Ex Parte DiPierro et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2017

13750129 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2017)

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.
13/750,129 01/25/2013 Christopher M. DiPierro 5014029.007US2 9156
26158 7590 09/29/2017
WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP
ATTN: IP DOCKETING
P.O. BOX 7037
ATLANTA, GA 30357-0037
EXAMINER
HUYNH, CONG LAC T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2178
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2017 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@WCSR.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER M. DIPIERRO, DAVID R. NAKAMURA,
and GREGORY J. CLARY
Appeal 2017-004811
Application 13/750,1291
Technology Center 2100
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1—10, 12—29, 31—48, and 50-57. We have jurisdiction
over the pending rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Advanced Digital Systems, Inc. d/b/a Mi-Co as the real
party in interest. (App. Br. 1.)
Appeal 2017-004811
Application 13/750,129
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention is directed to receiving a
form definition for a multi-page electronic form including a plurality of
fields, and processing events in accordance with a defined interactive
behavior of the displayed form. (Spec., Abstract.)
Independent claim 20, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal:
20. A method comprising a plurality of operations including
at least:
receiving a form definition for a multi-page electronic
form including a plurality of fields one or more of which accept
input;
displaying the form in accordance with the form
definition, including in at least one instance, display of a
focused one of the pages in its entirety, one or more of the
fields including one or more respective controls that are active
for user interaction with the form;
receiving an indication of user interaction with the
displayed page of the form; and
processing a plurality of events in accordance with a
defined interactive behavior of the displayed form in response
to receipt of the indication, including an event processed
without regard to user interaction with any field of the
displayed page,
wherein processing the event without regard to user
interaction with any field includes launching a browser to
display a web site corresponding to a caption associated with
but located in a pre-defmed spatial area outside of a field on the
displayed page, in response to user interaction with the
respective caption, and
wherein the method is performed by an apparatus
including a processor and a memory storing executable
2
Appeal 2017-004811
Application 13/750,129
instructions that in response to execution by the processor cause
the apparatus to perform the operations.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1—3, 6, 8, 14—22, 25, 27, 33—41, 44, 46,
and 52—57 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Niles et al.
(US 5,943,679, iss. Aug. 24, 1999) (hereinafter “Niles”), Reintjes et al. (US
2002/0067854 Al, pub. June 6, 2002) (hereinafter “Reintjes”), and Minnis,
Jr. (US 2004/0088232 Al, pub. May 6, 2004) (hereinafter “Minnis”). (Final
Act. 3.)
The Examiner rejected claims 4, 5, 23, 24, 42, and 43 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Niles, Reintjes, Minnis, and Sahai et al.
(US 2011/0185314 Al, pub. July 28, 2011) (hereinafter “Sahai”). (Id. at
13.)
The Examiner rejected claims 6, 7, 25, 26, 44, and 45 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Niles, Reintjes, Minnis, Jr., and
Steelberg (US 2012/0260158 Al, pub. Oct. 11, 2012). (Id. at 14.)
The Examiner rejected claims 7, 26, and 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Niles, Reintjes, Minnis, and Lee et al. (US
2012/0059576 Al, pub. Mar. 8, 2012) (hereinafter “Lee”). (Id. at 16.)
The Examiner rejected claims 9, 28, and 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Niles, Reintjes, Minnis, and Conlon et al. (US
6,411,313 Bl, iss. June 25, 2002) (hereinafter “Conlon”). (Id. at 16.)
The Examiner rejected claims 10, 29, and 48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Niles, Reintjes, Minnis, and Madan et al. (US
2005/0091578 Al, pub. Apr. 28, 2005) (hereinafter “Madan”). (Id. at 17.)
3
Appeal 2017-004811
Application 13/750,129
The Examiner rejected claims 12, 31, and 50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Niles, Reintjes, Minnis, Jr., and Brooks et al. (US
2012/0223920 Al, pub. Sept. 6, 2012) (hereinafter “Brooks”). (Id. at 18.)
The Examiner rejected claims 13, 32, and 51 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Niles, Reintjes, Minnis, Jr., and Kasdan et al.
(US 2005/0033455 Al, pub. Feb. 10, 2005) (hereinafter “Kasdan”). (Id. at
20.)
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
dispositive issue:2
Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Niles,
Reintjes, and Minnis teaches or suggests the independent claim 20
limitation,
wherein processing the event without regard to user
interaction with any field includes launching a browser to
display a web site corresponding to a caption associated with
but located in a pre-defmed spatial area outside of a field on the
displayed page, in response to user interaction with the
respective caption.
(App. Br. 5-7.)
