Ex Parte Buchanan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 11, 2018

13600922 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 11, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/600,922 08/31/2012
45113 7590 06/13/2018
Siemens Corporation
Intellectual Property Department
3501 Quadrangle Blvd Ste 230
Orlando, FL 32817
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Thomas James Buchanan
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2011Pl9783US01 3970
EXAMINER
SUN,LIP
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2143
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/13/2018 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):
IPDadmin.us@siemens.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS JAMES BUCHANAN
and ANDREW CHARLES GILBERT
Appeal2017-009703
Application 13/600,922
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, THU A. DANG, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to computer-aided design,
visualization, and manufacturing systems, product lifecycle management
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Siemens Product Lifecycle
Management Software Inc. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-009703
Application 13/600,922
systems, and similar systems, that manage data and other items. In one
aspect, the user is identified and associated product contexts are identified
based on the user's identification and role, including querying a database.
Configuration items are displayed corresponding to the identified contexts,
and a tool is launched based on a selected configuration item. See generally
Abstract; Spec. ,r,r 2---6. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method performed by a computer-aided design
(CAD) data processing system, comprising:
determining a user identification;
identifying a plurality of product contexts corresponding to the user
identification and based on a user role, including performing a query on a
database that stores multiple unconfigured product configurations, including
options and variants for the configurations;
displaying configuration items corresponding to the identified
contexts;
receiving a user selection of a configuration item; and
launching a CAD editing tool based on the selected configuration item,
including loading configuration data, according to the selected configuration
item and corresponding identified context, and including configuring the
unconfigured product configurations according to the query when loading
the configuration data, wherein the configuration data includes data for
creating and displaying three-dimensional (3D) representations of
assemblies, subassemblies, and individual components of the configuration
item and bill of material (BOM) list data for the configuration item.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 15, and 18 under 3 5 U.S. C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Kohlhoff (US 2012/0130521 Al; May 24, 2012)
and Kluge (US 2003/0100964 Al; May 29, 2003). Ans. 2-8. 2
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed February
27, 2017 ("App. Br."); (2) the Examiner's Answer mailed May 12, 2017
("Ans."); and (3) the Reply Brief filed July 3, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2017-009703
Application 13/600,922
The Examiner rejected claims 2, 7, 9, 14, and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Kohlhoff, Kluge, and Dharap (US 6,256,633 B 1;
July 3, 2001). Ans. 8-12.
The Examiner rejected claims 3, 10, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kohlhoff, Kluge, and Sunkada (US 2011/0270697 Al;
Nov. 3, 2011). Ans. 12-13.
The Examiner rejected claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Kohlhoff, Kluge, Dharap, and Thint (US
2004/0128301 Al; July 1, 2004). Ans. 13-19.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER KOHLHOFF AND KLUGE
The Examiner finds that Kohlhoff discloses, among other things,
performing a query on a database (memory 155) that stores unconfigured
product configurations (assembly models 170), including options and
variants for the configurations. Ans. 2-5. According to the Examiner,
Kohlhoff configures the unconfigured product configurations according to
the query when loading configuration data, namely via ( 1) a sequence of
user selections received via a viewer application's user interface in Figure 2,
and (2) modifying and customizing viewed assembly models in paragraphs
14, 30, and 48. Ans. 4--5, 27-28. Although the Examiner acknowledges that
Kohlhoff does not (1) determine a user identification and identify product
contexts according to that identification and user role, and (2) display
configuration items and launch a CAD editing tool based on identified
contexts, the Examiner cites Kluge as teaching these features in concluding
that the claim would have been obvious. Ans. 5---6.
3
Appeal2017-009703
Application 13/600,922
Appellants argue that the prior art does not teach or suggest ( 1)
performing a query on a database that stores unconfigured product
configurations including options and variants for the configurations, and (2)
configuring unconfigured product configurations according to the query
when loading the configuration data, as claimed. App. Br. 19--30; Reply Br.
13-26. According to Appellants, Kohlhoff does not query a database, let
alone a database that stores unconfigured product configurations including
associated options and variants, as claimed. App. Br. 19--28; Reply Br. 13-
22.
