Ex Parte Smith et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2014

11023318 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MARIA ELENA SMITH and JIE Z. ZENG
____________

Appeal 2014-004525
Application 11/023,318
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 6–10. (App. Br. 10–11; Final
Act. 1.)1 Claims 1–5 and 11–15 were cancelled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”) filed December 27, 2004;
Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed August 14, 2013; and Reply Brief (Reply
Br.”) filed March 2, 2014. We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”)
mailed January 7, 2014 and Final Office Action (Final Rejection) (“Final
Act.”) mailed March 19, 2013.
Appeal 2014-004525
Application 11/023,318

2

Appellants’ Invention
The invention at issue on appeal concerns a method for grouping
elements in a radio control (radio button groups or check lists) in a graphical
user interface. The method includes steps for configuring the graphical user
interface by assigning each radio button element in a list of radio button
elements to a corresponding grouping identifier and rendering groups of
radio buttons according, such that the selection of only one radio button in
each group is permitted. (Spec. ¶¶ 1, 8–11; Abstract.)
Representative Claim
Independent claim 6, reproduced below with the key disputed
limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
6. A method for grouping elements in a radio control, the
method comprising the steps of:
configuring a graphical user interface (GUI) in memory
of a computer with a grouped radio control comprising an
element list of different radio button elements to be rendered
within the grouped radio control;
assigning each of the radio button elements in the
element list to a corresponding one of a selection of grouping
identifiers; and,
rendering groups of radio button elements in the radio
control according to said grouping identifiers and permitting
selection of only one radio button element in each of the
groups.
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejects claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. §102(e)
as being anticipated by Lahti (US 6,983,421 B1 issued Jan. 3, 2006 (filed
Feb 28, 2002)).
Appeal 2014-004525
Application 11/023,318

3

2. The Examiner rejects claims 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lahti.

ISSUE
Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellants’
contentions, and the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the pivotal issues
before us follows:
Does the Examiner err in finding that Lahti discloses “rendering
groups of radio button elements in the radio control according to said
grouping identifiers and permitting selection of only one radio button
element in each of the groups” as recited in claim 6?

ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects independent claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as anticipated by Lahti. (Final Act. 2–5; Ans. 3, 5–6.) Appellants contend,
inter alia, that Lahti, at most, describes a single group of radio buttons, not
multiple groups as recited in claim 6. (App. Br. 3–8; Reply Br. 2–6.)
Specifically, Appellants contend:
Upon review of Figure 3, it is clear that Figure 3 merely
shows a pair of radio buttons—“Coupe” and “Sedan.”
However, Figure 3 of Lahti does not teach rendering groups of
radio button elements. Rather, at most, Figure 3 shows a
singular group (Coupe and Sedan) of radio buttons, not groups
of radio button elements in a radio control according to
grouping identifiers and permitting selection of only one radio
button element in each of the groups, as required by Appellants’
claim language.
(App. Br. 5.)
Appeal 2014-004525
Application 11/023,318

4

The Examiner takes the position that Lahti’s Figure 3 describes
multiple groups of radio buttons (see Final Act. 2–5; Ans. 3, 5–6) — “Figure
3 of Lahiti . . . shows a plurality of group identifiers such as “Body Style”
and “Options” . . . . [as well as] groups of radio buttons (Body Style: Coupe,
Sedan, Options: Leather, Sunroof, Manual… Alloy) associated with the
grouping identifiers such as Coupe and Sedan” (Ans. 5). We disagree with
the Examiner’s interpretation of Lahti. The plain language of Appellants’
claim 6 permits selection of “only one radio button element in each of the
groups.” The checklist in Lahti’s Figure 3 — boxes 52d associated with
“Options” (grouping identifier, 52a ) — is not a group of radio button
elements because more than one element can be selected. As shown in
Figure 3, elements 52d indicate the selection (check marks) of two elements
(“Leather” and “Manual”). Accordingly, the proffered grouping identifier
(52a) (“Options”) and associated elements (52d) cannot be a group of radio
button elements as claimed. Additionally, Lahti distinguishes radio buttons
(Fig. 3, 52b) from check boxes (Fig. 3, 52d). (See Lahti, col. 6, ll. 5–10, 53–
58.)
Therefore, contrary to the Examiner’s position, Lahti at most
describes a single group of radio buttons (grouping identifier and associated
radio button elements), not groups of radio buttons. Thus, Lahti does not
disclose “rendering groups of radio button elements in the radio control
according to said grouping identifiers” as recited in Appellants’ claim 6.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding Lahti discloses the recited features of
Appellants’ claim 6. Appellants’ dependent claim 7 depends on and stands
Appeal 2014-004525
Application 11/023,318

5

with claim 6. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection
of claims 6 and 7.
The Examiner rejects Appellants’ dependent claims 8–10 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious in view of Lahti. (Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 4–
5.) We reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 8–10 due to
the dependence of these claims on claim 6.

CONCLUSIONS
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 6
and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 8–
10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 6–10.

REVERSED

lv