Eric Grange et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 30, 201914529298 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2019) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation