Ex Parte Sherrill et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 31, 2012

11403223 (B.P.A.I. May. 31, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte THOMAS DEAN SHERRILL, MARIA DAO NGUYEN,
DONALD JAMES WAYLAND JR., KRISTEN L. GARRISON,
BRIAN JAMES BARRY, and NAREDLA MAHARAJ KUMAR MURTY
____________

Appeal 2010-009454
Application 11/403,223
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-009454
Application 11/403,223

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to:
[A] multi-paned interface including a supported search
function. A navigation pane includes a hierarchical tree
including nodes corresponding to control system equipment. A
component-specific information pane provides detailed
information corresponding to a selected node on the navigation
pane. The detailed information includes diagnostic
information. The search function supports defining a search
query, providing a result, and automatically rendering detailed
component information in the information pane for a selected
component provided in the result.
Spec. 4.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A workstation including a computer-readable medium
comprising computer-executable instructions for providing a
system management human machine interface (HMI)
application for performing, on the workstation, the steps of:
providing a multi-paned human-machine interface
window simultaneously displaying:
a navigation pane graphically displaying a
hierarchical tree including nodes corresponding to
control system equipment,
a component-specific information area providing
detailed information corresponding to a selected node on
the navigation pane hierarchical tree wherein the detailed
information includes diagnostic information, and
an accessories pane; and
Appeal 2010-009454
Application 11/403,223

3
providing a search function supporting:
defining a search query,
displaying search results in the accessories pane, and
initiating rendering detailed information in the
component-specific information area for a component in
response to user-selection of the component from the search
results displayed in the accessories pane.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-3, 6, 9-12, 15, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Chidambaram (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.
2005/0012396 A1) in view of Gauvin (U.S. Patent No. 7,315,985 B1).
2. Claims 4, 5, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Chidambaram in view of Gauvin and CommView
(CommView byTamosoft,
http://web.archive.org/web.20050212053819/http://www.visualware.com/int
ernetsecurity/commview/detail.html, last visited February 12, 2005).
3. Claims 7, 8, 16, 17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Chidambaram in view of Gauvin and Spriggs (U.S. Patent
Application Pub. No. 2003/0028269 A1).

ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that
Chidambaram in view of Gauvin teaches the limitation of “initiating
rendering detailed information in the component-specific information area
for a component in response to user-selection of the component from the
search results displayed in the accessories pane” as recited in claim 1.

Appeal 2010-009454
Application 11/403,223

4
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue, inter alia, that the Examiner’s response, finding that
Chidambaram’s paragraph [0044] teaches a “‘monitoring’ section (of lower
panel 32) that ‘may include monitoring information for a power supply or
converter highlighted in panel 30,’” is flawed (Reply Br. 7). Appellants
explain that Chidambaram’s “disclosure at paragraph [0044] does not meet
the recited elements of the independent claims which state that detailed
information, including diagnostic information, is rendered in the
‘component-specific information area for a component in response to user-
selection of the component from the search results displayed in the
accessories pane’” (Reply Br. 7-8).
Appellants further explain that “[t]he panel 30 is identified in the
Answer (in section 9) as the claimed ‘navigation pane’—not the accessories
pane” (Reply Br. 7-8). “The claimed accessories pane is identified by the
Examiner as corresponding to the upper panel 31which does indeed display
design component database search results” (Reply Br. 8). However,
nowhere does the Examiner “identify a teaching in Chidambaram that
diagnostic information is displayed in the lower panel 32 (component-
specific information area) when a user selects an item listed in the search
results presented in the upper panel 31” (Reply Br. 8) (emphasis omitted), as
required by claim 1.
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Neither in paragraphs
[0044] nor [0051] cited by the Examiner do we find any support for
“rendering detailed information in the component-specific information area
for a component in response to user-selection of the component from the
Appeal 2010-009454
Application 11/403,223

5
search results displayed in the accessories pane” (claim 1) (emphasis
added).
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and for
the same reasons, the rejections of claims 2, 3, 6, 9-12, 15, 18, and 19. We
also reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 4, 5, 13, and 14 because
neither Gauvin nor CommView cures the above cited deficiency. Similarly,
we reverse the rejections of claims 7, 8, 16, 17, and 20 because neither
Gauvin nor Spriggs cures Chidambaram’s deficiency.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in finding that Chidambaram in view of Gauvin
teaches the limitation of “initiating rendering detailed information in the
component-specific information area for a component in response to user-
selection of the component from the search results displayed in the
accessories pane” as recited in claim 1.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 is reversed.

REVERSED

llw