Ex parte Palmer et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 17, 1998

08010063 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 17, 1998)

Application for patent filed January 27, 1993.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1)
was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not
binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 16
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte JAMES E. PALMER, PATRICIA J. COLEMAN,
JEFFREY A. HERMAN, ELI COCHRAN and
JOHN R. POWERS III
_____________
Appeal No. 96-2275
Application 08/010,0631
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON and TORCZON, Administrative Patent
Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 96-2275
Application 08/010,063
2
Appellants have appealed to the Board from the examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1 to 15, 17, 19, 29 to 43, 45, 47, 59
and 60. Appellants have cancelled claims 16, 18, 44 and 46. The
examiner has objected to claims 20 to 28 and 48 to 58 as
depending from rejected base claims.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. In a computer display system having a central processing
unit (CPU) coupled to a display such that data is displayed on
said display in windows, a method for instructing a user on how
to perform operations using said CPU, the method comprising the
steps of:
said CPU generating and displaying an access window;
said CPU generating and displaying within said access window
a first working area for displaying headings that correspond to
sets of operations;
said CPU generating and displaying within said access window
a second working area for displaying phrases that correspond to
operations;
said CPU generating and displaying within said access window
at least one access function for selection by said user;
said user selecting said access function using selection
means coupled to said CPU;
said CPU displaying a plurality of headings in said first
working area, wherein each heading of said plurality of headings
corresponds to a set of operations;
said user selecting one of said headings in said first
working area, said selected heading corresponding to a particular
set of operations;
said CPU displaying a plurality of phrases in said second
working area responsive to said user selecting said one of said
Appeal No. 96-2275
Application 08/010,063
The examiner and appellants utilized the examiner’s2
notation of screen pages in this reference to identify the pages
referred to in the rejection. These are located at approximately
the middle of each separate page of the reference. However, the
bottom of each page shows a sequential numbering of pages from 28
to 55, which indicate to us that all of the pages come from a
single prior art reference. Inasmuch as there appeared to be
three different substantive sub-topics in this single reference,
they comprise the File Manager for Windows, the WORDPERFECT
version for Windows and the Program Manager for Windows.
Respective screen pages 20 and 28 indicate the publishing date as
being in 1992 as noted by the examiner. Inasmuch as the
examiner’s screen pages or the page numbers identified at the
bottom of this reference indicate that it came from a single
reference, we properly consider it as a single reference within
35 U.S.C. § 102 in accordance with the first rejection set forth
by the examiner. Appellants have not challenged the nature of
this reference.
3
headings, wherein each of said plurality of phrases corresponds
to an operation in said particular set of operations;
said user selecting one of said displayed phrases using said
selection means;
said CPU displaying at least one presentation window that
contains instruction data related to said selected phrase on said
display in response to said user selecting said one of said
displayed phrases, said instruction data indicating how to
perform the operation that corresponds to said selected phrase.
The following reference is relied on by the examiner:
WORDPERFECT for Windows v. 5.1, WordPerfect Corp., screen
pp. 1-28 (1992). 2

Claims 1, 2, 29, 30, 59 and 60 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by WORDPERFECT. All
remaining claims on appeal, claims 3 to 15, 17, 19, 31 to 43, 45
Appeal No. 96-2275
Application 08/010,063
4
and 47, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious
over WORDPERFECT alone.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the
examiner, reference is made to the brief and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
Since we agree with the examiner’s conclusion as to the
anticipation of claims 1, 2, 29, 30 and 59, we will sustain this
rejection as well as all of the remaining claims on appeal
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the reasons stated below. We
do not, however, sustain the rejection of independent claim 60
under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
The more substantive view of the examiner applying the
teachings and showings in WORDPERFECT to the claims on appeal is
found in the responsive arguments portion of the answer beginning
at page 10 as they directly relate to the separately identified
categories or groups of the claims argued by appellants
traversing the rejection in the brief. Appellants provided no
rebuttal. Inasmuch as the examiner has treated each of those
arguments laid out by appellants in detail and we fully agree
with them, we will sustain the rejection for the reasons set
forth in the examiner’s answer as a whole.
Appeal No. 96-2275
Application 08/010,063
5
To amplify the examiner’s position, we note that independent
method claim 1 and its corresponding structure claim 29 indicate
generally that there is a generating and displaying in an access
window of “at least one access function”. Note the fourth listed
clause in the body of claim 1 and the first listed clause in the
body of claim 29. In the second listed clause in the body of
claim 29, the relationship of displaying headings in a first
working area occurs “upon selection of said access function.”
Inasmuch as there is only one access function selected in this
claim, the reasoning of the examiner applying the respective
“file manager”, “open file”, “help function”, and “end of search”
window functions respectively noted at the bottom of page 10 of
the answer to the partitioned access window in this claim are
clearly applicable. Additionally, since there is no claimed
nexus of the displaying operation of the headings in the sixth
recited clause in the body of independent method claim 1, by
means of the selection of the access function in the fifth clause
of claim 1, the applicability of the teachings of WORDPERFECT to
this claim is even clearer and stronger.
The correlation of the teachings and showings of WORDPERFECT
to the features of independent claims 1 and 29 on appeal as it
begins at the bottom of page 10 of the answer indicates to us
Appeal No. 96-2275
Application 08/010,063
6
that there is at least one identifiable access window associated
with at least one function by some name where the access window
has at least two portions or regions therein which broadly relate
information in the hierarchy of displaying initially headings
that correspond to a set of operations and then phrases that
correspond to a particular set of operations in the manner
claimed.
The recited presentation window at the end of claims 1 and
29 on appeal is not recited in these claims to be a part of the
same access window, but clearly based on the disclosure the
presentation window is a separate successively presented window
to the user. For example, the showings at screen pages 17 to 19
indicate a sequential showing of first two indicia categories
displayed in two regions of the screen in representative screen
page 18 with a subsequent excitation of the “help index” depicted
at the bottom of screen page 18 displayed in detail, one selected
by the user, in a separately identified “presentation screen” at
succeeding screen page 19. Other “go to” categories exist as
depicted at screen page 18. It is clear that the examiner is
correct that such succeeding presentation page, when activated by
the users’ selection at the bottom of screen page 18, would
indicate to the user an instruction as to how to do certain
Appeal No. 96-2275
Application 08/010,063
7
operations as claimed. Additionally, the “how to” category
depicted at screen pages 7 and 8 are further selectable by the
user and are self-explanatory so that they would explain to the
user how to perform various operations. Note also screen pages
11 through 14 which indicate further “how to” separate screens
that may be selectable by the user.
Appellants’ “Group II” arguments are adequately addressed by
the examiner at the middle of page 12 of the answer. The bottom
of page 12 of the answer indicates the examiner’s responsive
arguments to the appellants’ claimed Group III arguments relating
to claim 8, which relates to an “index access function”. We are
in agreement with the examiner’s observation that there are many
“visual cues” in both the “file manager” and “search” window
portions of the document relied upon that indicate a respective
“index access function”. Certainly, the title bars are one
indicia of what the user may regard as an “index.” For example,
the file manager views in the early portions of the document
visually may be perceived by the user as indexing to the user
“drives”, indexed alphabetically. This first region to the
particular selected one shown in the middle of the page of screen
page 2, for example, indicates in this region the names of
various subdirectories and files therein in the third portion,
Appeal No. 96-2275
Application 08/010,063
8
etc. The presentation window associated with all of this is
depicted at screen page 4 when the rightmost category “small
talk” has within it another sub-category of “company.st” which is
further depicted at the bottom of this screen shown at screen
page 4. Separately, we note that the program manager help index
depicted on screen page 24 has laid over it a glossary page
depicted at screen page 27. Thus, contrary to appellants’
arguments there are a plurality of what the user may consider as
index functions.
As to the appellants’ claim Group IV, such as claim 9, the
examiner’s position at page 13 of the answer is persuasive. The
claimed scroll bar appears to be depicted in the two leftmost
sub-windows at screen page 4 with, as noted by the examiner, the
use of the icon representing a human hand with a finger extended
as a pointer as the claimed “slider”, with both the scroll bar
and slider vertically slidable to index individually the
alphabetically organized categories and sub-categories of
information in the respective sub-windows. Additionally, the use
of the scroll bars, separately actuatable by the use of the
cursor actuated by a mouse in a conventional manner, would
Appeal No. 96-2275
Application 08/010,063
9
correlate to the claimed scroll bars and slider means
respectively.
As indicated earlier we reverse the rejection of independent
method claim 60. In contrast to independent claims 1 and 29 on
appeal, independent claim 60 recites the showing on a single
access window of three access window functions in clause B,
whereas these other two independent claims recite only at least
one access function. Furthermore, independent claim 60 in
respective clauses C, D and E further requires the performance of
certain distinct enumerated steps upon the selection of each of
the respective three access functions selected by the user,
whereas the subject matter of independent claims 1 and 29 and
their respective dependent claims as grouped by appellants recite
only one access function by name as an alternative, but not all
together. Although we disagree with appellants’ assertion at the
bottom of page 13 of the brief that WORDPERFECT does not suggest
the “individual help mechanisms,” for the reasons stated, we do
agree with the additional assertion that Wordperfect does not
show “a single window that contains all three search mechanisms.”
The subject matter of this claim corresponds to appellants’
Figure 3 of the disclosed invention, which presents it in its
Appeal No. 96-2275
Application 08/010,063
10
most generic or comprehensive form showing the three access
functions 135, 138 and 140.
Inasmuch as this decision is consistent with appellants’
grouping of the claims and arguments and the fact that the
examiner has separately reasoned the rejection for each and every
claim on appeal, we respectively sustain the rejection of
respective claims 1 to 15, 17, 19, 29 to 43, 45, 47 and 59 under
35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. However, we have not sustained the
rejection of claim 60 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-
part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Appeal No. 96-2275
Application 08/010,063
11
)
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
RICHARD TORCZON )
Administrative Patent Judge )

BLAKELY, SOKOLOFF, TAYLOR & ZAFMAN
12400 Wilshire Boulevard
7th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90025