Ex Parte Burckart et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 13, 2018

14228213 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2018)

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.
14/228,213 03/27/2014 Erik J. Burckart RSW920130094US2 2232
(797CON)
46320 7590
CRGO LAW
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, EL 33434
02/15/2018 EXAMINER
FIBBI, CHRISTOPHER J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/15/2018 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):
docketing@crgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIK J. BURCKART, MICHAEL P. ETGEN,
ANDREW J. IVORY, and DAVID M. STECHER
Appeal 2017-008594
Application 14/228,2131
Technology Center 2100
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1—3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants’ Brief (“App. Br.”) identifies International Business Machines
Corporation as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-008594
Application 14/228,213
RELATED PROCEEDINGS
Appellants identify Appeal 2017-009014 (“the ’014 Appeal”), which
is the subject appeal of Application 14/228,313, as a related appeal. App.
Br. 2. The ’014 Appeal is decided concurrently with the present appeal.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a utilizing object cloning to enable nested
drag and drop in graphical user interfaces. Spec. 116. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of nested object drag and drop
enablement utilizing object cloning, the method comprising:
detecting a drag event in a graphical user interface (GUI)
of an application;
identifying an object in the GUI associated with the drag
event;
retrieving in memory one or more clones of other objects
in the GUI that are nested in the identified object;
generating an avatar for the identified object and the one
or more clones; and,
moving a display of the avatar from a source location of
the drag event to a target location of a drop event detected in the
GUI of the application.
App. Br. 9 (Claims Appendix).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ledet et al., (US 2012/0084689 Al, published Apr. 5,
2012 (hereinafter “Ledet”)) and Anthony et al., (US 2007/0061745 Al,
published Mar. 15, 2007(hereinafter “Anthony”)). Final Act. 6-17.
2
Appeal 2017-008594
Application 14/228,213
ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in finding Ledet and Anthony teach or
suggest “retrieving in memory one or more clones of other objects in the
GUI that are nested in the identified object,” as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Ledet teaches most of the
recited limitations. Final Act. 7—9. However, the Examiner finds “Ledet
does not specifically teach [the limitation of] retrieving in memory one or
more clones of other objects in the GUI that are nested in the identified
object.” Final Act. 9 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner turns to Anthony,
finding it cures the deficiencies of Ledet. Final Act. 9 (citing Anthony || 3,
4, 30, 31, 33, and 37 and Fig. 4). The Examiner concludes it would have
been obvious to:
add retrieving in memory one or more clones of other objects in
the GUI that are nested in the identified object, as taught by
Anthony, to the teachings of Ledet because a user may obtain
useful and interactive preview information without having to
open a container in an electronic file system.
Final Act. 10—11 (reference omitted). The Examiner further explains his
conclusion, emphasizing that the combined teachings of the references
would have made the invention obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
art:
Finally, given Anthony's ability to display nested objects on the
front of a folder icon and Ledet's ability to create displayed
copies of folders in order to move them, one of ordinary skill in
the art, namely a software developer, would recognize that
adding Anthony's nested objects being duplicated and displayed
as representations on the front of a folder icon to Ledet's method
3
Appeal 2017-008594
Application 14/228,213
of displaying copies of file/folder objects to the user as a movable
cluster while the original objects remain in their position allows
a user to obtain useful and interactive preview information
without having to open a container in an electronic file system
(see Anthony paragraph 0045).
Ans. 4 (emphasis omitted).
Appellants contend the Examiner has erred because the “Examiner
has not accounted for the claimed ‘retrieving in memory one or more clones
of other objects in the GUI that are nested in the identified object. App.
Br. 4. More specifically, Appellants argue the Examiner’s reliance on
Figure 4 of Anthony is misplaced, as it discloses only the use of nested
folders in a file system. App. Br. 5. According to Appellants, the nested
folders of Anthony are not “clones of other objects in a GUI,” and as such,
they do not teach the recited “one or more clones . . . that are nested in the
identified object.” App. Br. 5—6. Appellants contend a “clone” is properly
understood as requiring something to be an exact copy of the object being
cloned. Reply Br. 4. Applying their proposed construction of “clone,”
Appellants further argue that “the creation of greyed out versions of the
underlying icons of a windows,” taught by Ledet are not clones because
these greyed out versions are not exact duplicates of the underlying objects.
Reply Br. 5—6.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Appellants’
arguments rely on an unduly narrow construction of the term “clone.”
Appellants contend a “clone” must be an exact duplicate, with no
discemable difference between the clone and the object being cloned.
Appellants’ proposed construction is inconsistent with the teachings of the
Specification. The Specification states “Figure 1 pictorially shows a process
for nested object drag and drop enablement utilizing object cloning.” Spec.
4
Appeal 2017-008594
Application 14/228,213
117. Appellants’ Figure 1 depicts a nested object Z (130) being dragged
across the user interface. When dragged across the user interface, an avatar
150 including a clone of the object 140 that is depicted as a slightly greyed
object with a dashed perimeter line. Thus, in the embodiment described in
Appellants’ Specification, the clone is not an exact duplicate of the
underlying object, but rather, is a close approximation thereof.
Because the broadest reasonable construction of “clone” does not
require that a clone be an exact duplicate and does permit that a clone may
be a close approximation of the cloned object, we agree with the Examiner
that “adding Anthony's nested objects being duplicated and displayed as
representations on the front of a folder icon to Ledet's method of displaying
copies of file/folder objects to the user as a movable cluster” (Ans. 4)
teaches or suggests “retrieving in memory one or more clones of other
objects in the GUI that are nested in the identified object,” as recited in
claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, as well as that of
claims 2 and 3 for which Appellants do not offer separate arguments for
patentability.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—3.
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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5