Ex Parte Kracht

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 22, 2012

10963352 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 22, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/963,352 10/12/2004 Stefan Kracht 09700.0065-00 9304
60668 7590 03/23/2012
SAP / FINNEGAN, HENDERSON LLP
901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413
EXAMINER
HAILU, TADESSE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2173
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/23/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte STEFAN KRACHT
____________

Appeal 2010-001590
Application 10/963,352
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
DENISE M. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm.

Appeal 2010-001590
Application 10/963,352

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention is an input field for a graphical user interface
(GUI). The visible width of the input field may not show the maximum
width of the input field. However, when a user activates the input field, a
projected input field is displayed that indicates how much data the user can
enter into the input field. See generally Spec. ¶ 01, 015-017. Claim 1 is
illustrative and reproduced with key disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A method comprising:
on a graphical user interface (GUI), displaying a first input field
having a display width;
activating the first input field in response to a stimulus;
displaying, adjacent to the activated first input field, a second input
field, the second input field having a display width greater than the display
width of the activated first input field, wherein the second input field
indicates a maximum width of the activated first input field, the maximum
width being equal to the display width of the second input field; and
indicating a maximum amount of data allowed to be entered in the
activated first input field by changing the display of the activated first input
field or second input field when the maximum amount of data is entered,
wherein the maximum amount of data is calculated based on the maximum
width.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Fukuji
Hsu
Blanch
Treibach-Heck
JP 09-36934 A
US 5,677,991
US 2003/0144949 A1
US 7,080,325 B2
Feb. 7, 1997
Oct. 14, 1997
July 31, 2003
July 18, 2006
(filed Feb. 22, 2002)

Appeal 2010-001590
Application 10/963,352

3
THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 131, 17, 18, 20,
21, and 25-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Treibach-Heck
and Fukuji. Ans. 3-5.2
2. The Examiner rejected claims 3, 11, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Treibach-Heck, Fukuji, and Blanch. Ans. 5.
3. The Examiner rejected claims 6-8, 14-16, and 22-24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Treibach-Heck, Fukuji, and Hsu.3
Ans. 5-6.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER TREIBACH-HECK AND FUKUJI
The Examiner finds that Treibach-Heck discloses every recited feature
of representative claim 1 except for indicating a maximum amount of data
allowed to be entered in the activated first input field by changing the
display of the activated first input field or second input field when the

1 Although claim 13 depends from claim 14 (and vice-versa) in the Claims
Appendix, we presume that claim 13 depends from claim 12 in accordance
with the Examiner’s undisputed position in this regard. Ans. 2 (“Claims
Appendix” section).
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed February
26, 2009; (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed June 9, 2009; and (3) the Reply
Brief filed July 29, 2009.
3 Although the Examiner cites Blanch, col. 4, lines 1-4, for this rejection, the
heading for the rejection lists “Treibach-Heck, Fukuji, and Hsu,” and the
Examiner mentions Hsu, not Blanch, in concluding that the claims would
have been obvious. Ans. 5-6. Moreover, the citation to Blanch for teaching
that “demarcations include comma(s) or period(s) or symbol(s)” (Ans. 6)
actually references subject matter disclosed in Hsu. See Hsu, col. 4, ll. 1-4.
Thus, we assume the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6-8, 14-16, and 22-24 is
over Treibach-Heck, Fukuji, and Hsu.
Appeal 2010-001590
Application 10/963,352

4
maximum amount of data is entered, but cites Fukuji as teaching this feature
in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Ans. 3-4.
Appellant argues that Treibach-Heck does not disclose a second input
field indicating the maximum width of an activated first input field, the
maximum width being equal to the display width of the second input field.
App. Br. 12-16; Reply Br. 2-3. Specifically, Appellant argues that the
display width of Treibach-Heck’s selection list 520 is based on the choices
included in the selection list, and this width is not equal to the maximum
width of the data entry field 502. App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 2-3. Rather,
Treibach-Heck discloses entering only a portion of a choice from the
selection list into the data entry field, and thus, there is no relationship
between the width of the selection list and the maximum width of the data
entry field. App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 3.
The issue before us, then, is as follows:

ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Treibach-Heck and Fukuji collectively would have taught or suggested a
second input field indicating the maximum width of an activated first input
field, the maximum width being equal to the display width of the second
input field?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
1. Treibach-Heck discloses a graphical input device including an
input field 502 and a selection list 520 that displays the possible choices for
a user. The selection list is displayed as a standard drop-down list below the
Appeal 2010-001590
Application 10/963,352

5
input field upon sensing a focus event for the input field. Treibach-Heck,
col. 10, ll. 17-24; Figs. 2A and 2B. A focus event includes tabbing into the
input field, clicking in the input field, or clicking on the button 503 next to
the input field. Treibach-Heck, col. 9, ll. 60-63; Fig. 2A. The displayed
width of the selection list is the minimum width necessary to display the
choices contained in the list. Treibach-Heck, col. 10, ll. 24-29; Fig. 2B.
2. A user chooses an entry from Treibach-Heck’s selection list and
the chosen entry is entered into the input field. Treibach-Heck, col. 10, l.
62-col. 11, l. 4; col. 11, ll. 19-25. Only a portion of the chosen entry may be
entered into the input field if the chosen entry is too wide to fit in the
displayed field. However, the entry is truncated “merely for the purpose of
display.” Treibach-Heck, col. 11, ll. 25-30; Fig. 2C. “Note that although the
display may be truncated, the actual value internally associated with the
parameter corresponding to the field will remain full-width.” Treibach-
Heck, col. 11, ll. 31-33. A user can display the full-width entry in the input
field by activating the field through a focus event. Treibach-Heck, col. 11,
ll. 33-40.

ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of representative claim 1 which recites, in pertinent
part, “the second input field indicates a maximum width of the activated first
input field, the maximum width being equal to the display width of the
second input field.”
The display width of Treibach-Heck’s selection list is equal to the
maximum width of Treibach-Heck’s input field because the list is as wide as
Appeal 2010-001590
Application 10/963,352

6
necessary to accommodate the longest choice, and the list presents the
possible choices for entry into the input field. See Ans. 8-9; FF 1. In other
words, the selection list displays the longest possible choice for entry into
the input field. We are unconvinced by Appellant’s argument that
Treibach-Heck enters only a portion of a selection list choice into the input
field. App. Br. 15, Reply Br. 3. Importantly, claim 1 only requires that “the
second input field indicates a maximum width of the activated first input
field,” not the maximum display width of the input field. Although
Treibach-Heck’s displayed input field may truncate the selection list choice,
the actual value of the choice stored in the input field remains full-width.
FF 2. This is further evidenced by Treibach-Heck’s capability to re-display
the full-width of the choice stored in the input field by activating the input
field. See Ans. 9; FF 2.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 1, and claims 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 17, 18, 20, 21, and
25-27 not separately argued with particularity.

THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 3, 6-
8, 11, 14-16, 19, and 22-24. Ans. 5-6. Despite nominally arguing these
claims separately, Appellant relies on similar arguments presented regarding
claim 1 and additionally argues that the further cited references do not cure
the previously-noted alleged deficiencies. App. Br. 16-18. We are not
persuaded by these arguments for the reasons previously discussed.

Appeal 2010-001590
Application 10/963,352

7
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-27 under § 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-27 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

rwk