Eric Grange et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 30, 2019

14529298 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2019)

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.
14/529,298 10/31/2014 Eric Grange D0445.70004US01 1050
23628 7590 08/30/2019
WOLF GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
600 ATLANTIC AVENUE
BOSTON, MA 02210-2206
EXAMINER
CHUNG, ANDREW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2173
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/30/2019 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):
Patents_eOfficeAction@WolfGreenfield.com
WGS_eOfficeAction@WolfGreenfield.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ERIC GRANGE and PHILIPPE RINAUDO1
____________

Appeal 2018-008541
Application 14/529,298
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, JAMES B. ARPIN, and
GREGG I. ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 through 9, all of the pending claims.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.

1 Appellant and the real party in interest is the applicant and assignee,
Creative Information Technology. App. Br. 2.
2 In this Decision, we refer to the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”), mailed
April 6, 2017; the Appeal Brief (“Br.”), filed March 5, 2018; the Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.”), mailed June 28, 2018; the original Specification (“Spec.”),
filed October 31, 2014.

Appeal 2018-008541
Application 14/529,298

2

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A. The Invention
The invention purports to overcome problems with designing a
graphical interface program. Spec. 7:31–8:37. The invention overcomes the
prior art shortcomings by using formulas to “link[] properties of the
elements of the graphical interface.” Id. at 9:1–2. “[T]he inconsistencies of
a set of formulas can easily be checked by a computer algebra system.” Id.
at 9:2–4.
The Specification’s Figure 5 is reproduced below.

Figure 5 is “a flow chart showing a method for designing a graphical
interface program according to one embodiment of the present invention.”
Spec. 9:22–23. At step 40, “[t]he designer can select the elements according
to the graphical interface he wishes to design.” Id. at 9:26–28. Formulas the
designer wants to use in the graphical interface program are entered at step
42. Id. at 9:35–10:2.
Appeal 2018-008541
Application 14/529,298

3

The Specification’s Figure 6 is reproduced below.

Figure 6 shows each formula in two fields, labelled A and B, corresponding
to separate properties of an element or a property of a second element.
Spec., 9:36–10:2. Still referring to Figure 6, “[f]ormula 44A forces the
value of the property ‘Enabled’ of the element ‘Option1’ to be equal, at any
time, to the value of the property ‘Checked’ of the element ‘Choix2.’” Id. at
10:5–7.
At step 46[ of Figure 5], an analysis of the formulas is executed
by the computer algebra system of the graphical interface
design program. Such an analysis includes a check for any
inconsistencies in the formulas.

Spec. 10:31–33. Referring again to Figure 5, “[at] step 48, a compilation of
the source program of the graphical interface program is made to provide a
graphical interface program in a source code, such as Java, a scripting
language, an intermediate code or an object code.” Id. at 11:11–13.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. A method, implemented by a data processor by the
execution of a program defined in functional programming, of
generating a graphical interface program comprising:
receiving and displaying a selection of elements among a
plurality of graphical and/or data entry elements, each
element having at least a property among a plurality of
graphical and/or activation and/or content properties;
Appeal 2018-008541
Application 14/529,298

4

displaying at least a window and receiving and displaying in
said window referentially transparent formulas, each
formula being an equation linking at least two properties of
one element or several elements of said selection and
comprising a least a mathematical and/or logic operator, said
mathematical and/or logic operator being displayed in said
window when said mathematical and/or logic operator is
written by a designer on an input apparatus of the data
processor or said mathematical and/or logic operator is
displayed in a library and selected by the designer, the
method further comprising a step of checking the
referentially transparent formulas for inconsistencies using a
computer algebra system before determining a separate
graphical interface program, thereby preventing an
inconsistency corresponding to the occurrence of a never-
ending loop and an inconsistency corresponding to the
occurrence of circular references when the graphical
interface program is executed, the method further
comprising the step of displaying an alert message when at
least one inconsistency is determined; and
determining from said selection of elements and said formulas
the separate graphical interface program, the execution of
said separate graphical interface program resulting in the
display of said selection of elements, the properties of which
are linked by said formulas, any input of a user modifying
an element with linked properties resulting in a re-evaluation
of the formula and a possible update of the display of the
linked element.
App. Br. 18.
B. The Rejections
1. Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Hurley et al., US 5,524,246, issued June 4, 1996
(hereinafter as “Hurley”), Englehart, US 7,849,440 B1, issued Dec. 7, 2010
Appeal 2018-008541
Application 14/529,298

5

(hereinafter “Englehart”), and Lyons et al., US 5,189,608, issued Feb. 23,
1993 (hereinafter as “Lyons”). Final Act. 2–5.
2. Claim 2 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hurley, Englehart, Lyons, and Berry et al., US 5,537,630,
issued July 16, 1996 (hereinafter as “Berry”). Id. 5–7.
3. Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hurley, Englehart, and Lyons. Id. at 7–8.
4. Claim 4 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hurley, Englehart, Lyons, and Johnston et al., US
6,192,511 B1, issued Feb. 20, 2001 (hereinafter as “Johnston”). Id. at 8–9.
5. Claims 5–7 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hurley, Englehart, Lyons, Johnston, and Brian Maso, The
Visual J++ Handbook, Osborne McGraw-Hill, 1997. Id. at 9–10.
6. Claim 6 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hurley, Englehart, Lyons, Johnston and Maso. Id. at 10.
7. Claim 7 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hurley, Englehart, Lyons, Johnston and Maso. Id. at 10–
11.
C. Issue
Appellant’s arguments present the following dispositive issue:
On the record before us, is the reason for combining the teachings of
at least Hurley, Englehart and Lyons supported by rational underpinnings?
App. Br. 10–12.
Appeal 2018-008541
Application 14/529,298

6

II. ANALYSIS
We analyze claim 1 as illustrative. The pertinent limitation of claim 1
is
a step of checking the referentially transparent formulas for
inconsistencies using a computer algebra system before
determining a separate graphical interface program, thereby
preventing an inconsistency corresponding to the occurrence of
a never-ending loop and an inconsistency corresponding to the
occurrence of circular references when the graphical interface
program is executed.
App. Br. 18 (Claims App’x) (emphasis added). Hurley and Englehart
are relied on to show the recited “computer algebra system.” Final
Act. 4. Lyons is relied on to show the “preventing an inconsistency”
limitation. Id. at 5 (citing Lyons, 36:31–36, Fig. 22).
The Examiner’s reason for combining the teachings of Hurley,
Englehart, and Lyons is it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
skill “to modify the invention above as disclosed by Hurley and Englehart to
include the functionality as taught by Lyons in order to obtain a system in
which an error message is sent due to an infinite loop.” Final Act. 5. In
addition, the Examiner finds motivation to combine the teachings of three
references because “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art wanted to be motivated
to obtain a system in which an error message is sent due to an infinite loop
to provide user convenience.” Id.
Appellant argues the Examiner’s analysis lacks a “clear articulation of
the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious.” App.
Br. 10–11 (citing MPEP 2143;3 KSR4). Appellant further argues

3 “‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory
statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some
Appeal 2018-008541
Application 14/529,298

7

there is no suggestion in Lyons or the other art of record of how
to modify Hurly to prevent an infinite loop by checking
referentially transparent formulas, much less checking them
using a computer algebra system. Rather . . . Lyons prevents an
infinite loop when executing rules that are compiled as part of a
financial analysis model. Since the proposed modification to
Hurley lacks a rational underpinning and an explicit analysis,
the proposed modification is improper.
Id. at 11.
With respect to combining the teachings of Lyons with those of
Hurley and Englehart, the Examiner responds by arguing Lyons’ relates to
data calculation, which is alleged to be in the same field of endeavor as
Hurley and Englehart. Ans. 6. According to the Examiner, the combination
including Lyons would provide the “user and [sic] indication of an error and
prevent future errors by allowing the saving of the error prevention.” Id.
(citing Lyons, 36:31–36). The Examiner concludes:
It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Hurley,
Englehart, and Lyons for the reasons above to provide a user
with a graphical modeling system capable of creating,
displaying, and calculating referentially transparent formulas
while providing an error checking system to ensure the
calculations are sound.
Id.
Appellant’s first response is the Examiner changed the reason for the
combination from “user convenience” to “error prevention.” Reply Br. 6
(citing Final Act. 6 (citing Lyons, 36:31–36)). Appellant then argues Lyons,

rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR,
550 U.S. at 418. MPEP 4123.01, IV.
4 KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).

Appeal 2018-008541
Application 14/529,298

8

or Hurley or Englehart, do not “check[] formulas such as referentially
transparent formulas for inconsistencies, much less checking them using a
computer algebra system.” Id.
We agree with Appellant. The Examiner’s reasons, including those
argued in the Answer, are conclusory. MPEP 4123.01, IV. The Examiner
identifies the “user convenience” rationale as sufficient because “an error
message is sent due to an infinite loop . . . to provide user convenience.”
Final Act. 5. But the portions of Lyons cited by the Examiner do not suggest
“user convenience.” Rather, the citations relate to identifying an error which
the user may then correct. See Lyons, 36:31–36, Fig. 22.
In addition to the above, Appellant argues “the present application
relates to generating a graphical interface program defined in functional
programming.” App. Br. 12. Appellant argues Lyons is non-analogous
prior art. Id. (citing MPEP 2141.01(a) (“In order for a reference to be proper
for use in an obviousness rejection [under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the reference]. . .
must be analogous . . . [art to] the claimed invention.”); see also Lyons,
Abstract (Lyons relates to “financial reporting and analysis software.”).
The Examiner does not respond sufficiently to the assertion that
Lyons is non-analogous art. The Examiner broadly states that all the
references are in the same field of endeavor, data calculation. Ans. 6. We
agree with the Appellant that the recited method, as well as Hurley and
Englehart, more narrowly relate to “generating a graphical interface program
defined in functional programming.” App. Br. 12; Hurley, Abstract
(“graphic program configuration system”); Englehart, Abstract (“graphical
modeling environment” presented through a “graphical user interface”).
Thus, we agree with Appellant that Lyons is non-analogous prior art.
Appeal 2018-008541
Application 14/529,298

9

Whether analogous art or not, the cited portion of Lyons do not supply
the necessary “rational underpinnings” to support the obviousness
conclusion. The cited portions of Lyons do not support either a user
convenience argument or identification and prevention of errors in the
context of the pertinent claim recitation, i.e., “checking the referentially
transparent formulas for inconsistencies using a computer algebra system
before determining a separate graphical interface program.” See Reply
Br. 5. Lyons does describe a “circular reference (i.e. an endless loop)” but
the reference is to an “undefined variable” in the “set of model rules.” See
Lyons, 36:9–12, Fig. 22 (“UNDEFINED VARIABLE”). The Examiner has
not explained how such rules might relate to either of the proposed reasons
for the combination. Thus, the Examiner does not provide an adequate
“evidentiary basis” for the findings. In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1344 (Fed.
Cir. 2002).
III. CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–9.
IV. DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–9 is reversed.

REVERSED