Among other things, Appellants contend that there are no
unconfigured product configurations in Kohlhoff, but rather predefined part
models that comprise a "model assembly." App. Br. 22-24; Reply Br. 15-
19. Appellants add that Kohlhoff does not configure unconfigured product
configurations according to the recited query when loading the configuration
data, namely by configuring the product in real time, "on the fly," as the
system responds to the queries. Reply Br. 25. Appellants argue other
recited limitations summarized below.
ISSUES
Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Kohlhoff and
Kluge collectively would have taught or suggested:
(l)(a) performing a query on a database that stores unconfigured
product configurations including options and variants for the configurations,
and (b) configuring unconfigured product configurations according to the
query when loading the configuration data as recited in claim 1?
4
Appeal2017-009703
Application 13/600,922
(2) the system displaying a corresponding identified configuration in a
first view defined by corresponding identified product context, and
thereafter interacts with a user to change the display from the first view to a
second view while configuring the second view on the fly as recited in claim
4?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 8, and 15
We begin by construing the key disputed limitation of claim 1 that
recites, in pertinent part, performing a query on a database that stores
unconfzgured product configurations including options and variants for the
configurations. We emphasize "unconfigured" here, for a key aspect of this
dispute is whether Kohlhoff teaches or suggests storing unconfzgured
product configurations in a database.
Notably, the Specification does not define the term "unconfigured,"
unlike other terms whose explicit definitions leave no doubt as to their
meaning. See, e.g., Spec. ,r,r 6, 23, 28, 61 (defining various terms).
Although the Specification's paragraph 29 indicates that product
configurations can be stored as unconfigured data that can be configured "on
the fly" according to queries sent by a Product Data Management (PDM)
interface application, the Specification does not further specify the nature
and extent of these "unconfigured" product configurations or otherwise
further define them to so limit their interpretation.
Accordingly, we construe the term "unconfigured" with its plain
meaning. The term "configure" is defined, quite broadly, as "to construct or
arrange in a certain way." WEBSTER'S NEW WORLD DICTIONARY OF
5
Appeal2017-009703
Application 13/600,922
AMERICAN ENGLISH 292 (3d College ed. 1993). Another dictionary defines
"configure" in pertinent part, as "[ t Jo design, arrange, set up, or shape with a
view to specific applications or uses .... " THE AMERICAN HERITAGE
DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 3 86 ( 4th ed. 2006). The term
"unconfigured," then, is the opposite of these definitions, namely ( 1) not
construed or arranged in a certain way, or (2) not designed, arranged, set up,
or shaped with a view to specific applications or uses.
Given these definitions, we see no error in the Examiner's interpreting
the recited "unconfigured product configurations" as "items related to [a]
product that can be further customized by a user." Ans. 21-22. Notably, the
Examiner's construction reasonably comports with the plain meaning of
"unconfigured" at least to the extent that the associated product
configurations are not construed or arranged in a certain way, namely with
respect to a particular user customization. Nor are these unconfigured
product configurations designed, arranged, set up, or shaped with a view to
specific user-customized applications or uses under the Examiner's
interpretation.
With this construction, we see no error in the Examiner's reliance on
Kohlhoff for teaching performing a query on a database that stores
unconfigured product configurations, namely assembly models 170, in a
database associated with memory 155. Ans. 3, 21-22, 28 (citing Kohlhoff
,r,r 14, 30, 48; Figs. IA, 2, 3A-3G, 5). As shown in Kohlhoff's Figure IA,
interactive viewer system 110 includes an interactive viewer tool 140 that
uses assembly models 170 corresponding to a manufacturing product
assembly or product, where each assembly model includes part models 172
6
Appeal2017-009703
Application 13/600,922
modeling parts from which the product and assembly model is comprised.
Kohlhoff,I 14.
Kohlhoff' s Figure 2 details a technique for using an interactive viewer
tool to generate a manufacturing assembly sequence for a product construed
of distinct parts based on a modeled disassembly of the product. Kohlhoff
,r 30. As shown in steps 205 and 210 ofKohlhoff's Figure 2, a product
assembly model is first identified, and then displayed.
Given this functionality, Kohlhoff at least suggests that using the
interactive viewer tool to identify and display assembly models, such as the
assembly model 305 in Figure 3A, involves performing an associated query
on an assembly model database, namely to search and retrieve particular
assembly models from that database for further review and manipulation via
the interactive viewer tool as the Examiner indicates. See Ans. 23 (noting
that for a user to view and manipulate assembly models stored in a database
on an interactive viewer tool connected to that database, some type of query,
namely a request for information from a database, must be performed to
retrieve assembly models from the database). That Kohlhoff may not use
the term "query" explicitly as Appellants contend (App. Br. 24; Reply Br.
19) is ofno consequence here, for Kohlhoff's interactive viewer
functionality at least suggests such a query as noted above.
Nor do we see error in the Examiner's finding that Kohlhoff's
assembly models are unconfigured product configurations at least to the
extent that they are not construed or arranged in a certain way, namely with
respect to a particular user customization. Nor are these unconfigured
product configurations designed, arranged, set up, or shaped with a view to
specific user-customized applications or uses under the Examiner's
7
Appeal2017-009703
Application 13/600,922
interpretation. That is, these assembly models are unconfigured product
configurations before they are further customized by the user by, for
example, ( 1) removing selected part models as shown in Kohlhoff' s Figures
3C to 3G and paragraphs 34 to 37, or (2) rearranging and substituting parts
in Figure 5 and paragraph 48. Accord Ans. 3 (finding that assembly models
170 are unconfigured product configurations because they are pre-existing
product designs that can be configured or customized on the fly by a user).
Given this functionality, these unconfigured product configurations also
include options and variants for the configurations as the Examiner
indicates. Ans. 3.
We are also unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on
Kohlhoff for at least suggesting configuring unconfigured product
configurations according to the query when loading the configuration data
("the configuration limitation"). Our emphasis underscores that the term
"when" in this context recites a temporal limitation, namely that the recited
configuration must occur when configuration data is loaded.
Despite Appellants' arguments to the contrary (App. Br. 28-30; Reply
Br. 23-26), we see no error in the Examiner's reliance on the functionality
associated with Kohlhoff' s Figure 2 for at least suggesting the configuration
limitation. Ans. 4, 27-28. As shown in steps 215 to 230 of that figure, if
unselected part models remain on a displayed assembly model, the user
selects those models sequentially for removal. Kohlhoff ,r,r 30-31. A
disassembly order is then generated to derive an assembly order from the
reversed disassembly order. Kohlhoff ,I 31; Fig. 2 (steps 235-245).
Given this functionality, Kohlhoff at least suggests configuring
unconfigured product configurations according to the recited query. As
8
Appeal2017-009703
Application 13/600,922
noted previously, these assembly models are unconfigured product
configurations before they are further customized by the user by, for
example, removing selected part models from the displayed presentation in
Figures 2 and 3C to 3G. This configuration is also performed according to
the recited query at least to the extent that Kohlhoff' s assembly models that
are configured via this process are retrieved from a database using a query as
noted previously.
Notably, Kohlhoff at least suggests that this configuration occurs
when loading the configuration data given the sequential process in steps
215 to 230 of Figure 2. That is, configuration data is loaded during this
sequential process to enable the user to select part models repeatedly until all
selected part models are removed. For example, after the user selects the
chain 315 of the displayed assembly model 305 of a bicycle in Figure 3A, it
is removed from the displayed assembly model as shown in Figure 3B.
Kohlhoff ,r,r 35-36. Then, after the user selects the bicycle's seat 330 in
Figure 3B, it is removed from the displayed assembly model in Figure 3C,
and so on. See id. These configurations, although sequential, are
nonetheless performed when the configuration data is loaded, namely during
the time period associated with this sequential process. Appellants'
arguments to the contrary (App. Br. 28-30; Reply Br. 23-26) are unavailing
and not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Nor are we persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on Kluge
given the limited purpose for which the reference was cited, namely merely
to show that it is known in the art to ( 1) determine a user identification and
identify product contexts according to that identification and user role, and
(2) display configuration items and launch a CAD editing tool based on
9
Appeal2017-009703
Application 13/600,922
identified contexts, and that providing such features in Kohlhoff' s system
would have been obvious. Ans. 5---6. Such an enhancement uses prior art
elements predictably according to their established functions-an obvious
improvement. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,417 (2007).
We find unavailing Appellants' contention that there is no suggestion
that Kohlhoff' s viewer tool could function properly to allow the user to
select a disassembly order if any displayed data is limited by the user's role,
and that the proposed combination would be purportedly useless because
only authorized users use the viewer tool. See App. Br. 21. Notably, these
conclusory contentions are unsupported by factual evidence and are,
therefore, entitled to little probative value. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465,
1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 424
F.3d 1276, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("Attorney argument is no substitute for
evidence.").
Nevertheless, we see no reason why Kohlhoff's interface could not be
configured for a particular context related to the user's role as in Kluge's
paragraph 23 to, among other things, tailor and customize the interface for
particular users based on their role and identification as the Examiner
indicates-a predictable result. See Ans. 24--25. Moreover, Appellants'
arguments regarding Kluge's individual shortcomings (App. Br. 27; Reply
Br. 29) do not show nonobviousness where, as here, the rejection is based on
the cited references' collective teachings. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
10
Appeal2017-009703
Application 13/600,922
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 8 and 15 not argued separately with particularity. 3
Claims 4, 11, and 18
We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 4 reciting that the
system displays the corresponding identified configuration in a first view
defined by corresponding identified product context, and thereafter interacts
with a user to change the display from the first view to a second view while
configuring the second view on the fly. Our emphasis underscores the
temporal aspects of this claim, for the recited interaction must occur ( 1) after
displaying the first view, and (2) while configuring the second view "on the
fly."
Our use of quotation marks emphasizes the colloquial nature of the
term "on the fly" 4 that, despite its traditional informal usage in the English
language as noted below, is nonetheless a key aspect of this dispute.
Notably, the Specification does not define the term "on the fly," unlike other
terms whose explicit definitions leave no doubt as to their meaning. See,
e.g., Spec. ,r,r 6, 23, 28, 61 (defining various terms). Although the
Specification's paragraph 29 indicates that product configurations can be
stored as unconfigured data that can be configured "on the fly" according to
queries sent by a PDM interface application, the Specification does not
3 Although Appellants nominally argue claims 8 and 15 separately (App. Br.
33--45, 48---60), Appellants reiterate arguments made for claim 1. We,
therefore, group these claims accordingly. We treat other nominally-argued
claims similarly, and group those claims accordingly.
4 Notably, Appellants' Specification likewise uses quotation marks for this
term in paragraphs 39 and 58.
11
Appeal2017-009703
Application 13/600,922
further specify the nature and extent of this "on the fly" configuration or
otherwise further define the term to so limit its interpretation. The
Specification's paragraph 39 notes that disclosed embodiments can perform
a configuration "on the fly" to automatically gather a list of product
configurations on demand and present them to the use via a PDM interface
application. Paragraphs 58 and 59 of the Specification also note that content
can be retrieved "on the fly" and can differ from when it was last loaded,
and that an "on the fly" configuration can be performed to display higher- or
lower-level views of the displayed identified configuration.
Although this description informs our understanding of the recited "on
the fly" configuration, it is not limiting. We, therefore, construe this
colloquial term with its plain meaning. One dictionary defines the term "on
the fly" as "[ o ]n the run; in a hurry" as part of a relevant definition of the
word "fly." THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH
LANGUAGE 679 ( 4th ed. 2006). Another dictionary, in a relevant definition
of the word "fly," also defines the term "on the fly" as a colloquial term
meaning "while in a hurry." WEBSTER'S NEW WORLD DICTIONARY OF
AMERICAN ENGLISH 521 (3d College ed. 1993).
Given these definitions, we see no error in the Examiner's
construction of the recited "on the fly" configuration as the ability to
configure or modify something dynamically (Ans. 29), for such dynamic
configurations are more hurried than other types of configurations, such as
static configurations.
Despite Appellants' arguments to the contrary (App. Br. 31-32; Reply
Br. 27-28), we see no error in the Examiner's reliance on Kohlhoff's Figure
2 for at least suggesting the recited limitations. Ans. 29. First, in step 210
12
Appeal2017-009703
Application 13/600,922
of Kohlhoffs Figure 2, an assembly model is displayed which corresponds
to a "first view," namely a view before user manipulation under the
Examiner's interpretation. See id. This "first view" is shown, for example,
in Kohlhoffs Figure 3A.
Then, the system interacts with a user to change this display to a
"second view," namely a view after user manipulation under the Examiner's
interpretation. See id. This manipulation includes the user selecting a
particular part model for removal in step 220. See Kohlhoff ,I 30. Under the
Examiner's interpretation, this "second view" includes a view that omits the
selected part model in step 220 and is shown, for example, in Kohlhoff' s
Figure 3B that omits the selected bicycle chain. See Kohlhoff ,I 36.
Notably, this user interaction occurs while configuring the second
view, for this interaction occurs during the time period for the sequential
process of steps 215 to 23 0 of Figure 2, including while the second view is
configured in terms of the system's (1) receiving the user selection, (2)
designating the selected part model for inclusion in the ordered disassembly,
and (3) removing the selected part model from the displayed presentation in
steps 220 to 230. In short, this user interaction in selecting part models for
removal is a key aspect in configuring the "second view" lacking those
selected part models and, therefore, occurs while configuring that view
dynamically, or, "on the fly." Appellants' arguments to the contrary (App.
Br. 31-32; Reply Br. 27-28) are unavailing and not commensurate with the
scope of the claim.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 4, and claims 11 and 18 not argued separately with particularity.
13
Appeal2017-009703
Application 13/600,922
THE REJECTION OVER KOHLHOFF, KLUGE, AND DHARAP
We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 2
reciting that each product context is defined based on one or more of (1) a
user search, (2) navigation, or (3) a visual report. Our emphasis on "one or
more" underscores that only one of the three recited bases need be taught or
suggested by the prior art to satisfy the claim.
Despite Appellants' arguments to the contrary (App. Br. 63-64; Reply
Br. 29-31), we see no error in the Examiner's reliance on Dharap merely to
show that a user's previous search is considered when determining a
particular context, and that such a factor could be used as a basis for defining
an assembly-model-based product context in Kohlhoff-a predictable result.
See Ans. 32 (citing Dharap, col. 4, 11. 18-32). That Kohlhoff's assembly
models are retrieved by searching a database as noted previously only
bolsters the Examiner's findings and conclusions in this regard. In short, the
Examiner's proposed enhancement uses prior art elements predictably
according to their established functions-an obvious improvement. See
KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 2, and claims 7, 9, 14, and 16 not argued separately with particularity.
THE REJECTION OVER KOHLHOFF, KLUGE, AND SUNKADA
We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 3
reciting that the configuration items include thumbnail images and
descriptions of the corresponding identified configurations. Despite
Appellants' arguments to the contrary (App. Br. 71-72; Reply Br. 32-34),
we see no error in the Examiner's reliance on Sunkada merely to show that it
14
Appeal2017-009703
Application 13/600,922
is known to display items and their corresponding descriptions on an
interface as shown in Figure 8, and that providing such a display in
connection with Kohlhoffs displayed assembly models would have been
obvious. Ans. 12-13, 33-34. Although Appellants contend that there is
purportedly no reason to display a thumbnail image of the very assembly
model that is displayed full size in Kohlhoff (Reply Br. 33}-a contention
that is unsubstantiated-we nonetheless see no reason why thumbnails and
associated descriptions could not also be provided in addition to full-size
assembly models in Kohlhoff under the Examiner's proposed combination.
Such an enhancement would, among other things, provide multiple
assemblies on the same screen for simultaneous viewing and selection-a
predictable result. See Ans. 34 (noting that Kohlhoff s displayed assembly
models can also include a thumbnail image and associated description under
the proposed combination). In short, the Examiner's proposed enhancement
uses prior art elements predictably according to their established functions-
an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 3, and claims 10 and 17 not argued separately with particularity.
THE REJECTION OVER KOHLHOFF, KLUGE, DHARAP AND THINT
Claims 5, 12, and 19
We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 5 reciting that each
product context is defined based on effectivity, options, and revision rules.
Ans. 13-16. Notably, the Specification does not define the terms
"effectivity," "options," and "revision rules" unlike other terms whose
explicit definitions leave no doubt as to their meaning. See, e.g., Spec. ,r,r 6,
15
Appeal2017-009703
Application 13/600,922
23, 28, 61 (defining various terms). Although the Specification's paragraph
52 indicates that contexts can be defined based on, among other things,
effectivity, options, and revision rules, the Specification does not further
specify the nature and extent of these elements or otherwise further define
them to so limit their interpretation.
Given this non-limiting description, we see no error in the Examiner's
broad, but reasonable, interpretation of the term "options" as any choices or
alternatives presented to a user. Ans. 36. As the Examiner explains, the
term "options" in claim 5 need not refer to the options in claim 1 given claim
5 's only reciting "options" instead of "the options" or "said options." See id.
Moreover, the term "effectivity" is likewise broad because the term, among
other things, does not specify the nature or extent of this effectivity as the
Examiner indicates. Id. And, as the Examiner explains, term "revision
rules" is also broad and covers any conditions related to creating or updating
something. Ans. 37.
Therefore, despite Appellants' arguments to the contrary (App. Br.
73-75; Reply Br. 35-38), we see no error in the Examiner's reliance on
Dharap for at least suggesting the recited effectivity and options, at least to
the extent that a particular path taken by a user while browsing an
information space to determine a context in column 4, lines 18 to 32 at least
suggests associated options that would be effective to the user at least to
some extent given the user's selecting that path over other paths. Ans. 14,
3 6. Appellants' contention that the recited options are part of the database in
claim 1 (App. Br. 74) is unavailing, for this argument is not commensurate
with the scope of the claim that is not limited to those particular options as
noted above.
16
Appeal2017-009703
Application 13/600,922
Nor do we find error in the Examiner's reliance on Thint for at least
suggesting the recited product context revision rules given Thint's using
various parameters such as an interest item's creation date and user-defined
interest duration to, among other things, update an associated profile. See
Ans. 35-38 (citing Thint ,r,r 6, 23, 54, 79). Appellants' arguments (App. Br.
73-75; Reply Br. 35-38) are not only not commensurate with the scope of
the claim, but they essentially attack the references individually and,
therefore, do not show nonobviousness where, as here, the rejection is based
on the cited references' collective teachings. See Merck, 800 F .2d at 1097.
In short, the Examiner's proposed enhancement uses prior art elements
predictably according to their established functions-an obvious
improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 5, and claims 12 and 19 not argued separately with particularity.
Claims 6, 13, and 20
We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 6 reciting that the
displayed configuration items are determined to be meaningful to a user
based on the user role, ownership of the corresponding identified contexts,
and creation date. Ans. 16-19. Notably, the question of what is
"meaningful" to a user is a subjective determination that depends on a
particular individual-subjective determinations that have been held to be
indefinite. See Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342,
1352 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (holding claims directed to "aesthetically pleasing"
look and feel for interface screens indefinite as purely subjective); see also
Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
17
Appeal2017-009703
Application 13/600,922
( claim related to displaying content "in an unobtrusive manner that does not
distract the user" held indefinite despite describing an example in the
Specification). Apart from indicating that "meaningful" contexts are derived
using various techniques in the Specification's paragraph 32, and that
"meaningful" is determined based on the user's role and group, context
ownership, creation date, etc. in paragraph 54, the Specification does not
further specify or define what constitutes "meaning" to a user in this context.
But leaving this subjectivity question aside, we nevertheless see no
error in the Examiner's reliance on Kluge, Dharap, and Thint for teaching
the recited user role, context ownership, and creation date limitations,
respectively, in connection with the recited determination. Ans. 16-19, 38-
39. Despite Appellants' arguments to the contrary (App. Br. 76-77; Reply
Br. 39-40), Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner's reliance on
Kluge for at least suggesting the recited user role given Kluge' s configuring
a graphical user interface application for a particular context related to a
user's role in paragraph 23. Ans. 16.
Nor do Appellants persuasively rebut the Examiner's reliance on
Dharap for at least suggesting the recited context ownership given Dharap 's
functionality that enables users to navigate through an electronic database in
a personalized manner by, among other things, creating a context based on a
user's profile that is based on (1) user-provided information, and (2) the
user's previous database accesses. Dharap Abstract; Ans. 17-18 (citing
Dharap col. 3, 11. 27-29; col. 4, 11. 18-32; Fig. 1 ). As the Examiner
indicates, this profile least suggests ownership of the corresponding
identified contexts to determine what information is meaningful to a user.
Ans. 18.
18
Appeal2017-009703
Application 13/600,922
Appellants also do not persuasively rebut the Examiner's reliance on
Thint's paragraphs 23, 54, and 79 for at least suggesting the recited creation
date. Ans. 18-19, 38-39. Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 76-77; Reply
Br. 39-40) are not only not commensurate with the scope of the claim, but
they essentially individually attack the references and, therefore, do not
show nonobviousness where, as here, the rejection is based on the cited
references' collective teachings. See Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097. In short, the
Examiner's proposed enhancement uses prior art elements predictably
according to their established functions-an obvious improvement. See
KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 6, and claims 13 and 20 not argued separately with particularity.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-20 under§ 103.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
19