Ex Parte Engel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 26, 2017

13838087 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 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.
13/838,087 03/15/2013 Glenn R. Engel 20130073-01 9979
126187 7590 06/28/2017
Key sight Technologies, Inc.
In care of: CPA Global
900 Second Avenue South
Suite 600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
WENG, PEI YONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2179
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2017 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):
key sightdocketing @ cpaglobal. com
notice, legal @key sight, com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GLENN R. ENGEL and JONATHAN HELFMAN
Appeal 2017-004580
Application 13/838,087
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, DENISE M. POTHIER, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—9. App. Br. 2.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We affirm.
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Action (Final Act.)
mailed May 10, 2016, (2) the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed October 6, 2016,
(3) the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed December 2, 2016, and (4) the
Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed February 1, 2017.
Appeal 2017-004580
Application 13/838,087
The Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to
a method for operating a data processing system having a
display screen on which a GUI [(graphical user interface)] is
displayed. The GUI has a plurality of configurations. . . . The
method includes providing a layout description and a runtime
system that generates the GUI in response to the layout
description and the display configuration.
Spec. 14; see id. 20, Figs. 1A—2.
Claim 1 is reproduced below with emphasis:
1. A method for operating a data processing system having a
display screen on that data processing system on which a GUI
is displayed, said display screen having a plurality of
configurations, said method comprising
providing a layout description on said data processing
system; and
providing a runtime system operable on said data
processing system that generates said GUI in response to said
layout description and said display screen configuration,
said layout description defining a first container having a
plurality of components to be shown in said GUI within a first
container space, each component having a component layout
description within said first container, wherein
said runtime system automatically detects said display
screen configuration, allocates said first container space
depending on said display screen configuration, and
automatically divides said first container space into a plurality
of component spaces, each component being shown in a
corresponding one of said component spaces, said first
container space and said component spaces automatically
changing when said display screen configuration changes.
2
Appeal 2017-004580
Application 13/838,087
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Halstead, Jr. (Halstead) US 2002/0118193 A1 Aug. 29, 2002
Jobs US 2008/0122796 A1 May 29, 2008
Parikh US 2009/0132578 A1 May 21, 2009
The Rejections
Claims 1—5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Halstead and Jobs. Final Act. 3—6.
Claims 6—8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Halstead, Jobs, and Parikh. Final Act. 6—7.
OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER HALSTEAD AND JOBS
Claims 1, 5, and 9
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds Halstead teaches a
method for operating a data processing system having a display screen on a
GUI comprising providing a layout description defining a first container
having a plurality of components and providing a runtime system that
generates the GUI in response to the layout description and the display
configuration. Final Act. 3 (citing Halstead, Abstract, || 2, 7—11, 38-40).
The Examiner further finds Halstead teaches the first container space and the
component spaces automatically change when the display configuration
changes. Final Act. 4 (citing Halstead 55—69). The Examiner turns to
Jobs, in combination with Halstead, to teach a runtime system (1) operable
on a data processing system and (2) automatically (a) detecting display
screen configuration change and (b) changing the spaces’ layout according
to a screen configuration change. See Final Act. 4—5 (citing Jobs 98—99,
420, 761, 983, Figs. 16A-B, 44A-G).
3
Appeal 2017-004580
Application 13/838,087
Appellants argue that Halstead does not teach its “preference file is
changed in anyway [sic] in response to the client device that is accessing the
website, no less the screen size and orientation of the display in that device.”
App. Br. 5. Appellants assert that Halstead provides user preferences “for
the layout prior to the runtime determining the layout,” and that “[t]here is
no teaching in Halstead of generating the fiducial locations from an overall
size of the GUI in either orientation.” Id. When combining Halstead with
Jobs’ teachings, Appellants assert “the runtime system would not be on the
data processing system having the GUI [but] would be on the server at the
website, which is remote from the client device having the display.” Id.', see
also Reply Br. 1—2.
ISSUES
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Halstead and Jobs collectively would have taught or suggested
(1) “providing a runtime system operable on said data processing
system that generates said GUI” and
(2) “said runtime system automatically detects said display screen
configuration . . ., said first container space and said components spaces
automatically changing when said display screen configuration changes”?
ANALYSIS
We agree with the Examiner that some of Appellants’ arguments
concern features that are not recited in claim 1. Ans. 8. For example,
Appellants argue Halstead does not teach “the preference file is changed in
anyway [sic] in response to the client device that is accessing the website, no
4
Appeal 2017-004580
Application 13/838,087
less screen size and orientation of the display in that device.” App. Br. 5.
However, claim 1 recites “said layout description defining a first container
having a plurality of components to be shown in said GUI within a first
container space,” and “said first container space and said component spaces
automatically changing when said display screen configuration changes.”
Id. at 10 (Claims App’x).
The Examiner maps Halstead’s “preference file” to the recited “layout
description.” Final Act. 3 (citing Halstead 137 (discussing a preferred data
structure (a) defining size preferences called an “elastic,” and (b) comprising
stretch and compression properties)); Ans. 9 (discussing “a preference file”
in the context of Halstead Tflf 37—38). As such, Appellants’ argument related
to the preference file can be viewed as asserting Halstead does not teach
changing the recited “layout description”. See App. Br. 5.
Yet, the container and component spaces that are changed when the
display screen configuration changes as recited in claim 1 are not part of the
layout description. App. Br. 10 (Claims App’x). Rather, as claimed, the
layout description defines a first container and its components, and the first
container and its components are to be shown in a GUI within a first
container space. Id. Accordingly, arguments concerning “the layout
generated by Halstead does not change” are not commensurate in scope with
claim 1. Id. at 5. Nor does claim 1 require this automatic change be in
response to (1) a client device accessing a website or (2) a screen size as
argued. See id.
Appellants also assert that Halstead does not teach “generating the
fiducial locations from an overall size of the GUI in either orientation.”
App. Br. 5. Claim 1 does not recite “an overall size of the GUI” as argued
5
Appeal 2017-004580
Application 13/838,087
or generating locations based on the GUI size. Id. at 10 (Claims App’x).
Rather, claim 1 recites “providing a runtime system . . . that generates said
GUI in response to said layout description and said display screen
configuration.” Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
Additionally, some of Appellants’ assertions are not supported by
sufficient evidence. App. Br. 5. For example, without providing any
citation from Halstead, Appellants contend its “runtime optimization
program does not know what the screen parameters are of the GUI that will
be attached in the future to the server on which the runtime optimization
program is running” and “if the orientation changes, . . . this would require a
new layout file . . . [and t]his information must be provided by the user in the
system of Halstead.” App. Br. 5. Appellants further argue that “the runtime
system would not be on the data processing system having the GUI, [but]
would be on the server at the website, which is remote from the client device
having the display.” Id. Given the insufficiency of the evidence, we are not
persuaded.
In contrast with Appellants’ contentions, we further note the recited
“data processing system” in claim 1 is not limited to a client device as
argued. See App. Br. 5—6. The Specification parallels a “data processing
system” to a computer. See Spec. 1 55. Although this informs our
construction of the recited phrase “data processing system,” we decline to
import such an embodiment into claim 1. As such, the broadly recited “data
processing system” may include a computer, a display, and a remote server
and does not require the data processing system to be only a client computer.
Regardless, the Examiner states “it is well known in the art that a web
server can be located on the same computer as the web client, i.e. [,] web
6
Appeal 2017-004580
Application 13/838,087
browser.” Ans. 9. Appellants acknowledge the Examiner’s finding of what
is well known (Reply Br. 1), but still assert that “the Examiner has not
pointed to any teaching of a web server being implemented on the same
computer as a browser that is programmed to query that web server.” Id.
This contested requirement of a web server being implemented on the same
computer as a browser that is programmed to query the web server is not
found in claim 1.
