International Business Machines Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 30, 2020

15078306 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2020)

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.
15/078,306 03/23/2016 Xu Chang CN920150195US1 8018
11445 7590 09/30/2020
IBM Corporation - Endicott Drafting Center
1701 North Street
Building 256-3
Endicott, NY 13760
EXAMINER
HOANG, AMY P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2143
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2020 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
edciplaw@us.ibm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte XU CHANG, FU BAO FAN, JUN HUI MA, and JIANDONG YIN
___________

Appeal 2019-003410
Application 15/078,306
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JAMES B. ARPIN, and STACEY G. WHITE,
Administrative Patent Judges.

ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4–8, 10–14, and 16–18, all of the pending
claims. Final Act. 2.2 Claims 3, 9, and 15 are canceled. Id. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies the real party-in-interest as International Business Machines
Corporation. Appeal Br. 3.
2 In this Decision, we refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
December 11, 2018) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed March 27, 2019);
the Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed July 12, 2018) and the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed February 19, 2019); and the
Specification (“Spec.,” filed March 23, 2016). Rather than repeat the
Examiner’s findings and Appellant’s contentions in their entirety, we refer to
these documents.
Appeal 2019-003410
Application 15/078,306

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The recited methods, computer program products, and systems
“relate[] generally to the field of graphical user interfaces and, more
particularly, to providing user-defined application start pages.” Spec. ¶ 1.
As noted above, claims 1, 2, 4–8, 10–14, and 16–18 are pending.
Claims 1, 7, and 13 are independent. Appeal Br. 40–41 (claim 1), 43
(claim 7), 45–46 (claim 13) (Claims App.).
Claim 1 recites, “[a] method for presenting start-pages on a graphical
user interface.” Id. at 40. Claim 7 recites, “[a] computer program product
for presenting start-pages on a graphical user interface, the computer
program product comprising: a computer readable storage medium and
program instructions stored on the computer readable storage medium, the
program instructions” performing functions substantially as recited in
claim 1. Id. at 43. Claim 13 recites,
[a] computer system for presenting start-pages on a graphical
user interface, the computer system comprising: one or more
computer processors; one or more computer readable storage
media; program instructions stored on the one or more computer
readable storage media for execution by at least one of the one
or more processors, the program instructions
performing functions substantially as recited in claim 1. Id. at 45. Claims 2
and 4–6 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1, claims 8 and 10–12
depend directly or indirectly from claim 7, and claims 14 and 16–18 depend
directly or indirectly from claim 13. Id. at 40–48.
Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized, is
illustrative.
1. A method for presenting start-pages on a graphical user
interface, comprising:
Appeal 2019-003410
Application 15/078,306

3

in response to executing, by one or more computer
processors, logic for selecting user-defined start pages,
executing, by one or more computer processors, logic to provide
a graphical user interface (GUI) layer as an overlay on a user
interface of a computing device;
the GUI layer detecting, by one or more computer processors,
a selection of a target application from a list of potential target
applications, and in response, executing, by one or more
computer processors, the target application on the computing
device;
the GUI layer identifying, by one or more computer
processors, a sequence of interactions on the user interface that
navigate to a page of the target application; and
the GUI layer detecting, by one or more computer processors,
an interaction with a widget of the GUI layer for setting a desired
start page, and in response, storing the page of the target
application as a user-defined start page for the target application.
Id. at 40–41 (emphases added). Independent claims 7 and 13 include
limitations substantially the same as the disputed limitations of claim 1. Id.
at 43, 45–46.
REFERENCE AND REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following reference:
Name3 Reference Publ’d Filed
Jiang US 2012/0260202 A1 Oct. 11, 2012 Apr. 11, 2011
The Examiner rejects claims 5, 6, 11, 12, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(b) as indefinite. Final Act. 2. The Examiner also rejects claims 1, 2,

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2019-003410
Application 15/078,306

4

4–8, 10–14, and 16–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Jiang.4
Id. at 4–10.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the contentions and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential). The Examiner and Appellant focus their findings and
contentions on claim 1; so do we. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 28; Ans. 9–10;
Reply Br. 5. Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Unless otherwise indicated, we adopt the Examiner’s
findings in the Final Office Action and the Answer as our own and add any
additional findings of fact for emphasis. We address these rejections below.
ANALYSIS
Indefiniteness
As noted above, the Examiner rejects claims 5, 6, 11, 12, 17, and 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite. Final Act. 2. In particular, the
Examiner finds the term “the first user interface” in claims 5, 6, 11, 12, 17,
and 18 and the term “the second user interface” in claims 6, 12, and 18 lack
sufficient antecedent basis. Id. (emphasis added). Appellant does not
contest this rejection and, instead, states, “[r]eview of the rejection of claims
5, 6, 11, 12, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is not requested at this
time.” Appeal Br. 12. Therefore, we summarily affirm the Examiner’s

