Ex Parte Goring et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 24, 2013

10787935 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2013)

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.
10/787,935 02/27/2004 Brian R. Goring T8468040US 6677
92030 7590 05/24/2013
Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP
Suite 1600 1 First Canadian Place 100 King Street
West
Toronto, ON M5X1G5
CANADA
EXAMINER
KUMAR, ANIL N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/24/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BRIAN R. GORING, MICHAEL SHENFIELD,
KAMEN B. VITANOV and VIERA BIBR
____________
Appeal 2010-011469
Application 10/787,935
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before CARL W.WHITEHEAD, JR, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-8, 11-13, 19-24, 26-28, 31-33, and 39-41. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2010-011469
Application 10/787,935

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to a method and apparatus for
wireless application screen component control utilizing a set of atomic
screen components. See Spec. 25, Abstract of the Disclosure.
Claim 1 is illustrative, with key disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A wireless device having an intelligent execution framework
for executing a wireless application, the application having atomic
screen components expressed in a structured definition language, the
device comprising:

a screen manager of the framework for generating a screen model
from the screen components, the screen model configured for
modeling a screen representation including a set of conditional
controls having at least one primary control and at least one secondary
control providing dynamic screen elements of the screen
representation wherein each secondary control specifying validating
conditions that determine the appearance or behaviour of the
secondary control, the evaluation of which is based on a change in a
linked primary or other secondary control as managed by the
intelligent execution framework at runtime, wherein the conditional
controls are expressed in the structured definition language to defer
implementation logic for the conditional controls to the intelligent
execution framework and wherein the conditional controls determine
their state, selected from the group comprising appearance, control
value, and visibility, by satisfying a predefined screen condition;

a user interface for providing an interactive environment between a
user of the device and the application; and

a user interface service of the framework for providing the screen
representation to the user interface;

wherein the user interacts with the conditional controls displayed on
the user interface during execution of the application.

Appeal 2010-011469
Application 10/787,935

3

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
De Boor US 6,317,781 Nov. 13, 2001
Paul US 7,373,422 B1 May 13, 2008
(Filed May 31, 2001)

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-8, 11-13, 19-24, 26-28, 31-33, and
39-41under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over De Boor and Paul.
Ans. 3-12.1

ISSUES
Based upon our review of the record, the arguments proffered by
Appellants and the findings of the Examiner, we find the following issues to
be dispositive of the claims on appeal:
1. Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-8,
11-13, 19-24, 26-28, 31-33, and 39-41 by finding that De Boor and
Paul disclose or suggest the claim limitation " ... to defer
implementation logic for the conditional controls to the intelligent
execution framework and wherein the conditional controls
determine their state, selected from the group comprising
appearance, control value, and visibility, by satisfying a predefined
screen condition" as set forth in independent claims 1, 21 and 41?
2. Has the Examiner erred by improperly combining De Boor and
Paul in a manner which destroys the intended functionality of those
references?

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed March 25,
2010; and, the Examiner’s Answer mailed May 26, 2010.
Appeal 2010-011469
Application 10/787,935

4
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred by finding that De Boor and
Paul, collectively, disclose or suggest the claim limitation " ... to defer
implementation logic for the conditional controls to the intelligent execution
framework and wherein the conditional controls determine their state,
selected from the group comprising appearance, control value, and visibility,
by satisfying a predefined screen condition" as set forth in independent
claims 1, 21 and 41. App. Br. 14.
Specifically, Appellants argue that the Examiner’s reliance on Paul to
demonstrate the disputed claim feature is misplaced, since although the
“field beans” within Paul describe the attributes and behavior of graphic
elements displayed on the screen of the mobile device, and include event
handling methods, the event handling methods of Paul are for “generic
events…which insulate the application from the details of the mobile
device” and do not provide conditional controls for determining the
appearance of the user interface. Id. at 15.
Appellants argue that the present invention relates to defining and
representing screens on a wireless device from screen components. By
deferring logic for implementation of conditional controls to the framework,
the runtime environment is aware of any dependencies before the screen at
the wireless device is displayed and “may optimize execution or loading of
screen components according to these defined dependencies.” Id. at 15-16.
The Examiner finds that Paul teaches deferring implementation of
conditional controls, i.e. generating “instances of field beans that depend on
conditions at the time a page is generated.” Specifically, Paul teaches that if
the user had previously indicated that the telephone numbers of two people
Appeal 2010-011469
Application 10/787,935

5
named “John Smith” are desired within the current page, the current page
can obtain that information and add those numbers to that page as it is being
built to be displayed. (Paul at Col. 24, ll. 37-52) The Examiner finds this
teaching at least demonstrates a change in the appearance/visibility of the
displayed page. Ans. 6, 13.
The Examiner also finds that transferring some runtime activities to
the client side is well known in the art “with the advent of CGI and script
languages such as Perl and Java script.” Id. at 12.
We concur with the Examiner and find that deferring implementation
of controls to the client side is well known in the art, as demonstrated by
Paul. Further, we find that Paul discloses deferring implementation of
conditional controls, as demonstrated by the example set forth above.
Appellants also argue that the Examiner erred by suggesting the
combination of De Boor and Paul, urging that combination would
“contravene and destroy the functionality that each is intended to perform or
achieve….” Appellants argue that Paul discloses a system in which the
mobile device is not “computationally burdened” by execution of the
application and accordingly teaches away from a system in which the mobile
device-based application is executed at the mobile device. App. Br. 13-14.
The Examiner finds that Paul discloses the option of downloading
documents that use conditional logic which have been generated at the
server side, to the client side when applicable; citing Figure 6B, step 643.
We agree with the Examiner and adopt his findings as our own. "A
reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon
reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out
in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that
Appeal 2010-011469
Application 10/787,935

6
was taken by the applicant." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir.
1994). In the situation before us, where Paul discloses executing documents
that utilize conditional logic at the server side and at the client side, we find
that these references would not discourage one of ordinary skill from
following the path proposed by the Examiner.
As Appellants have not separately argued the patentability of the
dependent claims, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-8,
11-13, 19-24, 26-28, 31-33, and 39-41 as unpatentable under § 103 over
De Boor and Paul.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-8, 11-13, 19-24, 26-28,
31-33, and 39-41 under § 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-8, 11-13, 19-24, 26-28,
31-33, and 39-41 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

pgc