understand an A/B testing technique generally involves providing two
versions of something to users to determine which version performs better,
achieves superior results, or is preferred. This is the only “testing
technique” expressly disclosed in the Specification. Spec. ¶¶ 3, 33; see id.,
Claim 17 (“selecting, from the first and second modified user interfaces, a
Appeal 2019-003844
Application 14/337,519

6

GUIs; presenting the first default GUI to a first group of users
and the second default GUI to a second group of users;
monitoring user-interaction with the first and second GUIs; and
selecting a preferred GUI as one of the first default GUI or the
second default GUI. In some examples, the superior GUI can be
determined based on a measured efficiency rating and/or user
feedback.
Spec. ¶ 33 (emphasis added). This is the only mention of “a measured
efficiency rating” and the only description of a testing technique in the
Specification. See supra note 4. “However, [the Examiner finds,] this
description does not support a testing technique that indicates the amount of
computing resources associated to different versions of the user interface as
there is no description of an indication of the amount of computing resources
associated with the first and second GUIs.” Final Act. 4.
Appellant disagrees and contends, referring to Figure 2, Paragraph 33
of the Specification discloses that “multiple default GUIs can be generated
based on data provided by the graph store 212 using different node graphs
(e.g., node graphs of different users or different classes of users) and/or
different techniques for conducting graph analysis” and “the superior GUI
can be determined based on a measured efficiency rating.” Appeal Br. 9.
Appellant asserts Paragraph 26 of the Specification describes a relationship
between user interactions and computing resources, stating, “one or more
modifications of the GUI can increase efficiency of a user’s interaction with
the web application 208, thereby improving the efficiency of resources (e.g.,
memory, processors) of the server device 204.” Reply Br. 2 (quoting Spec.
¶ 26 (emphasis added)). Further, Paragraph 27 of the Specification discloses

preferred user interface by implementing an A/B testing technique”
(emphasis added)).
Appeal 2019-003844
Application 14/337,519

7

that “[the] efficiency [of each of the different user interfaces] can be
observed as the amount of resources (e.g., time or the number of user
actions) spent by the user to accomplish a task enabled by the web
application.” (Emphasis added.) See Appeal Br. 8–9. Thus, Appellant
contends,
the Specification inherently discloses a testing technique in
which multiple versions of a user interface are provided, and the
efficiency of each user interface is determined and rated based
on observing the amount of resources spent to accomplish a task
that is enabled by each of the respective user interfaces.
Id. at 10 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 27, 33) (emphasis added); Reply Br. 2–3.
Therefore, Appellant concludes,
a testing technique for measuring efficiency and generating a
rating of the efficiency of different versions of a user interface
(i.e., a “measured efficiency rating[”]) based on the amount of
computing resources associated to different versions of the user
interface is described in the specification in such a way as to
reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the
inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession
of the claimed invention.
Appeal Br. 10. We disagree.
The Examiner finds Paragraphs 26 and 27 of the Specification “do not
describe ‘a measured efficiency rating’ in terms of ‘computing resources’,
nor do the paragraphs describe a correlation between a testing technique of
user interactions, a measured efficiency rating and an indication of the
amount of computing resources associated to different versions of the user
interface.” Ans. 4–5. Moreover, the Examiner finds:
¶ [0033] of the specification supports a testing technique that
includes monitoring user-interaction with first and second GUIs
and selecting a preferred GUI as one of the first or second GUIs
which, in some examples, the superior GUI can be determined
Appeal 2019-003844
Application 14/337,519

8

based on a measured efficiency rating (emphasis added).
Therefore, it can be seen that the specification broadly supports
that the modifications to the user interface can be based on “a
measured efficiency rating”. However, ¶ [0027] of the
specification does not discuss efficiency with respect to
computing resources, but rather efficiency with respect to user
resources, i.e. “the amount of resources (e.g., time or the number
of user actions) spent by the user to accomplish a task enabled
by the web application” (emphasis added). Therefore, as can be
seen by one of ordinary skill in the art, the specification does not
support “the measured efficiency rating being based on a testing
technique of the user interactions indicating the amount of
computing resources associated to different versions of the user
interface” (emphasis added).
Ans. 5. Consequently, the A/B testing technique compares GUIs “[based
on] the amount of [user] resources (e.g., time or the number of user actions)
spent by the user to accomplish a task enabled by the [user interfaces],” not
the amount of computing resources. Spec. ¶ 27 (emphases added); see id.
¶ 33.
In addition, the Specification only discloses, “[i]n some
implementations, one or more modifications of the GUI can increase
efficiency of a user’s interaction with the web application 208, thereby
improving the efficiency of resources (e.g., memory, processors) of the
server device 204.” Id. ¶ 26 (emphases added). To demonstrate Appellant’s
asserted inherent disclosure, the Specification needs show a testing
technique, in which multiple versions of a user interface are provided, and
the efficiency of each user interface version is necessarily determined and
rated based on observing the amount of computer resources spent to
accomplish a task that is enabled by each of the respective user interfaces.
See Appeal Br. 9; see also Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 1159 (Fed.
Cir. 1998) (“In order for a disclosure to be inherent, however, the missing
Appeal 2019-003844
Application 14/337,519