4 In addition, the Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4–8, 10–14, and 16–18 as
directed to a judicial exception to patent eligibility without significantly
more. Final Act. 3–4. The Examiner has withdrawn this patent eligibility
rejection. Ans. 9.
Appeal 2019-003410
Application 15/078,306

5

indefiniteness rejection of claims 5, 6, 11, 12, 17, and 18. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Anticipation by Jiang
As noted above, The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4–8, 10–14, and
16–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Jiang. Final Act. 4–10.
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the
claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art
reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628,
631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The elements must be arranged as required by the
claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test. See In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831,
832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Moreover, “it is proper to take into account not only
specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled
in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda,
401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968). The Examiner finds Jiang discloses each
and every element of claim 1, as well as of claims 7 and 13. Final Act. 4–6,
8, 9.
Appellant contends the Examiner errs for two reasons. See Reply
Br. 5. For the reasons given below, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
contentions.
First, Appellant contends the Examiner fails to show where Jiang
discloses “the GUI layer identifying . . . a sequence of interactions on the
user interface of the computing device that navigate to a page of the target
application.” Appeal Br. 33–37; see Reply Br. 9–14. In particular,
Appellant contends, “Jiang does not require that an application (e.g.,
‘application 510’ or ‘API 520’) execute any logic to generate a ‘customized
entry page’ until after a user has already navigated to the desired entry page.
Appeal 2019-003410
Application 15/078,306

6

See Jiang, paragraphs [0025-0028].” Appeal Br. 34. Appellant
acknowledges, however, that:
While it is conceivable that user may interact with “application
510” prior to “API 520” creating a “customized entry page” (e.g.,
to navigate to “sub-pages 412 or 414” from “main page 410”), it
is clear that “API 520” would not identify any of these
interactions because “API 520” is merely passed a “navigational
address” and these interactions would have no bearing on the
creation of the “customized entry page” by “API 520.” See
[Jiang ¶ 28].
Appeal Br. 34. Appellant concludes,
it is clear that the creation of the “customized entry pages” of
Jiang is independent of any “sequence of interactions on the user
interface of the computing device that navigate to a page of the
target application,” as recited in independent claims 1, 7, and 13,
because the “navigation address” and any user-selected
“parameters” used to create the “customized entry page” are
independent of this element of independent claims 1, 7, and 13.
See Jiang, paragraphs [0025-0028].
Appeal Br. 35; see id. at 36–37 (discussing “parameters”). We disagree.
The Examiner finds the Specification discloses that:
A user of client device 110 can utilize the user interface that is
provided by start-page routing logic user interface module 304 to
select one of application 112A, application 112B, and
application 112C from a list (i.e., a list of potential target
applications), proceed to execute the selected application on
client device 110, navigate to and/or configure a desired start
page for the selected application, and instruct start page routing
logic 116 to associate the desired start page with the selected
application as the user-defined start page.
Spec. ¶ 25; see Ans. 11.
Appeal 2019-003410
Application 15/078,306

7

The Specification’s Figures 2A and 2B are reproduced below.

Figures 2A and 2B are schematic diagrams of a GUI on a client device.
Spec. ¶ 7. Referring to Figure 2A and 2B, the Specification explains:
When a user of client device 110 selects and activates one of
application icon 212A, application icon 212B, and application
icon 212C, client user interface 114 causes client device 110 to
execute code that corresponds to the selected application to start-
up or wake the selected application such that client user interface
114 presents a start page on a screen of client device 110. The
start page can be a default start page of the selected application
or a user-defined start page if start-page routing logic 116 is
configured for the selected application as described herein. In
Figure 2A, the hash pattern surrounding application icon 212A
indicates that a user has selected and activated application icon
212A via client user interface 114. In Figure 2B, client user
interface 114 presents user-defined start page 226B and various
features of application 112A, as described herein.
Appeal 2019-003410
Application 15/078,306

