Ex Parte NUN et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 22, 2016

12631870 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/631,870 12/07/2009
62730 7590 08/24/2016
SAP SE
3410 HILL VIEW A VENUE
PALO ALTO, CA 94304
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
YiftachNUN
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.
2009P00251US 2749
EXAMINER
CHAMBERS, MICHAEL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2448
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/24/2016 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):
APRIL.MENG@SAP.COM
GIPinhouse@sap.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YIFTACH NUN, DAVID RACHAMIM,
and INBAL ZILBERMAN
Appeal2015-002713
Application 12/631,870
Technology Center 2400
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.
COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1-3 and 6---9. Claims 4 and 5 are canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
Invention
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention relates to a method "for
providing an admin user with a client User-Interface (UI) for managing a
client application." (Abst.).
Appeal2015-002713
Application 12/631,870
Representative Claim
1. In a client-server system, a method for providing an
admin user with a client User-Interface (UI) for managing a
client application, the method comprising:
(a) defining at least one end-user privilege level and at
least one admin-user privilege level;
(b) providing a client application with an end-user UI
definition with blank fields for data entry and an admin-user
privilege level UI definition having a rich UI that has a similar
appearance as the end user UI but allows the admin-user to
modify text descriptor fields of the blank data entry fields,
which cannot be modified by the end-user in the end-user UI:
and
( c) providing a run-time application adapted to execute
said client application alternatively in the end-user privilege
level, and in the admin-user privilege level, wherein when
invoked by an admin-user with the admin-user privilege level
the run-time application enables the admin-user to modify the
text descriptors of the blank data entry fields of the end-user UI
definition in response to inputs received from the admin-user;
and
[L] wherein said client application enables a translator
to access the client User-Interface (UI) in the admin-user
privilege level using a translation system that includes records
of previously translated words or sentences, so that the
translator can translate the language of the text descriptor
fields of the client User-Interface (UI) from a first language to
another language while viewing the text descriptor fields in
their context; wherein the translator uses the records of
previously translated words or sentences with their translation
when translating the language of the text descriptor fields of the
client User-Interface (UI).
2
Appeal2015-002713
Application 12/631,870
(Bracketing and emphasis added regarding the contested limitation, labeled
as "L").
Rejection
Claims 1-3 and 6---9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of Anuff et al.
(US 6,327,628 Bl, pub. Dec. 4, 2001), Kumhyr et al. (US 6,904,563 B2,
pub. June 7, 2005), and Madhavarao et al. (US 2008/0040670 Al, pub.
Feb. 14, 2008).
Grouping of Claims
Based on Appellants' arguments, we decide the appeal of all claims
rejected on the basis of representative claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
ISSUE
Issue: Under§ 103, did the Examiner err by finding the cited
combination of Anuff, Kumhyr, and Madhavarao would have taught or
suggested the contested "wherein" clause limitation L:
wherein said client application enables a translator to access the
client User-Interface (UI) in the admin-user privilege level using
a translation system that includes records of previously translated
words or sentences, so that the translator can translate the
language of the text descriptor fields of the client User-Interface
(UI) from a first language to another language while viewing the
text descriptor fields in their context,
within the meaning of representative claim 1? (Emphasis added). 1
1 We give the contested claim limitations the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d
1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See Spec. 13, 11. 17-20 ("It will be appreciated
3
Appeal2015-002713
Application 12/631,870
ANALYSIS
We have considered all of Appellants' arguments and any evidence
presented. We disagree with Appellants' arguments, and we adopt as our
own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action
from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in
the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' arguments. However, we
highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claim 1 for
emphasis as follows:
Regarding contested limitation L, Appellants contend, inter alia:
The combination of Anuft, Kumhyr and Madhavarao
lack limitations of the claimed invention. Since Anuff and
Madhavarao do not teach or suggest use of a translator that
accesses the application and Kumhyr provides a translator that
requires not to access the application.
In contrast the claimed invention requires a translator that
accesses the application, as stated in claim 1 "wherein said client
application enables a translator to access the client User-Interface
(UI) in the admin-user privilege level". Accordingly a prima-
facie case of obviousness cannot be shown as required by MPEP
2143 .03 "all claim limitations must be considered".
(App. Br. 10).
At the outset, we note the Examiner (Ans. 4) looks to Anuff for
teaching or suggesting, inter alia, the claimed (a) "end-user privilege level
and at least one admin-user privilege level" (claim 1 ), e.g., customizing or
by persons skilled in the art that the present disclosure is not limited to what
has been particularly shown and described hereinabove. Rather the scope of
the present disclosure is defined only by the claims which follow.").
4
Appeal2015-002713
Application 12/631,870
editing a module with administrative or "custom permissions that control
access to functionality that is particular to that module." (Col. 10, 11. 5-20;
col. 16, line 59).2 We emphasize the Examiner's rejection is based on the
combined teachings and suggestions of the cited references. (Ans. 3-7;
rejection of claim 1 ).
In the Final Action ( 4--5), the Examiner reads the "client application"
recited in claim 1 on Kumhyr's "executing program 302" (citing col. 3, 12-
25, and col. 5, 23-27, describing Fig. 3). The Examiner clarifies the
rejection in the Answer (8-9), 3 and reads the recited "client application"
(claim 1) on Kumhyr' s modified "executing program 302" which has been
compiled to include an integrated "introspective editor" (col. 5, 11. 56-57),
as contained within context interpreter 310 (Fig. 3), and which enables a
human translator 4 to access a user-interface (i.e., a "client User-Interface" -
2 See Spec. 9, 11. 1--4 ("It should be noted that the term admin-user refers to
the user's privilege level, thus the admin user may be an administrator, a
translator or any user of the system who has a higher privilege level than the
regular end-user and who is authorized to modify the client-application
(including its UI).") (Emphasis added).
3 See Ans. (8-9) ("Although, in one embodiment, Kumhyr states that a
language translator for a software product ('program 302') does not have
access to the executable program (Kumhyr, col. 5, lines 23-30), in another
embodiment of Kumhyr , a context interpreter 310 , containing an
introspective editor that when compiled into an executable program,
allows a user [i.e., human translator] to edit graphic user interface (GUI)
features while the program is executing (Kumhyr, col. 5, lines 48-56),
thereby disclosing, 'a translator to access the client User-Interface (UI) in
the admin-user privilege level"'.). (Bold and emphasis added).
4 See Spec. 10, 11. 1-3 ("A translation task is a common task when dealing
with forms of international entities. Typically a form that was created in a
5
Appeal2015-002713
Application 12/631,870
claim 1 ), as depicted in Kumhyr' s Fig. 6, for editing the text to be translated
(as viewed in context), within the meaning of claim 1. (Col. 5, 11. 52-66). 5
As pointed to by the Examiner (Ans. 8-9), Kumhyr particularly
describes (col. 5, 11. 53-56): "Context interpreter 310 contains an
introspective editor. The introspective editor is a library, that when
compiled into an executable program, allows a user to edit GUI features
while the program is executing. (See also Ans. 8, citing Kumhyr, col. 5,
lines 48-56).
Kumhyr' s "[ c ]ontext interpreter 310 uses context modules 306 and
resource bundles 308 to reproduce the GUI features originally generated by
executing program 302." (Col. 5, 11. 48-51, Fig. 3) "The reproduced GUI
features are then displayed to a translator [i.e., a human translator] on a
display device 312." (Kumhyr, col. 5, 11. 51-52, Fig. 3).
Appellants respond to the Examiner's clarified mapping in the Reply
Brief (14--15):
The Examiner further states that in the second
embodiment of Kumhyr (as explained above) "a context
interpreter 310, containing an introspective editor that when
compiled into an executable program, allows a user to edit
graphic user interface (GUI) features while the program is
executing (Kumhyr, col. 5 lines 48-56), thereby disclosing "a
first language needs to be translated to one or more additional natural
languages.").
5 See Kumhyr, col. 5, 11. 57----62 ("When a program compiled with an
introspective editor is executing and the user wishes to change the text
displayed by the program, the user issues a special keystroke while
simultaneously clicking the GUI feature to edit with the mouse. This action
brings up a dialog box such as dialog box 604 in FIG. 6, for editing the
textual information associated with that feature.") (Emphasis added).
6
Appeal2015-002713
Application 12/631,870
translator to access the client User-Interface (Ul) in the admin-
user privilege level".
Appellant respectfully submits that the limitation
"wherein said client application enables a translator to access
the client User-Interface (UI in the admin-user privilege
level. .. " clearly sets forth that in the claimed invention the
translator must use the application to enable access to the client
User-Interface (UI) (e.g, to navigate to a desired UI of the
application) and not that the translator is able to access the
client User-Interface (UI) without use of the application, for
example by the preprocessing methods suggested by Kumhyr.
Although we find the introspective editor interface (Fig. 6) that is
compiled and thus integrated into executing program 302 (i.e., "client
application" - claim 1) enables the human translator to "use" and modify the
GUI (Fig. 6) of the application/executing program 302, "while the program
is executing" (col. 5, 1. 56), i.e., during the editing of the text to be translated
(see Kumhyr, e.g., col. 6, 1. 53- col. 7, 1. 2 and Fig. 6), we nevertheless find
Appellants are arguing limitations which are not claimed. (Reply Br. 15).
Claim 1 is silent regarding the argued limitations: "the translator must
use the application to enable access to the client User-Interface (UI) .... "
(Reply Br. 15, i-f 1 ). Therefore, we find Appellants' contentions unavailing,
because they are not commensurate with the scope of the claim. (Id.).
Comb inability of the References under § 103
Nor do we find Appellants' arguments persuasive that the cited
references have been improperly combined by the Examiner. Appellants
initially urge Kumhyr teaches away "from implementing a translator that is
7
Appeal2015-002713
Application 12/631,870
enabled to access the client User Interface (Ul) in the admin-user privilege
level." (App. Br. 9).
However, to teach away, the prior art must "criticize, discredit, or
otherwise discourage the solution claimed in the [patent] appHcation." In re
Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). I\1ere disclosure of
alternative embodiments is not a teaching away. (id.).
Here, as pointed out above, the Examiner relies on a d([ferent
embodiment described in Kumhyr's column 5, as teaching or at least
suggesting contested limitation L. See n.3, supra. Therefore, we find
Appellants remaining arguments regarding the combinability of the cited
references fail to address the Examiner's specific findings, as clarified in the
Answer (8-9).
Fmiher, AppeIIants have not provided any factual evidence of
secondary considerations, such as unexpected or unpredictable results,
commercial success, or long felt, but unmet, need. Given the evidence cited
by the Examiner (Ans. 8-9), we are not persuaded that the claimed invention
would have been "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill
in the art" or "represented an unobvious step over the prior art" Leapfrog
Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(citingKSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)).
Therefore, on this record, and based on a preponderance of the
evidence, we are not persuaded of error regarding the Examiner's underlying
factual findings and ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness. Accordingly,
we sustain the Examiner's rejection of representative claim 1, and the
grouped claims which fall therewith. See Grouping of Claims, supra.
8
Appeal2015-002713
Application 12/631,870
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3 and 6-9 under
§ 103 (a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
9