Ex Parte Hunt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 19, 2013

11342769 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 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.
11/342,769 01/30/2006 Christian L. Hunt RSW920050158US1 (219) 1717
46320 7590 11/20/2013
CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''''KEEFE, LLP
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, FL 33434
EXAMINER
SMITH, TIONNA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/20/2013 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 CHRISTIAN L. HUNT, CHARLES LE VAY,
ETHAN K. MERRILL, and JAKE PALMER1
____________

Appeal 2011-012763
Application 11/342,769
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before MELANIE L. McCOLLUM, ERICA A. FRANKLIN, and
TINA E. HULSE, Administrative Patent Judges.

HULSE, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims relating to
the layout of content for displays of pervasive devices. The Examiner
rejected certain claims as directed to nonstatutory subject matter, and
rejected all claims as anticipated or obvious. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as International Business
Machines Corporation. (App. Br. 2.)
Appeal 2011-012763
Application 11/342,769

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1-16 are on appeal. (App. Br. 2.)
Claim 1 is representative and is reproduced below:
1. A dynamic content layout method for pervasive
devices, the method comprising:
obtaining display characteristics for a host pervasive
device;
locating a layout mode corresponding to the obtained
display characteristics; and,
arranging panels of a graphical user interface for an
application in the host pervasive device according to the located
layout mode.

The claims stand rejected as follows:
 Claims 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Ans. 3-4);
 Claims 1, 4-7, 9, 11, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Wong2 (id. at 5-9);
 Claims 2, 3, 8, 10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Wong in view of Jennings3 (id. at 9-
13).
DISCUSSION
The claimed invention relates to content layout for displays of
“pervasive devices,” which refers to “any non-constrained computing device
not physically tethered to a data communications network.” (Spec. ¶ [004].)
The Examiner rejected certain claims reciting a “computer usable medium”

2 Wong et al., US 2003/0063120 A1, published April 3, 2003.
3 Jennings, US 6,717,593, issued April 6, 2004.
Appeal 2011-012763
Application 11/342,769

3
under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Thus, the first issue we consider is whether the
Examiner erred in finding the claims reciting a “computer useable medium”
encompass nonstatutory subject matter.
The Examiner also rejected independent claims 1, 7, and 11 as
anticipated by Wong, and the dependent claims as either anticipated or
obvious. Appellants concede that the dependent claims stand or fall with the
independent claims. (App. Br. 6, 10.) Thus, the second issue we consider is
whether the preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s
conclusion that Wong anticipates claims 1, 7, and 11.

Findings of Fact
1. The Examiner rejected claims 11-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to nonstatutory subject matter. (Ans. 4.)
2. Claims 11-16 recite, inter alia, “[a] computer program product
comprising a computer usable medium embodying computer usable program
code for dynamic content layout.”
3. The Specification states:
[A] computer-usable or computer readable medium can be any
apparatus that can contain, store, communicate, propagate, or
transport the program for use by or in connection with the
instruction execution system, apparatus, or device. The medium
can be an electronic, magnetic, optical, electromagnetic,
infrared, or semiconductor system (or apparatus or device) or a
propagation medium.
(Spec. ¶ [0029].)
4. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4-7, 9, 11, and 14-16 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Wong. (Ans. 14-15.)
Appeal 2011-012763
Application 11/342,769

4
5. Appellants assert that “[i]ntegral to claim 1 (and also claim 7
and 11) arrangement of panels of a GUI for an application according to a
layout mode that has been located in correspondence to obtained display
characteristics. This claimed teaching cannot be found in the Wong
reference.” (App. Br. 7.)
6. Wong is entitled “Scalable Graphical User Interface
Architecture” and “relates generally to graphical user interfaces (GUI) and,
more particularly, to a scalable GUI architecture to adapt applications to the
user interface of different heterogeneous device platforms.” (Wong ¶
[0001].)
7. The Examiner found that paragraph [0011] of Wong discloses
“arranging panels of a graphical user interface for an application in the host
pervasive device according to the located layout mode.” (Ans. 5) (emphasis
omitted.)
8. Paragraph [0011] of Wong teaches that “[t]he transformation
manager module may dynamically configure the graphical user interface
components and logical panels based on the hierarchy of the logic structure
and constraints specified by the application GUI.” (Wong ¶ [0011].)
9. Wong also teaches that:
In addition the transformation manager may also selectively
transform the graphical user interface components to adjust the
size of the page(s) and maximize the fill of the display screen as
a second part of the dynamic configuration. Selective
transformation of the graphical user interface components may
include resizing the components and selecting alternative
graphical user interface components based on transformation
rules.
(Id.)
Appeal 2011-012763
Application 11/342,769

5
10. Appellants argued:
[I]n Wong, any arrangement of GUI components occurs
according to constraints specified by the application GUI itself.
Further, only a selection of or resizing of GUI components
occurs in respect to rules external to the application GUI,
however there is no teaching in Wong that those rules are
specific to a layout mode that has been located to correspond to
display characteristics of a particular pervasive device as
claimed.
(App. Br. 10) (emphasis omitted.)
11. The Examiner found that paragraph [0064] of Wong teaches
“locating a layout mode corresponding to the obtained display
characteristics.” (App. Br. 8; Ans. 14-15; Ans. 5) (emphasis omitted.)
12. Wong teaches that “[m]apping within the scalable GUI
component library module 22 preferably maps SGUI components to device-
specific GUI components in other libraries. This mapping may occur where
corresponding device-specific GUI components are available in the device-
specific GUI libraries.” (Wong ¶ [0064].)
13. The Examiner found that “[t]he layout mode can be device-
specific, including scalable components mapped to device-specific GUI
libraries (see Wong paragraph [0064]).” (Ans. 14-15.)
14. Appellants did not respond to the Examiner’s citation of
paragraph [0064] as disclosing “locating a layout mode corresponding to the
obtained display characteristics.”
15. Wong discloses that the transformation manager may use the
scalable GUI component library to selectively transform the SGUI
components with transformation rules:
Appeal 2011-012763
Application 11/342,769

6
In general, the transformation manager module 50 may
utilize the scalable GUI component library 22 (FIG. 2) to
dynamically configure the IR tree. Dynamic configuration of
the IR tree includes placing the SGUI components represented
in the IR tree on a page(s) of the corresponding presentation as
well as selectively transforming the SGUI components with
transformation rules.
(Wong ¶ [0090].)
16. Wong discloses that the “resizing component module 52 [of the
transformation manager] may provide rules to adjust the size of the SGUI
components based on the size of the display screen of a target device
platform.” (Id. ¶ [0091].)

Analysis
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
The Examiner rejected claims 11-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. (FF 1.)
Each of these claims recites “[a] computer program product comprising a
computer usable medium embodying computer usable program code for
dynamic content layout.” (FF 2.)
The Federal Circuit has found that transitory, propagating signals are
not within any of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter
identified in § 101—i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of
matter. In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“A transitory,
propagating signal . . . is not a ‘process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter.’ [These] four categories define the explicit scope and
reach of subject matter patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101; thus, such a signal
cannot be patentable subject matter.”). Moreover, “[a] claim that covers
both statutory and non-statutory embodiments . . . embraces subject matter
Appeal 2011-012763
Application 11/342,769

7
that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-
statutory subject matter.” MPEP § 2106(I) (8th ed., rev. 2012); cf. In re
Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1015 (CCPA 1972) (citation omitted) (“Claims
which are broad enough to read on obvious subject matter are unpatentable
even though they also read on nonobvious subject matter.”).
Appellants argue that the claimed “computer-readable medium when
interpreted in light of Appellants’ specification is a machine.” (App. Br. 5.)
Appellants then assert that because the Specification indicates that
“computer-executable instructions (in the form of logic or computer code)
are stored on one or more computer readable media as part of a computer,”
the claimed computer-readable medium is a machine or manufacture. (Id. at
5-6 nn. 1-2) (citing Ex parte Holmstead, Appeal No. 2009-1485, 2009 WL
1683192 (BPAI May 20, 2009)).
Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive. Unlike the specification in
Holmstead, Appellants’ Specification also states that “a computer-usable or
computer readable medium can be any tangible apparatus that can contain,
store, communicate, propagate, or transport the program,” and “[t]he
medium can be an electronic, magnetic, optical, electromagnetic, infrared, or
semiconductor system (or apparatus or device) or a propagation medium.”
Compare FF 3 (emphasis added) with Holmstead, 2009 WL 1683192, at *4.
We find that, giving claims 11-16 their broadest reasonable interpretation in
light of the Specification, the claims do not preclude code delivered over a
signal. Accordingly, we conclude that claims 11-16 encompass nonstatutory
subject matter and affirm the Examiner’s rejection under § 101.

Appeal 2011-012763
Application 11/342,769

8
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4-7, 9, 11, and 14-16 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Wong. (FF 4.) Appellants argue that Wong fails to
teach the “integral limitation” of independent claims 1, 7, and 11—i.e.,
“arrangement of panels of a GUI for an application according to a layout
mode that has been located in correspondence to obtained display
characteristics.” (FF 5.) Specifically, Appellants assert that, as seen in
paragraph [0011] in Wong, which was cited by the Examiner, “any
arrangement of GUI components occurs according to constraints specified
by the application GUI itself.” (FF 10.) Moreover, Appellants contend that
“only a selection of or resizing of GUI components occurs in respect to rules
external to the application GUI, however there is no teaching in Wong that
those rules are specific to a layout mode that has been located to correspond
to display characteristics of a particular pervasive device as claimed.” (Id.)
In essence, Appellants’ argument can be parsed into two issues: (1) whether
Wong teaches a layout mode that has been located to correspond to display
characteristics of a particular device; and (2) whether Wong teaches
selecting and resizing of GUI components according to the layout mode
found in (1).
Regarding the first issue, the Examiner found that paragraph [0064]
teaches “locating a layout mode corresponding to the obtained display
characteristics.” (FF 11.) Paragraph [0064] of Wong teaches that
“[m]apping within the scalable GUI component library module 22 preferably
maps SGUI components to device-specific GUI components in other
libraries.” (FF 12.) Accordingly, the Examiner found that “[t]he layout
Appeal 2011-012763
Application 11/342,769

9
mode can be device-specific, including scalable components mapped to
device-specific GUI libraries (see Wong paragraph [0064]).” (FF 13; see
also Ans. 5 (grounds of rejection).) Appellants did not respond to this
finding in either the Appeal Brief or in a Reply Brief (which Appellants did
not file). (FF 14.) Thus, Appellants did not challenge the Examiner’s
finding that mapping SGUI components within the SGUI component library
module 22 to the device-specific GUI libraries teaches the “locating a layout
mode” limitation.
Regarding the second issue relating to the “integral limitation,” we
find that Wong teaches selecting and resizing of GUI components according
to an SGUI component library 22 that is mapped to device-specific GUI
libraries (i.e., the layout mode). Specifically, Wong discloses that the
transformation manager may “utilize the scalable GUI component library 22
to . . . selectively transform[] the SGUI components with transformation
rules.” (FF 15.) And, as discussed above, Wong teaches that the scalable
GUI component library 22 “preferably maps SGUI components to device-
specific GUI components in other libraries.” (FF 12.) Wong further teaches
that the “resizing component module 52 [of the transformation manager]
may provide rules to adjust the size of the SGUI components based on the
size of the display screen of a target device platform.” (FF 16) (emphasis
added). The preponderance of the evidence therefore supports the
Examiner’s finding that Wong teaches that “[t]he components and panels
may be dynamically configured based on the layout mode and obtained
characteristics of the pervasive device.” (Ans. 15.)
Appeal 2011-012763
Application 11/342,769

10
In summary, we find that the preponderance of the evidence supports
the Examiner’s findings that Wong teaches the disputed “integral limitation”
of “arrang[ing] panels of a GUI for an application according to a layout
mode that has been located in correspondence to obtained display
characteristics.” (FF 5, 8-11, 13-17.) We therefore conclude that the
Examiner did not err in finding that Wong anticipates claims 1, 7, and 11.

Conclusions of Law
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11-16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 because the claims encompass nonstatutory subject matter.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 7, and 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 102. Because Appellants concede that claims 4-6, 9, and 14-16
stand or fall with their respective independent claims 1, 7, and 11, and did
not separately argue their patentability, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection
of these claims for the same reasons. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellants have not raised additional arguments regarding the
obviousness rejection. Therefore, we also affirm the obviousness rejection
of claims 2, 3, 8, 10, 12, and 13.

SUMMARY
We affirm all of the rejections on appeal.

Appeal 2011-012763
Application 11/342,769

11
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

cdc