Ex Parte Ragan et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 28, 2012

10621289 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 28, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte RICHARD W. RAGAN, JR. and WAYNE B. RILEY
____________

Appeal 2010-004402
Application 10/621,289
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, DAVID M. KOHUT,
and BRYAN F. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-15, 17-21, and 23-25. Claims 6, 12, 16, and 22 have
been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2010-004402
Application 10/621,289

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention relates to a system and method for
automatically customizing a user interface by displaying one or more
shortcuts based on the history of object operations (see Spec. ¶¶ [0005] and
[0016]).
Claim 1, which is illustrative of the invention, reads as follows:
1. A method executable by a computer of
automatically customizing a user interface, the method
comprising:
identifying a user of the user interface, wherein the
identifying includes prompting the user to provide a user name
and a password;
displaying on a display an object within the user
interface; and
displaying on the display a plurality of shortcuts for the
object,
wherein at least one shortcut of the plurality of shortcuts
comprises a control for managing the object in an application,
and
wherein the plurality of shortcuts is automatically
adjusted based on the application that manages the object, the
identity of the user, and a history of object operations
performed by the user to manage the object.

The Examiner’s Rejection
Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-15, 17-21, and 23-25 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Beauregard (US 2002/0156774 A1), or
in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Beauregard in
view of Bodin (US 7,310,636 B2). (See Ans. 2-7).
Appeal 2010-004402
Application 10/621,289

3
Appellants’ Contentions
With respect to the anticipation rejection of claim 1 over Beauregard,
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claim because
the cited portions of the reference do not teach “wherein the plurality of
shortcuts is automatically adjusted based on the application that manages the
object” (Br. 7). Appellants further point out that in paragraph [0140],
“Beauregard teaches that ‘context independence is essential to the
effectiveness of [Beauregard’s] present invention’” (id.). Appellants
specifically argue that the active words of Beauregard, which are disclosed
to be stored in a word base, work in the background until it is sensed that the
user has typed an action word (Br. 8 (citing Beauregard, ¶¶ [0138], [0140],
and [0155] – [0157])). Appellants conclude that because all the commands
in Beauregard are user-defined (citing Abstract), they are not automatically
adjusted based on the application that manages the object (Br. 8-9).
Additionally, Appellants contend that the “simple, language-based
commands” taught by Beauregard (citing ¶ [0033]) are not the same as the
claimed object displayed on the display within the user interface (Br. 9-10).
With respect to the alternate rejection of claim 1 as obvious over
Beauregard and Bodin, Appellants contend that even if an object controlled
by a shortcut were disclosed in Bodin, one of ordinary skill in the art would
not be motivated to combine the references (Br. 10-11). Appellants further
assert that Beauregard would teach away from the combination because
paragraph [0033] of Beauregard teaches using text commands instead of
displayed objects and displayed shortcuts (Br. 11).
Appeal 2010-004402
Application 10/621,289

4
Appellants further argue the patentability of the remaining claims
based on the same reasons stated above with respect to claim 1 (App. Br.
11), allowing those claims to fall with independent claim 1.

ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims as being
anticipated by Beauregard because the reference does not teach “wherein the
plurality of shortcuts is automatically adjusted based on the application that
manages the object?”
2. Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims as obvious over the
combination of Beauregard and Bodin because the combination is improper?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions.
As stated by the Examiner (Ans. 8), the term “context-free” or
“context independence” in paragraph [0140] of Beauregard indicates that the
disclosed Active Words system works in the same way, no matter what
context the user is working in, such that the Active Words system does not
interfere with the provided text services. In that regard, Beauregard
discloses that the existing shortcut utilities do not have “an integrated
approach to creating, managing and using shortcuts for content services,
retrieval services and command” making the inconsistent interfaces too
difficult to organize and remember (¶ [0021]). Therefore, contrary to
Appellants’ argument (Br. 7-8), the “context independence” property of the
Appeal 2010-004402
Application 10/621,289

5
ActiveWords system of Beauregard is not in conflict with the claimed
automatically adjusting shortcuts. In other words, the same entity creates
and manages the shortcuts which may be further adjusted when the user
makes changes to the action words.
We further find that the Examiner, giving the claim its broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, In re Morris, 127
F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997), properly relies on Beauregard’s disclosure
of the semantic user interface (SUI), described in paragraphs [0149] –
[0152], to show that the action words are automatically adjusted based on
the application that manages the object (Ans. 10-11). We also agree with the
Examiner’s statement (Ans. 11) that claim 1 does not precisely recite “how,
when or where the shortcuts are adjusted or what they are adjusted to”
which means that the automatic adjustment could take place after the “user-
defined” commands are entered or modified. That is, once the user defines
or modifies the action words through interaction with the microkernel engine
(MIKE) 330, additional controls, such as changing the user profile, capturing
text, launching different components, are done without user input, i.e.,
adjusted automatically (see ¶¶ [0149] – [0152] and [0255]).
Lastly, with respect to the combination of Beauregard with Bodin, we
also remain unpersuaded by Appellants’ contentions that the combination is
improper and Beauregard teaches away from the combination (see Br. 11).
As stated by the Examiner (Ans. 14), Bodin, similar to Beauregard, teaches
the shortcut interface by using a combination of key strokes and text
commands (see col. 4, ll. 35-67). Therefore, the Examiner correctly found
that the user interface for presenting information to a user may benefit from
the action words of Beauregard “that have multiple context based meanings”
Appeal 2010-004402
Application 10/621,289

6
and “the shortcuts of Bodin that can have multiple fields based on context”
(id.) We further find that the Examiner has provided a valid articulated line
of reasoning with a rational underpinning to support the conclusion of
obviousness with respect to the proposed combination of Beauregard and
Bodin (Ans. 12-14). Appellants have provided no arguments in a Reply
Brief rebutting the Examiner’s position.
Accordingly, we conclude that the portions of Beauregard and Bodin
the Examiner relied on adequately disclose the displayed objects and the
automatically adjusting the shortcuts based on the application that manages
the object, as required by claim 1.

CONCLUSIONS
On the record before us, we conclude that, because Beauregard, or
alternatively, the combination of Beauregard and Bodin teaches or suggests
all the claim limitations, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1 as
being anticipated by Beauregard or in the alternative, as obvious over
Beauregard and Bodin. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and of
claims 2-5, 7-11, 13-15, 17-21, and 23-25 falling therewith.

Appeal 2010-004402
Application 10/621,289

7
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-15, 17-21,
and 23-25 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

ELD