Ex Parte Bryant et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 26, 2013

11130728 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MARK BRYANT, MICHAEL HAEDRICH,
RASHESH MODY, and SCOTT CLARK
____________

Appeal 2011-000543
Application 11/130,728
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MARC S. HOFF, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-26, 30, and 31. Claims 27-29 have been canceled.
The Examiner has indicated that the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 3
and 4 has been withdrawn (Ans. 3). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2011-000543
Application 11/130,728

2
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed May 5, 2010), the Answer (mailed July
13, 2010), and the Reply Brief (filed Sep. 13, 2010).

Appellants’ Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to designing animated visualization
interfaces in which graphical symbols in the visualization interfaces are
associated with components of a process control/manufacturing information
application. A graphical symbol library is included for maintaining a set of
graphical symbol templates which include a graphics definition that includes
graphics and a reference to an application component data source type. See
generally Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
1. A programmed computer system for designing animated
visualization interfaces including associations between graphical symbols
and components of a process control system application, the system
including:
a graphical symbol library for maintaining a set of graphical symbol
templates wherein the graphical symbol templates each comprise:
a graphics definition including graphics data for generating a
graphical symbol, and
a reference to an application component data source type, the
reference facilitating identifying candidate application components for
creating an association between a graphical symbol instance created
from a graphical symbol template and one of the candidate application
components; and
a graphical symbol design environment including a visualization
interface design tool facilitating:
designating the graphical symbol template, from the graphical
symbol library, from which the graphical symbol instance is created,
Appeal 2011-000543
Application 11/130,728

3
specifying an application component corresponding to the
reference to an application component data source type, and
creating an association between the graphical symbol instance
and the specified application component, wherein the association
facilitates providing data from the application component for driving
an animation characteristic of the graphical symbol
instance.

The Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner’s Answer cites the following prior art references:
Walton US 5,883,639 Mar. 16, 1999
Bergstraesser US 2005/0262107 A1 Nov. 24, 2005
(filed Aug. 13, 2003)
Austin US 7,134,085 B2 Nov. 7, 2006
(filed Dec. 13, 2000)
Nick Gammon, MUSHclient scripting, retrieved from
http://web.archive.org/web/20030118094827/http://www.gammon.com.au/s
cripts/function.php?name=Replace (2003).
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9-13, 17-21, 25, 26, 30, and 31 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Walton in view of Austin.
Claims 8, 14, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Walton in view of Austin and Bergstraesser.
Claims 15, 16, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Walton in view of Austin and Gammon.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9-13, 17-21, 25, 26, 30, and 31
Appellants contend, with respect to the obviousness rejection of
independent claims 1, 17, 25, and 26, that Austin does not overcome what
the Examiner has identified as the deficiency in Walton (Ans. 6-7). This
Appeal 2011-000543
Application 11/130,728

4
deficiency is the failure to teach or suggest the identifying of a candidate
application component by including a reference to an “application
component data source type,” a feature present in each of the appealed
independent claims. According to Appellants, Austin discloses matching
and organizing graphical user interface elements based on the data type
being transmitted from application components, not on data source type as
claimed (App. Br. 13-14; Reply Br.4-5).
We agree with Appellants. In addressing the language of the claims,
the Examiner (Ans. 6, 7, 15) refers to Austin’s discussion of various
graphical user interfaces (GUIs) for displaying different types of data, e.g., a
chart GUI for displaying chart type data, a thermometer GUI for displaying
numerical type data, and an LED GUI for displaying Boolean (on/off) type
data (Fig. 2; col. 18, ll. 50-65). As argued by Appellants, however, the
various data display examples disclosed by Austin, i.e., numerical,
waveform, Boolean, to illustrate the matching of GUI elements to
application components are data types, not data source types. In other
words, the type of data transmitted by a device is irrelevant to that device’s
representation on a process control visualization interface since the type of
data source cannot be identified by the form of the data that a device
transmits. As pointed out by Appellants, devices which are the source of
data, such as motors, valves, etc., transmit data in many forms, e.g., analog,
Boolean, etc., and, therefore, cannot be identified solely by data type (Reply
Br. 4).
In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the
proposed combination of references set forth by the Examiner does not
support the obviousness rejection. We, accordingly, do not sustain the
Appeal 2011-000543
Application 11/130,728

5
rejection of independent claims 1, 17, 25, and 26, nor the rejection of claims
2, 5-7, 9-13, 18-21, 30, and 31 which are dependent thereon.

Claims 8, 14-16, and 22-24
We also do not sustain the obviousness rejections of dependent claims
8, 14-16, and 22-24 in which the Examiner has applied Bergstraesser and
Gammon in separate combinations with Walton and Austin. We find
nothing in these additional references, taken individually or collectively,
which overcomes the innate deficiencies of the combination of Walton and
Austin as discussed supra.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the analysis above, we conclude that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1, 2, 5-26, 30, and 31 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).

DECISION
The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-26, 30,
and 31, all of the appealed claims, is reversed.

REVERSED

babc