9

descriptive matter must necessarily be present in the parent application’s
specification such that one skilled in the art would recognize such a
disclosure.”); In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981) (“Inherency,
however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere
fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not
sufficient.”). None of Paragraphs 26–28, 32, and 33 do this. See Final
Act. 4–6; Ans. 3–8. Thus, we find the cited portions of the Specification do
not support the asserted inherent disclosure.
Even if a GUI modification can increase efficiency of a user’s
interaction with the web application, thereby improving the efficiency of
computer resources (e.g., a memory or processors) (Spec. ¶ 26), this does
not disclose that a measured efficiency rating based on a testing technique of
the user interactions indicates “the amount of computing resources
associated to different versions of the user interface” (emphasis added), as
recited by claim 1. Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in
rejecting claim 1, as well as claims 19 and 20, for lack of adequate written
description. Moreover, Appellant does not contest this rejection of the
dependent claims separately from the independent claims. Consequently, we
sustain this rejection.
B. Non-Obviousness Over Stockton, Raz, Elias, and Morioka
As noted above, the Examiner rejects claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as obvious over the combined teachings of Stockton, Raz, Elias, and
Morioka. Final Act. 7–19. In particular, the Examiner finds that Stockton
and Raz teach or suggest the majority of the limitations of independent
claim 1. Id. at 7–15. However, the Examiner finds “the combination of
Stockton and Raz may not explicitly disclose: . . . a measured efficiency
Appeal 2019-003844
Application 14/337,519

10

rating, the measured efficiency rating being based on a testing technique of
the user interactions indicating the amount of computing resources
associated to different versions of the user interface.” Id. at 15.
Nevertheless, the Examiner finds Elias teaches or suggests modifying
the user interface based on the instructions and a measured efficiency rating
to minimize an amount of computing resources required to accomplish a task
through the user interface. Final Act. 16. In particular, the Examiner finds
Elias discloses in a node tree T obtained from the shortest paths in graph G,
calculating a normalized average distance D from the root of a tree T to a
particular leaf (node) of tree T. Elias ¶¶ 37, 38. “[Distance] D equals the
sum of the distances from the root to each of the leaves, divided by the
number of leaves to obtain an average distance to a leaf, and then further
divided by the sum of all of the edge weights in the tree to normalize the
value between 0 and 1.” Id. ¶ 38.
The Examiner finds,
the specification as filed also does not provide support for this
[disputed] limitation in the claims, as detailed above; however,
based upon Appellants position, and the specification as filed, it
appears to that Appellant intends “computing resources” to
include time, number of user actions, or efficiency of the user
interface as determined by how a user interacts with the user
interface.
Ans. 15–16. Thus, relying on Appellant’s assertions, which the Examiner
found unpersuasive with respect to the rejection of claim 1 due to this
limitation’s lack of adequate written description, the Examiner finds that a
person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have understood
the normalized average distance D, which is measured in each of
the different versions of the user interface in Elias, is seen as a
measured efficiency rating, and it indicates the navigability of the
Appeal 2019-003844
Application 14/337,519

11

different versions of the user interface, and hence its user-
friendliness and effectiveness (Elias [0018]), i.e. a measured
efficiency rating to minimize an amount of computing resources
required to accomplish a task through the user interface, the
measured efficiency rating being based on a testing technique of
the user interactions indicating the amount of computing
resources associated to different versions of the user interface.
Id. at 17–18 (emphasis added).
Appellant disagrees and contends the Examiner errs for four reasons.
Appeal Br. 11–16. First, Appellant contends Raz fails to teach or suggest
the limitations that the Examiner finds are missing from Stockton’s
teachings. Id. at 11–13. Second, Appellant contends Elias fails to teach or
suggest the limitations that the Examiner finds are missing from the
combined teachings of Stockton and Raz. Id. at 13–15. Third, Appellant
contends the Examiner fails to provide an adequate reason for a person of
ordinary skill in the relevant art to combine the teachings of Stockton, Raz,
and Elias in the manner proposed in the Final Office Action. Id. at 15.
Fourth, Appellant contends the Examiner fails to explain how Stockton’s
teachings would have been modified in view of Elias’s teachings. Id. at 15–
16. Because we find Appellant’s second contention persuasive, we do not
reach Appellant’s other contentions.
Specifically, Appellant contends,
Elias also discloses that “where the UI corresponding to the
original tree 110 might be considered too complex for a user to
navigate effectively, due to a long distance [between nodes]. A
user interface corresponding to modified tree 120 might be
considered preferable.” Elias, ¶ [0017]. This determination of
the complexity of a user interface tree in Elias does not indicate
the amount of computing resources associated with the user
interface, but instead evaluates the navigability of the interface.
Elias, ¶¶ [0017], [0018].
Appeal 2019-003844
Application 14/337,519

12

Id. at 14. We agree.
Referring to Elias’s Figure 4, the Examiner finds,
the normalized average distance D is compared to a desired value
D* . . . a value that the applicants have found empirically to
equate to an easily navigable user interface [0039], the message
identifies one or more nodes of tree T (or equivalently, one or
more states of the UI) and indicates that navigation to these nodes
should be modified in order to increase the normalized average
distance metric [0042], the message identifies one or more nodes
of tree T (or equivalently, one or more states of the UI) and
indicates that navigation to these nodes should be modified in
order to decrease the normalized average distance metric [0044]
and a modified tree is received [0046] navigability of a user
interface, and hence its user-friendliness and effectiveness, can
be assessed in an objective, efficient manner [0018]).
Final Act. 16 (emphases added). We agree with the Examiner that Elias
discloses quantifying the ease of navigability, and, hence, the user-
friendliness and effectiveness, of a user interface. The Examiner, however,
points to nothing in Elias that teaches or suggests that the rating, represented
by distance D, indicates, “the amount of computing resources associated to
different versions of the user interface.” Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.)
(emphasis added); see Final Act. 15–17. Moreover, the Examiner’s reliance
on Appellant’s assertions in this appeal concerning the scope of the
Specification’s disclosure of the claimed method to support the
determination of obviousness is grounded in improper hindsight. Appeal
Br. 15, Reply Br. 5; see Ans. 15–16; see also In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d
1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971) (“Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense
necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it
takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary
skill [in the art] at the time the claimed invention was made and does not
Appeal 2019-003844
Application 14/337,519

13

include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a
reconstruction is proper.” (emphasis added)). The Examiner’s reliance is
especially improper when the Examiner rejects Appellant’s assertions in
finding claim 1 lacks adequate written description. See Ans. 14.
We are persuaded the Examiner errs in finding that claim 1, as well as
claims 19 and 20, are obvious over the combined teachings of Stockton, Raz,
Elias, and Morioka. Further, Appellant does not challenge the rejection of
dependent claims 2–11 separately, and, on this record, we also are persuaded
the Examiner errs in finding that claims 2–11 are obvious over the combined
teachings of Stockton, Raz, Elias, and Morioka. See Reply Br. 6.
Consequently, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 1–11,
19, and 20.
C. Obviousness Over Stockton, Raz, Elias, and Morioka in Combination
with Kuzmanovic, Knight, or Chung
As noted above, the Examiner rejects claims 13–15, 17, and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Stockton, Raz,
Elias, and Morioka in combination with one of Kuzmanovic, Knight, or
Chung. Final Act. 28–34. Appellant does not argue these dependent claims
separately and, instead, relies solely on its challenges to the rejection of their
base claim, claim 1, to show Examiner error in these rejections. See Appeal
Br. 16. On this record and for the reasons give above, we are persuaded the
Examiner errs in finding that independent claim 1 is obvious over the
combined teachings of Stockton, Raz, Elias, and Morioka. Appellant
contends, “[n]one of Kuzmanovic, Knight, and Chung is asserted as curing,
nor do any of Kuzmanovic, Knight, and Chung cure the above-discussed
deficiencies of Stockton, Raz, Elias, and Morioka in view of claims 1, 19,
Appeal 2019-003844
Application 14/337,519

14

and 20.” Id. Consequently, we are persuaded that the Examiner errs in
rejecting claims 13–15, 17, and 18; and we do not sustain the obviousness
rejections thereof.
DECISION
1. The Examiner does not err in rejecting claims 1–11, 13–15, and
17–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as lacking adequate written
description.
2. The Examiner errs in rejecting:
a. claims 1–11, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
the combined teachings of Stockton, Raz, Elias, and Morioka;
b. claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the
combined teachings of Stockton, Raz, Elias, Morioka, and
Kuzmanovic;
c. claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined
teachings of Stockton, Raz, Elias, Morioka, and Knight; and
d. claims 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the
combined teachings of Stockton, Raz, Elias, Morioka, and
Chung.
3. Thus, on this record, claims 1–11, 13–15, and 17–20 are not
patentable.
CONCLUSION
Because we sustain at least one of the Examiner’s rejections for each
of claims 1–11, 13–15, and 17–20, we affirm the Examiner’s decision
rejecting claims 1–11, 13–15, and 17–20.
Appeal 2019-003844
Application 14/337,519

15

In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–11, 13–
15, 17–20
112(a) Written Description 1–11, 13–
15, 17–20

1–11, 19,
20
103 Stockton, Raz, Elias,
Morioka
1–11, 19,
20
13, 14 103 Stockton, Raz, Elias,
Morioka, Kuzmanovic
13, 14
15 103 Stockton, Raz, Elias,
Morioka, Knight
15
17, 18 103 Stockton, Raz, Elias,
Morioka, Chung
17, 18
Overall
Outcome
1–11, 13–
15, 17–20

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.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED