Ex Parte Poerner et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 24, 2012

10666227 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 24, 2012)

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.
10/666,227 09/18/2003 Colleen Poerner 2002P15657US01 8462
7590 07/25/2012
Siemens Corporation
Intellectual Property Department
170 Wood Avenue South
Iselin, NJ 08830
EXAMINER
LO, WEILUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2179
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/25/2012 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 COLLEEN POERNER, GEORG MUENZEL,
and YUFENG LI
____________

Appeal 2010-003725
Application 10/666,227
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before DENISE M. POTHIER, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
BRIAN J. McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judges.

McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-003725
Application 10/666,227

2

SUMMARY
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-40 and the new rejection of claim 41 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a).1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to configuring human-machine interface
(HMI) user screen navigation with an HMI screen navigator editor that
allows the user to create a linked hierarchy of HMI screen nodes and render
the collection of nodes to the user. (Spec. ¶ [6]).
Claim 1 is illustrative.
1. A method comprising the activities of:
providing an HMI screen navigation editor to a user;
via the HMI screen navigation editor, enabling the user to create a
collection comprising a linked hierarchically organized plurality of HMI
screen nodes;
responsive to a detected collision between a parent node of said linked
hierarchically organized plurality of HMI screen nodes and a first child node
of a plurality of child nodes of said parent node, automatically recursively
adjusting a position of said parent node until an adjusted position of said
parent node does not create, with respect to each child node of said plurality
of child nodes, a determined collision with said child node, said determined
collision determined based upon said adjusted position of said parent node
and a calculated position of said child node; and
rendering the collection to the user.

1 Claim 41 was newly rejected in the Examiner’s Answer based on Kodosky
and Leshem. Ans. 16-18. Appellants filed a Reply Brief on November 30,
2009, responding to this and the other claims rejected.

Appeal 2010-003725
Application 10/666,227

3

THE REJECTION
Claims 1-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0184580 A1, published
October 2, 2003 and filed April 1, 2002, (Kodosky) in view of U.S. Patent
No. 5,870,559 issued February 9, 1999 (Leshem).2

CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Figures 20A and 24A of Kodosky disclose a
method for configuring HMI user screen navigation. The Examiner further
finds that Kodosky teaches a system editor 732 in Figure 5 used for creating
a configuration diagram 712 (referred to in Kodosky as a system panel)
which includes a plurality of nodes or icons 714 representing such system
items as devices, machines, programs, or other elements. (Ans. 6).3 The
Examiner maps Kodosky’s device icons, which preferably have an
appearance corresponding to the devices they represent, to the claimed HMI
screen nodes. (Ans. 24). Citing paragraph [0375], the Examiner maps
Kodosky’s disclosure of a device icon automatically appearing in a block
diagram to the claimed HMI screen navigation editor, thereby enabling the
user to create a collection comprising a linked hierarchy of HMI screen

2 Appellants discuss a rejection of claims 1-41 based on § 101. See App.
Br. 12. This rejection has been withdrawn. See Ans. 18.
3 Throughout we refer to the Appeal Brief filed on December 23, 2008, the
Examiner’s Answer mailed on October 13, 2009, and the Reply Brief filed
on November 30, 2009. We note that an Examiner’s Answer mailed on May
12, 2009, was vacated because of a newly asserted rejection of claim 41. A
Reply Brief filed on June 29, 2009, to the subsequently vacated Examiner’s
Answer appears to be substantially the same as the Reply Brief filed on
November 30, 2009.
Appeal 2010-003725
Application 10/666,227

4

nodes in the configuration diagram. (Ans. 6). The Examiner maps the
claimed feature of automatically adjusting the relative position of a visually
colliding parent node to a child node to the drag and drop technique in
Kodosky. (Ans. 6, 25). In addition to noting that Leshem discloses the
claimed features of adjusting the positions in a recursive manner for all the
parent’s children, (Ans. 26-27), the Examiner finds that Leshem teaches
using a recursive method to spatially position nodes, represented as icons on
a map, such that children nodes are positioned around and connected to their
respective immediate parents. (Ans. 8).
Appellants dispute that Kodosky’s device icons teach the claimed
HMI screen nodes, which Appellants define as “a miniaturized visual
representation of a visual display of a human machine interlace [sic], used
for monitoring, programming, and/or controlling automation machines
and/or processes, renderable via a monitor.” (App. Br. 23 (emphasis in
original)). Appellants argue that Kodosky does not teach adjusting the
position of the parent node until an adjusted position of the parent does not
create a collision, with respect to each child node. (Id.). Appellants further
contend that there is no evidence the drag and drop technique of Kodosky
teaches adjusting a position of a parent node responsive to a detected
collision. (Reply Br. 2).
Appellants make no specific arguments concerning Leshem, other
than the Declaration of Colleen Guy (Guy Declaration) appended to the
Appeal Brief, which, at paragraphs 35-40, disputes the Examiner’s findings
concerning Leshem.

Appeal 2010-003725
Application 10/666,227

5

ISSUES
Does Kodosky teach HMI screen nodes?
Does the combination of Kodosky and Leshem teach automatically
recursively adjusting a position of a parent node responsive to a detected
collision between a parent screen node and a child and until the parent
node’s position does not create the determined collision?

ANALYSIS
At the outset, we note that Appellants repeat substantially the same
arguments for each of independent claims 1, 33, 34, and 40. (Compare App.
Br. 22 with App. Br. 41-44, 46-48). Appellants present no additional
arguments for patentability of the dependent claims, except to state that each
recited limitation is not taught by the references. Merely pointing out what
the claims recite and then asserting that the references fail to teach these
limitations (see App. Br. 24-38, 41, 42, 44-46, 48-49) is not considered a
separate argument for patentability. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357
(Fed. Cir. 2011). Additionally, for some dependent claims, Appellants refer
back to their arguments made in connection with claim 1. (App. Br. 38-40,
45, 46). Therefore, we address claim 1 as illustrative of all the pending
claims and group all the claims with representative claim 1.
A fundamental issue in this appeal centers on the definition of the
claimed “HMI screen nodes.” Appellants argue repeatedly that the HMI
screen node in claim 1 is a visual display of a miniaturized HMI screen and
not an icon representing a program or a device, as taught by Kodosky.
(Reply Br. 2). However, Appellants have failed to demonstrate how a visual
display of a miniaturized HMI screen is not suggested by an icon. As
Appeal 2010-003725
Application 10/666,227

6

defined by Appellants, an HMI screen node is a miniaturized version of an
HMI user screen, which itself is a visual display of an HMI providing a
human the ability to interact with and control a machine and is used for
monitoring, programming, and/or controlling machines or processes. (Spec.
¶¶ [10], [11], [16]). Like an icon, Appellants’ defined HMI screen node is a
visual display which has no function other than to display the existence of an
element in a system, which in Appellants’ case is a particular HMI. In
Kodosky, device icons represent devices that control machines and program
icons represent programs for controlling machines and processes (see
Abstract; ¶ [0016]). Similarly, Appellants’ HMI screen nodes represent
HMI interfaces. As such, Kodosky’s device and program icons are analgous
to miniature visual representations of HMI user screens, which themselves
are visual displays of HMIs used for monitoring, programming, or
controlling machines or processes. Thus, Appellants have not demonstrated
that the visual representations claimed as HMI screen nodes are not taught
by Kodosky.
Appellants further argue that Kodosky does not teach “via the HMI
screen navigation editor, enabling the user to create a collection comprising
a linked hierarchically organized plurality of HMI screen nodes.” (App. Br.
23). However, in the paragraphs cited by the Examiner, Kodosky teaches
creating a system configuration diagram with system editor 732 (¶ [0148])
either manually using drag and drop icons (¶¶ [0017], [0175], [0176]) or
automatically based on the automatic detection of devices, programs, and
other elements resident in the system. (¶ [0016]). Kodosky’s icons can be
displayed to visually indicate their relationship, including a hierarchy view.
(¶¶ [0012], [0186], [0237]).
Appeal 2010-003725
Application 10/666,227

7

Notwithstanding their citation to the Guy Declaration (App. Br. 23),
Appellants have offered no evidence that the portions of Kodosky cited by
the Examiner fail to teach the claimed features. Appellants’ cites to
“evidence” in the Guy Declaration are unavailing. After quoting from
Appellants’ Specification, the Final Rejection, and Kodosky and Leshem
references (Guy Declaration ¶¶ 16 - 19, 21), the Guy Declaration summarily
concludes that one of ordinary skill would find the statements in the Office
Action factually incorrect and would not have found the applied portions of
the references to teach an HMI screen node, a linked hierarchically
organized plurality of HMI screen nodes enabling the user to create a
collection comprising linked hierarchically organized HMI screen nodes, or
an HMI screen navigator operatively adapted to perform these functions.
(Guy Declaration ¶¶ 15, 20, 22 - 26). Notably absent from the Guy
Declaration is any evidence or analysis supporting these summary
conclusions. Mere conclusory statements unsupported by factual evidence
are entitled to little probative value. Cf. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470
(Fed. Cir. 1997).
Appellants present no arguments in either the Appeal Brief or the
Reply Brief specifically addressing the Examiner’s findings concerning
Leshem or the combination of Kodosky and Leshem. (Ans. 6-8, 24-27).
Appellants do not explain why the well-known drag and drop method of
icon placement in Kodosky (See, e.g., ¶¶ [0185], [0186]) combined with the
recursive positioning of nodes on a display screen in Leshem does not teach
the claimed limitations. The Guy Declaration at paragraphs 27-40 quotes
the rejected claim language, the Office Action, and the references and
summarily concludes that one of ordinary skill would find the statements in
Appeal 2010-003725
Application 10/666,227

8

the Office Action to be factually incorrect and would not have found the
applied portions of the references to teach any action responsive to a
detected collision, or automatically recursively adjusting the position of a
parent node with respect to a child node until the parent node does not create
a collision with respect to each child node. Absent adequate evidence or
analysis discounting the Examiner’s findings that Leshem teaches the
claimed limitations, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of all the pending
claims.

CONCLUSION
Appellants have not demonstrated that the Examiner erred in finding
that Kodosky teaches the claimed HMI screen nodes. Appellants have not
demonstrated that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of
Kodosky and Leshem teaches automatically recursively adjusting a position
of a parent node responsive to a detected collision between a parent screen
node and a child and until the parent node’s position does not create the
determined collision.

ORDER
The rejection of claims 1-41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kodosky in view of Leshem 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
babc