The Examiner also explains that “runtime” as recited in claim 1 means
“‘when a program is running’”2 and determines “when you start a program
running [o]n a computer, it is runtime for that program.” Ans. 8. Appellants
do not dispute this understanding of “runtime” or these findings in the Reply
Brief. See generally Reply Br. We thus find the Examiner’s understanding
of “a runtime system” reasonable. Ans. 8—9.
The Examiner then equates “software written in Java, Curl, and TeX”
in Halstead as “a runtime system” as recited (e.g., the software uses a Java
2 Ans. 8 (citing
http://searchsoftwarequality.techtarget.com/defmitiorfrunning) (no longer
active). See also The Oxford Dictionary of Computing defining “run-time
system” as “[a] collection of procedures that support a high-level language at
run time, providing functions such as storage allocation, input/output, etc.”
The Oxford Dictionary of Computing 400 (3d ed. 1990). The additional
citation to Wikipedia is not reliable. See Bing Shun Li v. Holder, 400 F.
App’x. 854, 857 (5th Cir. 2010) (unpublished)
(noting Wikipedia's unreliability and citing Badasa v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d
909, 910—11 (8th Cir. 2008)); see also Ex parte Three-Dimensional Media
Group, Ltd., No. 2009-004087, 2010 WL 3017280 (BPAI 2010) (non-
precedential), at *17 (“Wikipedia is generally not considered to be as
trustworthy as traditional sources for several reasons, for example, because
(1) it is not peer reviewed; (2) the authors are unknown; and (3) apparently
anyone can contribute to the source definition”).
7
Appeal 2017-004580
Application 13/838,087
runtime system), and contends the display in Halstead will “automatically
adjust the size of [a] GUI component to fit [to the] screen configuration”
upon executing a runtime system (e.g., generate a GUI in response to the
display configuration and allocate spaces depending on the display
configuration as recited). Id. at 8—9 (citing Halstead H 2—6, 37—38). As an
example, Halstead teaches languages, such as Java used with the Internet,
can modify the layout of graphical objects in variable sized windows. See
Halstead H 2—3. Halstead also teaches object dimensions are changed as the
layout changes, but that languages, such as Curl and TeX, allow for changes
to be dependent on user preferences. See id. 114—5, 37; see also id. 1155-
69.
As such, the record demonstrates that Halstead teaches or suggests
detecting the recited “display screen configuration”— albeit not a portrait or
landscape configuration as argued but not recited (see App. Br. 5)—and thus
suggests “said runtime system automatically detects a display screen
configuration [and] allocates said first container space depending on said
display screen configuration” as recited. Moreover, although the Examiner
states Halstead does not expressly show the runtime system operable on a
data processing system, Halstead teaches processing the layout of different
graphical objects by associating elastics with objects. Halstead
137. The above discussion of a runtime program used to adjust the GUI
components on a display screen at least implies to one skilled in the art
providing a runtime system operable on a data processing system having a
display screen as recited.
In any event, the Examiner relies on Halstead and Jobs to teach the
recited features in claim 1 of (1) “providing a runtime system on said data
8
Appeal 2017-004580
Application 13/838,087
processing system that generates said GUI in response to said layout
description and said display screen configuration,” and (2) “said runtime
system automatically detects said display screen configuration . . . said first
container space and said component spaces automatically changing when
said display screen configuration changes.” See Final Act. 3—5 (citing
Halstead H 2, 7-9, 38-40, 55-69 and Jobs H 98-99, 420, 761, 983, Figs.
16A—B, 44A—G). In formulating the obviousness rejection, the Examiner
cites Jobs, when combined with Halstead, to teach changing a display layout
on a GUI according to a screen configuration change and automatically
changing the first container space and component spaces when the display
screen configuration changes. See Final Act. 4—5 (citing Jobs Tflf 98—99, 420,
761, 983, Figs. 16A—B, 44A—G); see also Ans. 9.
Specifically, Jobs teaches detecting a change in orientation (e.g.,
portrait or landscape) and rotating the user interface in response to the
detected change. Jobs 1420, Figs. 16A—B. The Examiner further states “it
is well known in the art that a web server can be located on the same
computer as the web client, i.e.[,] web browser.” Ans. 9. Combining all
these teachings predictably yields to one of ordinary skill in the art no more
than providing a runtime system operable on the data processing system as
recited, and the runtime system automatically detecting the display screen
configuration and changing the container space and components spaces
when the display screen changes as recited. See KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Moreover, accounting for inferences and
creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have employed,
such a combination allows for a better presentation of the graphical content.
See Final Act. 5.
9
Appeal 2017-004580
Application 13/838,087
Regarding this combination, Appellants argue the runtime system
would not be on a data processing system having a GUI, but would be
removed from such a system. App. Br. 5—6. As noted above, the “data
processing system” does not require the system be a client computer as this
argument implies. On this record, Appellants have provided insufficient
evidence that, when combining Jobs with Halstead, its runtime system,
which includes software, such as Java or Curl (see Ans. 8), is not operable
on the “data processing system” as recited in claim 1.
Appellants also argue that “there are two possibilities” of how the
combined Halstead/Jobs system is arranged when combined. Reply Br. 2.
First, Appellants assert “the web client is on the web server of Halstead”; in
which case, “there is no showing that the web server of Halstead has a
display that has more than one configuration.” Id. Second, Appellants
contend “the web server is on the handheld device of Jobs”; in which case,
“the system of Halstead already knows the configurations of the Jobs device,
and hence, automatically calculating new layouts serves no purpose.” Id.
We are not persuaded.
These arguments attack each reference individually and do not
consider what the references collectively explained.
Moreover, “[fjhe test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the
primary reference.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). “Rather,
the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary' skill in the art.” See id.
As claimed, the data processing system with a display is not limited to
a web server/client with a display screen or a client device with a web
10
Appeal 2017-004580
Application 13/838,087
server. Even so, the Examiner determines, and we agree, that teachings in
the record illustrate a runtime system operable on the data processing system
that includes the display system that is located on the client side (see Ans.
9), and Jobs expressly shows how one such display system adjusts a display
layout (e.g., container spaces and component spaces) during runtime based
on the display screen’s configuration (see id. (citing Jobs, Figs. 16A-B)).
When combined, the Halstead/Jobs method includes a “runtime system
operable on said data processing system” that detects a display screen
configuration (e.g., portrait or landscape) and changes the container space
and component spaces (e.g., rotating the user interface) when the display
screen configuration changes to better display content. See Final Act. 4—5
(citing Jobs H 98-99, 420, 761, 983, Figs. 16A-B, 44A-G).
Moreover, Appellants contend that Halstead already knows the
configuration of Jobs’ device in the second, purported possibility. Reply Br.
2. Although no citations are provided, we presume Appellants argue this
second possibility of known configuration would be based on the user-
defined preferences discussed in Halstead. Yet, to the extent this is argued,
it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use modem electronic
components, such as a processor to change spaces in a GUI automatically, to
obtain the commonly understood benefits of simplified operations. See
Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161—62 (Fed.
Cir. 2007). Appellants have not provided sufficient evidence that one skilled
in the art would not have recognized using such components to serve the
purpose of calculating new display layouts for the spaces in Halstead/Jobs
system automatically “when said display screen configuration changes” as
recited in claim 1.
11
Appeal 2017-004580
Application 13/838,087
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 5 and 9 not separately
argued.
Claim 2
Claim 2 depends from claim 1. Appellants contend that Halstead fails
to teach the layout description is operable on the data processing system that
has a display on which the GUI is displayed. App. Br. 6. Appellants
contend the layout description is on the server at the website and not the
client device accessing the website. Id. We are not persuaded.
Notably, the recitation of “providing a layout description on said data
processing system” and the “data processing system having a display
screen” are located in claim 1, for which claim 2 depends. Also, as noted by
the Examiner, claim 1 does not require the layout description be located on
the client. Ans. 10. Rather, the layout description is recited as being
provided “on said data processing system” (App. Br. 10 (Claims App’x)),
which may include more than a client device accessing the website as
previously explained. Even so, the Examiner determines that locating the
web server on the same system as the client is known (Ans. 9—10), for which
Appellants do not dispute. We refer above for more details.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the rejection of claim 2.
Claim 3
Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and further recites “said vertical or
horizontal space assigned to each component is equal to said vertical or
horizontal space, respectively, of each other component.” App. Br. 11
12
Appeal 2017-004580
Application 13/838,087
(Claims App’x). The Examiner turns to Halstead to teach this feature. Final
Act. 5 (citing Halstead 111); Ans. 10—11 (citing Halstead 7—11, 52, Fig.
1). Appellants contend that paragraph 11 of Halstead fails to teach the space
is divided equally. App. Br. 6. We are not persuaded.
Halstead teaches in paragraph 11 the size allocated to a constraint
(e.g., a component) grouped within a series constraint is divided to size
preferences of constituent constraints within the series constraint and to the
overall size allocated to the constituent constraints, suggesting some type of
division among spaces assigned to each component. See Halstead 111. For
example, Halstead shows in Figure 1 the assigned horizontal spacing for
certain components, such as the team names (e.g., Yankees, Boston,
Toronto, Baltimore, Tampa Bay) of a first container space (e.g., the space
defined by the dotted box that contains the AT (American Teague) East team
names. Halstead, Fig. 1. Each component (e.g., each team name) in this
container has approximately equal horizontal spacing. See id.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue that one cannot rely on the
physical dimensions in a figure absent text in the disclosure. Reply Br. 2.
We agree that courts have cautioned against an overreliance on drawings
that are neither expressly to scale or linked to quantitative values in the
disclosure. See Krippelz v. Ford Motor Co., 667 F.3d 1261, 1268 (Fed. Cir.
2012); see also the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP)
§ 2125(11). Nonetheless, given this rejection is based on obviousness, we
determine one skilled in the art would have drawn an inference from
Halstead’s Figure 1 to space horizontally its components (e.g., team names)
equally in order to present the information in an orderly and easy to read
manner. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (stating an obviousness “analysis need
13
Appeal 2017-004580
Application 13/838,087
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.”)
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the rejection of claim 3.
Claim 4
Claim 4 depends from claim 2. Claim 4 recites the “layout
description specifies a layout weight for one of said components in said first
container and wherein said runtime system divides said vertical or horizontal
space in a manner that depends on the weight.” App. Br. 11 (Claims
App’x). The Examiner turns to Halstead to teach this feature. Final Act. 5
(citing Halstead 112); Ans. 11.
Appellants contend that Halstead’s elastic property of an object
determines how the object can be stretched or compressed in filling an
assigned space, but the space itself is not set by the elastic properties. App.
Br. 7 (citing Halstead 112). We are not persuaded.
We agree with the Examiner that the recited “weight” has not been
defined in the disclosure and can include Halstead’s elastic property that
specifies a layout weight for a component (e.g., a fiducial, which is
horizontal or vertical reference lines of grid and table elements) as recited.
See Halstead H 7, 12. In the Reply Brief, Appellants assert that the recited
term “weight” has been defined in the disclosure to assign relative sizes of
components. Reply Br. 2 (citing Spec. 131). We disagree, because the
Specification discusses “the weight mechanism” “[i]n one aspect of the
present invention,” but does not define this term. Spec. 131.
14
Appeal 2017-004580
Application 13/838,087
Halstead teaches or suggests traversing the fiducial graph’s constraints
in a forward or reverse direction to obtain size preferences at each fiducial.
See id. Halstead also states this process involves adding size preferences,
which include elastic properties that may include stretch or compression
properties, to fiducials in a fiducial graphs. See id. H 8, 12. As these
fiducials include horizontal references lines for the grids or tables (see id.
17), we further determine that Halstead’s traversal techniques concern the
spacing of each horizontal reference line (e.g., horizontal space) of the grid
or table. See id. Thus, Halstead suggests a runtime system that divides the
horizontal space in a manner that depends on the space’s elastic property
(e.g., a weight). See id.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the rejection of claim 4.
OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER HALSTEAD, JOBS, AND PARIKH
Claims 6—8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Halstead, Jobs, and Parikh. Final Act. 6. Claims 6 and 7 are separately
argued and addressed.
Claim 6
Claim 6 recites “a first one of said components comprises text to be
displayed in said GUI and wherein said runtime system automatically sets a
text font for that component based on a first font group specification in said
layout description for that component.” App. Br. 11 (Claims App’x). The
Examiner relies on Halstead and Parikh to teach these features. See id.
(citing Halstead H 5—6 and Parikh 118).
15
Appeal 2017-004580
Application 13/838,087
Appellants repeat that Halstead and Jobs do not teach the limitations
of claim 1 and Parikh does provide the missing features. App. Br. 7. We are
not persuaded for reasons previously stated.
Appellants next contend there is no teaching that the layout
description specifies a font group. App. Br. 8. Appellants also argue Parikh
monitors font changes when changes are made outside the system and thus
there is no teaching that the runtime sets the text font as recited. Id. We are
not persuaded.
As to the later comment, Appellants provide insufficient evidence that
Parikh monitors changes “outside of the Parikh system.” Id. (providing no
citation from Parikh for this assertion). Counsel’s arguments cannot take the
place of factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100
F.3d 135, 139-40 (Fed. Cir. 1996). We further agree with the Examiner that
Parikh, when combined with Halstead and Jobs, teaches a runtime system
that includes code for setting or changing font size. See Parikh 118, cited in
Ans. 11.
The Examiner states that claim 6 does not recite the layout description
specifies a font group. Ans. 11. This is technically correct; yet, claim 6
recites “a first font group specification in said layout description for that
component.” App. Br. 11 (Claims App’x) (emphasis added). Parikh teaches
a layout manager application changing a font size for text, suggesting that
this change is based on some font specification and concerns a group (e.g.,
letters of the alphabet). See Parikh || 16, 18. Moreover, Parikh suggests
that this font group specification is part of a layout manager application that
updates font sizes of user interface elements on a device. See id. Thus,
when combined with Halstead and Jobs, the method teaches or suggests a
16
Appeal 2017-004580
Application 13/838,087
runtime system sets a text font in particular box (e.g., a component) based on
the font group specification, which is contained within a layout description.
Accordingly, the weight of the evidence in the record favors the
Examiner’s conclusion that claim 6 is obvious.
Claims 7 and 8
Claim 7 depends from claim 6 and recites “a second of said
components also has said first font group specification and wherein said
runtime system automatically determines a font that ensures that both
components have their text properly displayed, said font changing with said
display configuration.” The Examiner finds that Halstead and Parikh teach
claim 7’s limitations. Final Act. 7 (citing Halstead H 5—6 and Parikh 118);
Ans. 11 (citing Parikh 118). Appellants argue they “can find no such
teaching at the cited paragraphs.” App. Br. 8. We are not persuaded.
Specifically, Parikh teaches changing the font size of text within a text
box. Parikh 118, cited in both Final Act. 7 and Ans. 11. As discussed
above, Parikh suggests the text is based on a first font group specification.
Additionally, Parikh discusses running a layout manager program that may
impact user interface elements, suggesting that the font size of multiple text
in text boxes may be changed. See id. As such, Parikh, when combined
with Halstead and Jobs, teaches and suggests “a second of said components
also has said first font group specification” and the “runtime system
automatically determines a font that ensures that both components have their
text properly displayed, said font changing with said display configuration”
as recited.
17
Appeal 2017-004580
Application 13/838,087
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the rejection of claim 7 and dependent claim 8, which is not separately
argued.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—9 under § 103.
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
18