8

Spec. ¶ 21 (emphasis added). Referring to Figure 2B, the user selects icon
226A at the top of the screen and user-defined start page 226B is presented
on the screen. Id. ¶ 23.
The Specification does not define the term “sequence of interactions,”
but explains, “at least three user interactions with client user interface 114
are required to start application 112A and navigate to user-defined start
page 226B when the start page is the default start page (i.e., the start page
associated with page icon 220).” Spec. ¶ 23. Those interactions appear to
be selecting application 112A, activating icon for start-page routing logic
settings 216, and defining a user selected start page 226B by interacting with
icon 226A. Thus, we understand interaction to refer to any communication
or direct involvement by the user with the interface. See In re Morris, 127
F.3d 1048, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Moreover, the disputed limitation refers
to “the target application,” the “selection” of which is detected in the
preceding method step to the step containing the disputed limitation. Appeal
Br. 40 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). Consequently, we agree with the
Examiner that “the start-page routing logic user interface module 304
according to [the] specification does not instruct start page routing logic 116
to associate the desired start page with the selected application as the user-
defined start page until after a user has already navigated to the desired start
page.” Ans. 11–12 (emphasis added).
Jiang discloses, “[t]he illustrated mobile device 100 can include a
controller or processor 110 (e.g., signal processor, microprocessor, ASIC, or
other control and processing logic circuitry) for performing such tasks as
signal coding, data processing, input/output processing, power control,
and/or other functions.” Jiang ¶ 19 (emphasis added); see Final Act. 5.
Appeal 2019-003410
Application 15/078,306

9

Further, Jiang discloses that a user may interact with device 100 using a
touchscreen. Jiang ¶¶ 21, 32, 33, Fig. 1 (touchscreen 132).
Jiang discloses:
The entry page is the first page displayed to the user after
launching the application. Launching the application means that
the application program is activated from the operating system’s
user interface. By being customizable, the user can customize
what content is displayed or what page in the application is the
first viewed page. For example, instead of displaying a default
page associated with an application after launching, the user can
select sub-pages to be viewed as an entry page.
Jiang ¶ 25 (emphasis added); see Ans. 12. Referring to Figure 1, Jiang
explains, “[a]n API 113 can also be used for generating a customized entry
page for applications.” Jiang ¶ 19; see Final Act. 5. Referring to Figure 3,
Jiang explains, “[e]xample entry page information can include a navigation
address and/or parameters (data) used to customize the entry page. In
process block 320, the API updates a local application database. For
example, the API can store the navigation address and/or parameters in
association with an identifier of the application.” Jiang ¶ 26 (emphases
added); see Final Act. 5; Ans. 12. Further, Jiang explains, “[i]n order to
generate a customized entry page into the application 510, the application
calls an API 520. The application passes to the API a navigation address
and/or parameters. Typically, the navigation address is determined by
receiving user input that assigns a page to an icon.” Jiang ¶ 28 (emphasis
added). Thus, we are persuaded the Examiner shows that Jiang discloses
“the GUI layer identifying, by one or more computer processors, a sequence
of interactions on the user interface that navigate to a page of the target
application,” as recited in claim 1, as well as claims 7 and 13. See Final
Act. 5; Ans. 11–12; see also Ans. 12 (citing Jiang, Fig. 4, ¶ 27).
Appeal 2019-003410
Application 15/078,306

10

Second, Appellant contends the Examiner fails to show where Jiang
discloses “provid[ing] a graphical user interface (GUI) layer as an overlay
on a user interface of a computing device.” Appeal Br. 37–38 (alteration in
original); see Reply Br. 5–7. In particular, Appellant asserts, “[t]he overlaid
‘GUI layer’ . . . has specific features and capabilities[, i.e., the first and
second ‘detecting’ capabilities and the ‘identifying’ capability,] that any
allegedly analogous element taught by Jiang must also have to anticipate
independent claims 1, 7, and 13.” Appeal Br. 38. Applicant contends Jiang
does not disclose a GUI layer possessing each and every attribute of the
recited “GUI layer” of claims 1, 7, and 13. Id. We disagree.
The Specification provides only the broadest description of an
overlaid GUI layer. Spec. ¶¶ 25, 30. In particular, the Specification
explains,
start-page routing logic user interface module 304 can, in some
embodiments, provide a GUI layer (e.g., an overlay on client
user interface 114) that includes a widget (e.g., a button) for
setting the desired start page as the user-defined start page and
permits a user to interact with a selected program via client user
interface 114 as normal.
Id. ¶ 25 (emphasis added).
Appeal 2019-003410
Application 15/078,306

11

Jiang’s Figure 4 is reproduced below.

