Ex Parte MARUM et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 18, 2017

13561504 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 18, 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.
13/561,504 07/30/2012 MATTHEW G. MARUM CAM920120030US2 5567
37945 7590 10/20/2017
DTTKFW YFF
EXAMINER
YEE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. MCINTOSH, ANDREW T
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS, TX 75380 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/20/2017 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):
ptonotifs @yeeiplaw.com
mgamez @ yeeiplaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTHEW G. MARUM, SAMUEL PADGETT,
STEVEN K. SPEICHER, and MICHAEL J. TABB
Appeal 2016-007462
Application 13/561,504
Technology Center 2100
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to dynamic presentation of a results set by a
form-based software application. Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below,
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
Appeal 2016-007462
Application 13/561,504
1. A computer program product comprising:
at least one memory for storing computer program
instructions;
the computer program instructions, responsive to being
executed by at least one processor, to receive a results set by a
form-based presentation optimizer, wherein the results set
comprises at least one data record having at least one data field;
the computer program instructions, responsive to being
executed by at least one processor, to identify at least one form
definition that is applicable to the received results set, wherein
the at least one form definition is associated with a form-based
software application, wherein the results set is to be presented
within a user interface of the form-based software application,
wherein a form definition defines at least one user interface
element for presenting data and a configuration of the at least one
user interface element within the user interface;
the computer program instructions, responsive to being
executed by at least one processor, to dynamically synthesize an
optimal form definition from the at least one identified form
definition and at least one predefined presentation optimization
rule, wherein the optimal form definition defines the
configuration of user interface elements that optimally present
the results set, wherein contents of the optimal form definition
vary based upon a plurality of parameters that are internal and
external to operation of the form-based software application and
form-based presentation optimizer; and
the computer program instructions, responsive to being
executed by at least one processor, to convey at least the optimal
form definition to the form-based software application for
rendering.
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Yan US 2011/0099494 A1 Apr. 28, 2011
2
Appeal 2016-007462
Application 13/561,504
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Yan. Final Act. 2—9.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments the Examiner has erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 9, and
15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Yan. We agree with
Appellants’ conclusions as to this rejection of the claims.
Appellants argue
The GUI specifications in Yan are pre-defmed by the developer
and do not vary (note that this is identified as a problem by
Appellants in para. 0004). So, the GUI in Yan is adapted only
based upon the display. This is unrelated to the claimed
limitation. According to the claimed limitation, an optimal form
definition is dynamically synthesized based upon the form
definition identifiedfor the results set and at least one predefined
presentation optimization rule. The optimal form definition
defines configuration of user interface elements that optimally
present the results set. There is nothing in Yan that teaches or
suggest dynamic identification of user interface elements that
optimally present the results set and defining configurations for
such user interface elements.
App. Br. 12. The Examiner responds by finding Yan’s layout manager and
GUI generator determine the layout of each of the electronic form
components based on GUI settings. Ans. 12. Appellants reply:
Yan[’s] ‘layout’ [asserted by the Examiner as equivalent to the
disputed results set] is what is actually rendered in the GUI,
whereas the claimed ‘results set’ is an intermediate form of
information that is subsequently processed in order to form an
‘optimal form definition’, and the ‘optimum form definition’ —
and not the ‘results set’ — is what is used for rendering (per Claim
3
Appeal 2016-007462
Application 13/561,504
1 — “wherein the results set is to be presented within a user
interface of the form-based software application” and “convey at
least the optimal form definition to the form-based software
application for rendering”). Therefore, Yan does not anticipate
Claim 1 since the ‘layout’ does not have the
characteristics/features of the claimed ‘results set’ that is
subsequently processed to form an ‘optimum form definition’ for
rendering.
Reply Br. 3.
We do not agree with the Examiner that Yan discloses the claimed
results set which is used to dynamically generate an optimal form definition.
Although the Examiner explains what is asserted to be disclosed by Yan
(Ans. 12), this explanation does not address Appellants’ contention that
Yan’s layout is rendered and, accordingly, is not the same and cannot
anticipate the disputed results set that is dynamically processed to generate
an optimal form definition of user interface elements that optimally present
the result set. Because the issue raised by the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) is that of anticipation, we neither address nor decide whether Yan’s
layout renders the disputed limitation obvious. Therefore, based on the
record before us, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 and,
for similar reasons, the rejection of independent claims 9 and 15 which
include similar limitations. Furthermore, we do not sustain the rejection of
dependent claims 2—8, 10-14, and 16—20 which stand with their respective
independent claim. Although Appellants raise additional contentions of
error, we do not reach them as our resolution of this contention is dispositive
of the appealed rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
4
Appeal 2016-007462
Application 13/561,504
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—20.
REVERSED
5