Ex Parte Cottingham et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 3, 2016

12129130 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/129, 130 05/29/2008
74739 7590 08/05/2016
MILES & STOCKBRIDGE P.C.
Oracle International Corporation
17 51 Pinnacle Drive
Suite 1500
Tysons Corner, VA 22102-3833
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Heather E. Cottingham
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.
T9049- l 9633US01 1544
EXAMINER
UNG,LANNYN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2191
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/05/2016 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):
Ipdocketing@MilesStockbridge.com
bgoldsmith@milesstockbridge.com
smcvean@milesstockbridge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HEATHER E. COTTINGHAM, LYDIA NAYLOR, LOUISE
RAFFO, JULIETTE FLEMING, JULI ANNE TOLLEY, CATHERINE
SUE BAUER, KRISTIN PENASKOVIC, and J. ANNE CARLSON
Appeal2015-004878
Application 12/129,130
Technology Center 2100
Before CATHERINE SHIANG, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1--4, 6, 8-11, 13-15, 19-22, 24, and 26-31, which are all
the claims pending and rejected in the application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
Appeal2015-004878
Application 12/129,130
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The present invention relates to computer applications. See generally
Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A non-transitory computer readable medium having
instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor,
cause the processor to provide user assistance comprising:
receive a first request for a first help content for a first
component of a plurality of components displayed on a user
interface, wherein the user interface comprises an associated
help icon next to each of the plurality of components if help
content is available for the corresponding component, and the
first request is received in response to a selection of one of the
help icons,
wherein the user interface is one page of a multipage task
flow, wherein the task flow comprises one or more pages and a
control flow that defines navigation between the pages that is
determined based on user input on a current page;
generate, in response to the first request, a first user
assistance panel that is displayed simultaneously with the user
interface without substantially obscuring the user interface,
wherein the first user assistance panel comprises the first help
content for the first component and a heading for a second
component of the plurality of components that has associated
help content, and the first user assistance panel is displayed
adjacent to the user interface;
wherein the entire user interface, including the associated
help icons, is shrunken when displayed simultaneously with the
first user assistance panel;
wherein a selection of the heading for the second
component initiates a search query for additional help
information using contextual information from the user
interface, the contextual information based at least on the
current page of the multipage task flow.
2
Appeal2015-004878
Application 12/129,130
References and Rejections
Claims 1--4, 8-11, 13-15, 19-21, and 26-28 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brandt (US 2002/0130895 Al,
published Sept. 19, 2002), Dubinsky (US 2006/0150151 Al, published
July 6, 2006), and Dazey (US 5,715,415, issued Feb. 3, 1998).
Claims 6, 22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Brandt, Dubinsky, Dazey, and Kureshy (US
2007 /0220429 Al, published Sept. 20, 2007).
Claims 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Brandt, Dubinsky, Dazey, and Dovin (US 7 ,210,094 B2,
issued Apr. 24, 2007).
ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellants' arguments, and agree with and adopt
the Examiner's findings and conclusions in (i) the action from which this
appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer to the extent they are consistent with our
analysis below.
On this record, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1.
Issue 1
Appellants contend Brandt does not teach "without substantially
obscuring the user interface," as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 5. In
particular, Appellants argue "help window 26 obscures web page window
24 (i.e., the "user interface"), and web page window 24 is not shrunken."
App. Br. 5.
3
Appeal2015-004878
Application 12/129,130
Appellants have not persuaded us of error. In response to Appellants'
arguments, the Examiner provides further findings showing Brandt teaches
the disputed claim limitation. See Ans. 13-14. Appellants fail to
persuasively respond to such findings and therefore, fail to show error in the
Examiner's findings. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391
(Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is not the function of this court [or this Board] to
examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for
[patentable] distinctions over the prior art.").
Issue 2
Appellants contend Brandt does not teach "'a control flow that
defines navigation between the pages that is determined based on user input
on a current page' or consequently 'the contextual information based at least
on the current page of the multipage task flow."' App. Br. 6. In particular,
Appellants argue "in Brandt, the selection of a 'back' or 'next' button is
used to determine the next pages, and the pages are displayed in a predefined
order" (App. Br. 6) and "the claims require that the 'control flow' defines
the navigation instead of a response to a user selection, as disclosed in
Brandt." (App. Br. 6). Appellants contend "the claimed 'control flow' is
what determines the next page, and not the selection of a button," and cite an
example from paragraph 19 of the Specification. Reply Br. 2.
Appellants have not persuaded us of error.
First, the Examiner correctly finds in Brandt:
the control flow includes the buttons "back[,]"[] "next" and
"finish[.]"[] These buttons define the navigation (going back a
page or to the next page) between the pages[,] which is
4
Appeal2015-004878
Application 12/129,130
determined based on which button is selected by a user (user
input on a current page).
Ans. 14.
Second, as pointed out by the Examiner, Appellants' argument that
Brandt's pages are displayed in a predefined order" (App. Br. 6) is
unpersuasive, as Appellants have not shown the claim precludes such
arrangement. See Ans. 14. Similarly, Appellants' argument that "the
claimed 'control flow' is what determines the next page, and not the
selection of a button ... the control flow, rather than the selection of a
button, determines the order of displayed pages" (Reply Br. 2) is not
commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Third, it is well established that during examination, claims are given
their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, but
without importing limitations from the specification. See In re Am. A cad. of
Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted);
SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir.
2004). Appellants have not persuasively shown how paragraph 19 of the
Specification, which merely states "[i]n general, a task flow includes one or
more pages and a control flow that defines the navigation between the
pages" (emphasis added), precludes the Examiner's interpretation of the
claimed "control flow." Likewise, Appellants have not persuasively shown
how paragraph 20 of the Specification, which merely refers to a back button
in an exemplary embodiment, precludes the Examiner's interpretation of the
claimed control flow.
5
Appeal2015-004878
Application 12/129,130
Issue 3
Appellants argue Dazey does not teach "wherein the entire user
interface, including the associated help icons, is shrunken when displayed
simultaneously with the first user assistance panel," because Dazey teaches
shrinking the publication 52, which is not the entire user interface. See App.
Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 3. Appellants contend the Examiner impermissibly
modifies Dazey's document by adding help icons from Dubinsky, and one
skilled in the art would have no reason to do that. See App. Br. 7-8; App.
Br. 3--4.
Appellants have not persuaded us of error. In response to Appellants'
arguments, the Examiner provides further findings showing Brandt,
Dubinsky, and Dazey-not Dazey alone---collectively teach the disputed
claim limitation. See Ans. 16-17. Appellants fail to persuasively respond to
such findings and, therefore, fail to show error in the Examiner's findings.
See Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d at 391.
Further, Appellants' argument about impermissible modification is
not directed to the Examiner's findings. Specifically, the Examiner does not
modify Dazey's teachings to include Dubinsky's help icons. See Ans. 16.
Instead, the Examiner proposes to modify Brandt's user interface to include
Dubinsky's help icons. See Ans. 16.
In the Reply Brief and for the first time, Appellants argue the
Examiner's motivation to combine the references amounts to a general
statement, and modifying Dazey' s teachings defeats the advantage of
Dazey's clutter-free application. See Reply Br. 3--4. Appellants have
waived such arguments because they are untimely, and Appellants have not
6
Appeal2015-004878
Application 12/129,130
demonstrated any "good cause" for the belated presentation. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(b)(2) (2012).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and
corresponding dependent claims that Appellants do not argue separately.
For similar reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 8
and 13, and corresponding dependent claims that Appellants do not argue
separately.
Regarding dependent claims 29-31, 1 Appellants argue Dovin does not
teach "displaying a progress flow on the current page of the multi-page task
flow, the progress flow indicating which page of the multi-page task flow is
currently being displayed, and an order of additional pages," as recited in
claim 29 (emphases added). See App. Br. 8-9. In particular, Appellants
contend "Dovin merely discloses web pages instead of a 'multi-page task
flow' as with embodiments of the present invention .... neither Dovin or
any other prior art suggests combining breadcrumbs with a multi-page task
flow." App. Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 4.
Because the Examiner relies on the combination of Brandt, Dubinsky,
Dazey, and Dovin to teach the claims, Appellants cannot establish
nonobviousness by attacking the references individually. See In re Merck &
Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Examiner finds-and
Appellants do not dispute-Brandt teaches the claimed "multi-page task
flow." See Ans. 3; Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d at 391. Therefore,
Dovin does not need to separately teach that claim term.
1 Appellants' heading of "Dependent Claims 32-35" (App. Br. 8) is
incorrect, as the pending claims do not include claims 32-35.
7
Appeal2015-004878
Application 12/129,130
Further, Appellants' assertion that "neither Dovin or [sic] any other
prior art suggests combining breadcrumbs with a multi-page task flow"
(App. Br. 9) is unpersuasive: "[i]If the claim extends to what is obvious, it is
invalid under§ 103," and "the analysis need not seek out precise teachings
directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 418-19 (2007). Here, the Examiner has provided articulated
reasoning with a rational underpinning as to why one skilled in the art would
have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Brandt, Dubinsky, Dazey,
and Dovin. See Ans. 11. Appellants have not persuasively shown the
Examiner's reasoning is incorrect.
In the Reply Brief and for the first time, Appellants argue "Dovin ...
subsequently fails to disclose the recited 'progress flow."' Reply Br. 4.
Appellants have waived that argument because it is untimely, and Appellants
have not demonstrated any "good cause" for the belated presentation. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2012).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 29-31.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4, 6, 8-11, 13-
15, 19-22, 24, and 26-31.
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
8