Figure 4 depicts “an example user interface of a third-party application and a
view of a default screen on a client device.” Jiang ¶ 14.
The Examiner finds:
As seen in [Jiang’s] Fig. 4, “Start screen” 420 is a graphical user
interface (GUI) which contains multiple icons 430 and 440
(widget) and allows users to interact with the device thru
graphical icons. When an icon is selected, the application
launches and displays the corresponding entry page as the first
page displayed (see Jiang, para [0027]). Jiang teaches these
icons are generated for selecting user-defined starts pages in
Fig. 3. The flowchart shows a method for generating an entry
page icon on the user interface statically or dynamically when an
API is called providing with a navigation address and/or
parameters used to customize the entry page. The API stores
these information in the local database (see Jiang, page [0026]).
Appeal 2019-003410
Application 15/078,306

12

In Fig. 6, Jiang discloses that when an input is received indicating
that a user selecting an icon, the application associated with the
icon is identified and the address associated with the customized
starting page and/or any customization parameters for the
application can be retrieved from the database (see Jiang, [para]
[0029]).
Ans. 10–11.
Appellant disagrees and contends that Jiang does not disclose that
icons 430 and 440 of Figure 4, as well as buttons 416 for sub-pages 412 and
414, are “generated for selecting user-defined start pages,” as recited in
claim 1. Reply Br. 6 (emphasis and alteration omitted). Appellant
concludes, “[a]ccordingly, it is only true that Jiang’s buttons/icons are
‘generated for selecting user-defined start pages’ in the sense that a user can
use the buttons/icons to select from among pre-defined entry pages. See
Jiang, paragraph [0027].” Id.
Nevertheless, Jiang’s Figure 4 depicts main page 410 of a detected,
selected application, having buttons 416 (1–N) that cause identified sub-
pages 412 and 414 to be displayed. Jiang ¶ 27. Each of sub-pages 1–N has
an associated navigation address and parameters. Id., Fig. 4; see id. ¶ 27
(“Each sub-page has a navigation address associated therewith.”). As
discussed above, these sub-pages may be identified by navigating a sequence
of interactions. See id. ¶¶ 25–28. Further, Jiang discloses detecting by
interaction with a widget, e.g., icons 430 or 440, for setting a user-defined
start page. Id., Fig. 4. In particular, Jiang explains:
Icons are typically displayed on the start screen and are used to
launch applications. Multiple icons 430 and 440 are shown for
illustration and represent that any number of icons (1-N, where
N is any number) can be displayed as entry points associated with
the sub-pages of the application. Thus, when an icon is selected,
Appeal 2019-003410
Application 15/078,306

13

the application launches and displays the corresponding entry
page as the first page displayed.
Id. ¶ 27 (emphasis added). As discussed above, this customization is
accomplished via the API. See id. ¶¶ 19, 25, 26, 28. Thus, given the
Specification’s broad description of an overlaid GUI layer, we are persuaded
the Examiner has shown a GUI layer, which performs the capabilities, as
recited in claim 1, as well as in claims 7 and 13. See Final Act. 5; Ans. 10–
11.
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs in determining that the
methods recited in claim 1, as well as the computer program products and
systems recited in claims 7 and 13, respectively, are anticipated by Jiang.
Further, Appellant does not argue dependent claims 2, 4–6, 8, 10–12, 14,
and 16–18 separately, and, on this record, we determine that the Examiner
has shown that claims 2, 4–6, 8, 10–12, 14, and 16–18 are anticipated by
Jiang. See Final Act. 6–10; Appeal Br. 39. Consequently, we are not
persuaded that the Examiner errs in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4–8, 10–14, and
16–18, and we sustain the anticipation rejection thereof.
DECISION
1. The Examiner does not err in rejecting:
a. claims 5, 6, 11, 12, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as
indefinite; and
b. claims 1, 2, 4–8, 10–14, and 16–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Jiang.
2. Thus, on this record, claims 1, 2, 4–8, 10–14, and 16–18 are not
patentable.
Appeal 2019-003410
Application 15/078,306

14

CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 4–8, 10–14, and
16–18.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis/Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
5, 6, 11,
12, 17, 18
112(b) Indefiniteness 5, 6, 11,
12, 17, 18

1, 2, 4–8,
10–14, 16–
18
102(a)(1) Jiang 1, 2, 4–8,
10–14,
16–18

Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4–8,
10–14,
16–18

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED