Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 19, 2013

11230805 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JIANGFENG CHEN, MARY COLELLA KUMAR,
MATTHEW LEWIS NUSS, and KENNETH R. SHRADER
____________________

Appeal 2010-010525
Application 11/230,805
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before: KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-010525
Application 11/230,805

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1,
3, 4, 7, 10, 12, 13, 16, 19, 21, 22, 25, and 28. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

The claims are directed to an automated user interface functional
requirements tool. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A computer system for generating user interface
specifications, comprising:
a component database on a storage device for storing a
plurality of modules, wherein each module includes a plurality
of elements for implementing at least one user interface activity
and wherein each element includes a plurality of attributes;
a module management system for selecting a specific
user interface activity and implementing the specific user
interface activity by selecting a module from the plurality of
modules; and
a system for generating an user interface specification for
the specific user interface activity based on the selected module,
wherein the user interface specification includes a functional
specification, a web template, and a prototype code.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Isreal US 6,330,007 B1 Dec. 11, 2001
Shah US 2004/0010776 A1 Jan. 15, 2004
Appeal 2010-010525
Application 11/230,805

3

REJECTIONS1
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 10, 12, 13, 16, 19, 21, 22, 25,
and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Isreal and Shah.
Ans. 4.

APPELLANTS’ CONTENTIONS
1. Isreal does not teach “wherein each module includes a plurality of
elements for implementing at least one user interface activity” as recited in
claim 1. App. Br. 6.
2. Isreal does not teach “wherein each element includes a plurality of
attributes.” Id.
3. Isreal and Shah do not teach or suggest “a module management
system for selecting a specific user interface activity and implementing the
specific user interface activity by selecting a module from the plurality of
modules.” Id.

ISSUE ON APPEAL
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 4-10),
the issue presented on appeal is whether the asserted combination of
references teaches or suggests the invention as recited in the disputed claims.

1 Appellants collectively argue the rejection of independent claims 1, 10, 19
and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Dependent claims 3, 4, 7, 12, 13, 16, 21,
22, and 25 are not separately argued. In view of the foregoing, we select
claim 1 as representative of all the argued claims and base our decision on
claim 1.
Appeal 2010-010525
Application 11/230,805

4
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions as to all rejections. We
adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal
Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. For
emphasis, we consider and highlight the following arguments seriatim as
they are presented in the Appeal Brief pages 4-10.
In connection with contention 1, Appellants argue that Isreal does not
teach “wherein each module includes a plurality of elements for
implementing at least one user interface activity.” App. Br. 6.
The Examiner responds:
Isreal shows in Fig. 20, the functional specifications
corresponding to the user interface as seen in Fig. 7 which
includes the modules, Dynakeys, the set of elements such as
Bitmap, Bkgrnd, and its plurality of attributes. Isreal discloses
“Each of the eight keys (Dynakeys 1-8 correspond to Ref. Nos.
782-796 in FIG. 7) has the same features and only the features
of key 1 are discussed herein as this key is representative of
keys 2-8.” [Col 16, lines 48-49, Isreal]

Ans. 9.
Thus, Isreal discloses a plurality (eight) of modules in the form of
Dynakeys. Id. The Examiner finds “Fig. 20 shows a module, with elements
such as the drop down menus and different attributes, such as bitmap,
bkgrnd etc.” Ans. 5. Furthermore, the Examiner finds that “[t]he Dynakeys
allows the author or designer to specify attributes such as the appearance and
Appeal 2010-010525
Application 11/230,805

5
behavior of the user interface.” Ans. 8. Thus, the Dynakeys modules
implement user interface activities through the use of drop down menu
elements, each element including a plurality of attributes such as bitmap and
bkgrnd. In contrast Appellants fail to provide sufficient evidence or
argument to persuade us that the Examiner’s findings are unreasonable.
Therefore, we find contention 1 unpersuasive of Examiner error.
In connection with contention 2, Appellants argue Isreal does not
teach “wherein each element includes a plurality of attributes.” App. Br. 6.
However, as detailed supra, we agree with the Examiner that the Dynakeys
drop down menu elements of Isreal include a plurality of attributes such as
bitmap and bkgrnd. Therefore, contention 2 is not persuasive of Examiner
error.
In connection with contention 3, Appellants argue Isreal and Shah do
not teach or suggest “a module management system for selecting a specific
user interface activity and implementing the specific user interface activity
by selecting a module from the plurality of modules.” App. Br. 6.
Appellants further argue that “[i]t is not remotely clear what becomes a
‘module’ at this point.” App. Br. 7. In response and as explained supra the
Examiner finds that Isreal’s Dynakeys correspond to the disputed modules.
Ans. 9; see also Fig. 20. The Examiner relies on Isreal’s Fig. 2A which
“shows the GUI tool for module management system that allows a user to
select a module from a bunch of modules.” Ans. 5. We agree with the
Examiner’s findings. Therefore, in the absence of sufficient evidence or
argument to persuade us that the required modules are not met by the
Dynakeys disclosed by Isreal, we again find no Examiner error.
Appeal 2010-010525
Application 11/230,805

6
We are further not persuaded of reversible error based on various
other arguments presented by Appellants that are not directly tied to specific
claim limitations. For example, while Appellants argue that “[t]here is no
‘Dynakey tab 1406’” (App. Br. 7), such a tab is shown in various figures of
Isreal, including Fig. 20, and described at, for example, col. 13, l. 54.
Similarly, Appellants’ argument that “FIG. 2 is not included in the drawings
of Isreal” (App. Br. 7) is hypertechnical. It is readily apparent that Figs. 2A
and 2B form the left and right halves of a larger “Fig. 2,” even though the
latter is not labeled as such.
For the reasons discussed supra, we find that Appellants have failed to
provide sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us that that the
combination of Isreal and Shah fails to teach or suggest the disputed claim
limitations. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and for the same
reason claims 10, 19 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Isreal and Shah together with the rejections of claims 3, 4, 7, 12, 13, 16,
21, 22, and 25 not separately argued.

CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in
rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 10, 12, 13, 16, 19, 21, 22, 25, and 28 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Isreal and Shah.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 10, 12, 13, 16,
19, 21, 22, 25, and 28 is affirmed.
Appeal 2010-010525
Application 11/230,805

7
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc