11377987 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 2015)

Ex Parte Misovski

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 11, 2015

11377987 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 111377,987 03/17/2006 50400 7590 12/15/2015 SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP P.O. BOX 2938 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 Filip Misovski 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 2058.269US l/2005P00187US 7157 EXAMINER WONG, WILLIAM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2141 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/15/2015 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): uspto@slwip.com SLW@blackhillsip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte FILIP MISOVSKI Appeal2013-010484 Application 11/377 ,987 Technology Center 2100 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judges. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-13, 15-18, and 20, which are all of the claims currently pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. Appeal2013-010484 Application 11/377 ,987 Il~VENTION Appellant's invention is directed to generating a user interface by merging metadata. Spec. 1 :3--4. Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A method of creating a user interface, the method compnsmg: receiving a request to create a user interface (UI) for an application that is to use a composite service and that is to be executed on a first runtime platform, the composite service comprising a plurality of web services and a plurality of UI services, each of the UI services defining how to interact with at least one of the web services; retrieving first metadata from a UI taxonomy that is an abstraction of a class of Uis consistent with a UI layout and a UI principle for the first runtime platform, the UI taxonomy mapping to UI objects for the first runtime platform, the first metadata providing that the created UI is a member of the class, the first metadata being applicable to a plurality of applications for execution on the first runtime platform, the plurality of applications comprising the application that is to use the composite service; retrieving second metadata that defines the UI services of the composite service; and creating the UI by merging the first metadata and the second metadata. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-13, 15-18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 2-3. Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-13, 15-18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Musson (US 2 Appeal2013-010484 Application 11/377 ,987 2005/0028105 Al; published Feb. 3, 2005) and Vitanov (US 2005/0193380 Al; published Sept. 1, 2005). Final Act. 4--8. ISSUES Appellant's contentions present us with the following issues: A) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-13, 15-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, first paragraph? B) Did the Examiner err in finding the combined teachings of Musson and Vitanov teach or suggest "first metadata from a UI taxonomy that is an abstraction of a class of Uis consistent with a UI layout and a UI principle for the first runtime platform, the first metadata being applicable to a plurality of applications for execution on the first runtime platform" (hereinafter the "first metadata" limitation), as set forth in independent claim 1? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in consideration of Appellant's contentions. Appellant has persuaded us the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, first paragraph. However, we disagree with Appellant's conclusions that the Examiner's obviousness rejection of the claims is in error. Issue A: 35 US. C. Â§ 112 Rejection The Examiner finds the pending claims do not comply with the written description requirement because the Specification does not support "the first metadata being applicable to a plurality of applications for execution on the first runtime platform." Final Act 2-3. In particular, the Examiner finds "the specification only describes that 'types of metadata' (not the metadata itself) can be used in creating one or more composite 3 Appeal2013-010484 Application 11/377 ,987 applications" and "there is no indication that the actual metadata is applicable to more than one application on a platform." Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 8-9. Appellant contends the rejection is in error because the disputed limitation is fully disclosed in the written description. App. Br. 11 (citing Published Application i-f 32). Section 112, first paragraph, of 35 U.S.C. requires the specification to reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (internal citations omitted). [T]he test requires an objective inquiry into the four comers of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Based on that inquiry, the specification must describe an invention understandable to that skilled artisan and show that the inventor actually invented the invention claimed. Id. We agree with Appellant (Reply Br. 2) that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the Specification discloses the UI taxonomy metadata includes different types of metadata and that this UI metadata can be used for creating a UI for one or more applications. See Spec. 91 7-24 (corresponding to Published App. i-f 32). Thus, the Specification provides sufficient support to describe the invention so as to be understandable to the skilled artisan and to show the inventors were in possession of the claimed invention. Accordingly, we determine the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-13, 15-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, first paragraph, and do not sustain this rejection. 4 Appeal2013-010484 Application 11/377 ,987 Issue B: 35 US.C. Â§ 103(a) Rejection Appellant contends the combination of Musson and Vitanov, and in particular Vitanov, does not teach or suggest the "first metadata" limitation recited in claim 1. App. Br. 13. In particular, Appellant argues Vitanov discloses UI definitions that are independent from the target platform and "such UI definitions are not 'consistent with a UI layout and a UI principle for the first runtime platform."' App Br. 13; Reply Br. 4. We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Vitanov teaches that UI definitions 600 (first metadata) can be shared between different applications 302 of the execution environment (first runtime platform) and the UI definitions can be used on multiple platforms. Ans. 9 (citing Vitanov i-fi-146, 58). We further agree Vitanov's UI definitions teach the "first metadata" limitation recited in claim 1. We note one definition of consistent is "COMPATIBLE-usu. used with with." Merriam-Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language 484 ((unabridged) 2002). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that UI definitions that are platform independent are consistent (compatible) with a first runtime platform. We also disagree with Appellant's arguments that the combination of Musson and Vitanov is improper and could only have resulted from impermissible hindsight. App. Br. 14--15; Reply Br. 4--5. We note all of the features of one reference need not be bodily incorporated into the other, but instead consideration should be given to what the combined teachings, knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and the nature of the problem to be solved as a whole would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner 5 Appeal2013-010484 Application 11/377 ,987 finds "[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the teachings of Musson to include the teachings of Vitanov for the purpose of achieving a consistent look and feel ... for applications executed on any/all platforms." Ans. 11. We find this to be sufficient articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings to support the combination. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). For the reasons stated above, Appellant does not persuade us of error in the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the 3 5 U.S. C. Â§ 103 (a) rejection of: (1) claim 1; and (2) claims 3, 5-7, 9-13, 15-18, and 20, for which Appellant does not present separate arguments for patentability (App. Br. 15). DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-13, 15-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, first paragraph. We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-13, 15-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). Because we affirm at least one ground of rejection with respect to each claim on appeal, we affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-13, 15-18, and 20. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(Â±). AFFIRMED gvw 6