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Aug. 17, 2016) (herein, “App.
Br.”); the Reply Brief (Feb. 2, 2017) (herein, “Reply Br.”); the Final Office
Action (mailed Mar. 17, 2016) (herein, “Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s
Answer (mailed Dec. 15, 2016) (herein, “Ans.”) for the respective details.
4
Appeal 2017-004811
Application 13/750,129
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellants’
arguments, and we adopt as our own (1) the pertinent findings and reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the Final Office Action from which this appeal
is taken (Final Act. 2—24) and (2) the corresponding findings and reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’
Appeal Brief (Ans. 2—21). We concur with the applicable conclusions
reached by the Examiner, and emphasize the following.
In finding the combination of Niles, Reintjes, and Minnis teaches or
suggests the claim limitation at issue, the Examiner relies on the disclosure
in Minnis of a navigation bar having links to start pages of different
subsystems and components. (Final Act. 5—6, citing Minnis | 86.) The
Examiner further relies on the disclosure in Minnis of a sequence in which:
1. link Records 224 in navigation bar 220 (of Figure 2) is activated to
display the start page associated with the Records (Fig. 3);
2. link Account 320 (of Figure 3) is activated to display the account page
(Figure 4);
3. link 430 (of Figure 4) is activated to display a page having a plurality
of fields of a form for a user account (Figure 6A).
(Ans. 20; Minnis, Figs. 2, 3, 4, & 6A, || 86, 90-91, 94.)
Appellants first argue that “Minnis does not disclose that any of its
short cut links are associated with a field on a displayed page of a form.
Rather, the short cut links are merely associated with subsystems and
components of its computerized . . . system.” (Reply Br. 2., emphasis
omitted) Appellants contend the Examiner treats the claimed caption as
5
Appeal 2017-004811
Application 13/750,129
being “associated with area outside the field + located in the area outside
the field” whereas the claimed caption is “associated with form field +
located in the area outside the field.” (Reply Br. 3.)
We are not persuaded by this argument. The Examiner finds, and we
agree, that
the fields in the displayed form in figure 6A are for the account
of a user from the link Records 224 in figure 2. Therefore, the
Records 224, which is a caption, is associated with a field in
figure 6A, and the Records 224 is located in the navigation bar,
which is a predefined area outside of the field as seen in figure
6A.
(Ans. 20-21.) Accordingly, once at the form page shown in Figure 6A,
activating link Records 224 leads to the display of the pages shown in
Figures 3, 4, and 6A, thereby establishing that link Records 224 is
“associated” with the fields shown in the form. Such a claim construction is
not inconsistent with Appellants’ non-limiting use of “associated” in the
Specification, in which touching the caption “may cause” display of a web
site corresponding to the caption. See Reply Br. 3, quoting Spec. 22:2—5.
Appellants’ similar argument that “under no reasonable interpretation
would one skilled in the art consider the logo and word in Minnis to be a
caption in the sense of the claimed invention” (Reply Br. 4) is not
persuasive, as Appellants point to no definition of “caption” in the
Specification that would contradict the Examiner’s finding that the
“Records” shortcut in Figures 2-4 and 6A serves as a caption. Appellants’
citation to the definition found in Dictionary.com is not persuasive, because
selecting the “Records” shortcut leads to form fields that are records to be
manipulated, and thus “Records” provides an explanation of the type of
information that is displayable after the link is activated.
6
Appeal 2017-004811
Application 13/750,129
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 20, as well as independent claims 1 and 39 not separately argued
(App. Br. 7), and all dependent claims not separately argued with
particularity. (Id. at 7—11.)
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we sustain the obviousness rejection of
claims 1—3, 6, 8, 14—22, 25, 27, 33—41, 44, 46, and 52—57 over Niles,
Reintjes, and Minnis.
We also sustain the obviousness rejections of:
1. claims 4, 5, 23, 24, 42, and 43 over Niles, Reintjes, Minnis, and Sahai;
2. claims 6, 7, 25, 26, 44, and 45 over Niles, Reintjes, Minnis, and
Steelberg;
3. claims 7, 26, and 45 over Niles, Reintjes, Minnis, and Lee;
4. claims 9, 28, and 47 over Niles, Reintjes, Minnis, and Conlon;
5. claims 10, 29, and 48 over Niles, Reintjes, Minnis, and Madan;
6. claims 12, 31, and 50 over Niles, Reintjes, Minnis, and Brooks; and
7. claims 13, 32, and 51 over Niles, Reintjes, Minnis, and Kasdan.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—10, 12—29, 31—48, and
50-57 is affirmed.
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
7