Oracle International Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 7, 2021

2020005257 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 7, 2021)

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.
15/629,291 06/21/2017 John Ken Offenhartz 092300-1043341
(084810US)
1065
51206 7590 12/07/2021
Oracle / Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
FABER, DAVID
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2177
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/07/2021 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):
KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
oraclepatentmail@kilpatricktownsend.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Ex parte JOHN KEN OFFENHARTZ and DANA DAWES

Appeal 2020-005257
Application 15/629,291
Technology Center 2100

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JASON J. CHUNG, and
MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. Appeal Br. 3. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Oracle
International Corporation. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-005257
Application 15/629,291

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter generally relates to configuring software
applications with a utility which is designed to be easy to use and
informative. Spec ¶ 17. In determining the configuration parameters of the
software applications, metadata is gathered from the applications and used to
construct a configuration user interface. Spec ¶ 8. For example, metadata
indicating selectable lists and fields from a web user interface can be used to
produce configuration data that is used by a particular application, such that
no modification of configuration code is required to create a web user
interface for a new application. Id. ¶¶ 13–15.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative, with a below-discussed limitation
emphasized in italics:
1. A method, comprising:
retrieving, by a configuration application on a computer system
from a centralized configuration data store, configuration
metadata and first configuration data, the configuration
metadata comprising a first configuration element of a first user
application on the computer system and a second configuration
element of a second user application on the computer system,
and the first configuration data comprising a first data value for
the first configuration element;
generating, using the configuration application, a graphical user
interface, the graphical user interface comprising:
a first data entry field pre-populated with the first data
value retrieved from the centralized configuration data store,
and a second data entry field associated with the second
configuration element;
storing, by the configuration application in the
centralized configuration data store, a second configuration data
comprising a second data value for the second configuration
element, wherein:
Appeal 2020-005257
Application 15/629,291

3
the second data value is received via the second
data entry field of the graphical user interface, the first
configuration data is used by the first user application
during execution for configuration of the first user
application, and the second configuration data is used by
the second user application during execution for
configuration of the second user application;
executing, by the computer system, a first time
configuration wizard to receive and store third configuration
data in the centralized configuration data store, wherein:
the first time configuration wizard provides an
interface for entry of one or more data values for one or
more configuration elements of a third user application,
the first time configuration wizard requires entry of a
third data value associated with a third configuration
element of the third user application to store within the
third configuration data, the third configuration element
is a setting required by the third user application to
execute properly, and the third configuration data is used
by the third user application during execution for
configuration of the third user application; and
executing, by the computer system, each user application
by retrieving the associated configuration data from the
centralized configuration data store and using the associated
configuration data to configure the user application for
execution.
Appeal Br. 15–16 (Claims App.). Independent claim 11 recites a system
having substantially similar limitations to those in claim 1. Id. at 18–19.
Dependent claims 2–10 and 12–20 each incorporate the limitations of their
respective independent claims. Id. at 16–21.
REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Lipinski US 2003/0069947 A1 Apr. 10, 2003
Appeal 2020-005257
Application 15/629,291

4
Young et al.
(“Young”)
US 2005/0268122 A1 Dec. 1, 2005
Chewning et al.
(“Chewning”)
US 2006/0004612 A1 Jan. 5, 2006
Engel et al.
(“Engel”)
US 2006/0224711 A1 Oct. 5, 2006
Andrew US 2007/0088556 A1 Apr. 19, 2007
Johnson US 2007/0130528 A1 June 7, 2007
Duhaime et al.
(“Duhaime”)
US 7,870,614 B1 Jan. 11, 2011
Offenhartz et al.
(“Offenhartz”)
US 9,753,747 B2 Sept. 5, 2017
Weisner “Pull-Down Menus, Scrolling
Lists, and Multi-Line Fields”
Nov. 7, 2002
Collins “Create a Cascading List from a
Hierarchical Data Source”
July 6, 2005
Armstrong “The J2EETM 1.4 Tutorial” Dec. 7, 2005

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double
patenting over claims 1–16 of Offenhartz in view of Engel.
Claims 1–3, 10–13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious over the combination of Johnson, Andrew, Engel, and
Lipinski.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious
over the combination of Johnson, Andrew, Engel, Lipinski, Chewning, and
Weiser.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious
over the combination of Johnson, Andrew, Engel, Lipinski, Chewning, and
Collins.
Appeal 2020-005257
Application 15/629,291

5
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious
over the combination of Johnson, Andrew, Engel, Lipinski, and Armstrong.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious
over the combination of Johnson, Andrew, Engel, Lipinski, and Duhaime.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious
over the combination of Johnson, Andrew, Engel, Lipinski, and Young.
OPINION
I. Double Patenting
Appellant has not argued substantive error in the Examiner’s double
patenting rejection of claims 1–20 over claims 1–16 of Offenhartz in view of
Engel. Reply Br. 8; Non-Final Act. 22. The Examiner has not withdrawn
the non-statutory double patenting rejection, but instead, maintains all
rejections in the Non-Final Action. Ans. 4–5. Accordingly, we sustain, pro
forma, the rejection of claims 1–20 on the ground of nonstatutory double
patenting.2
II. Obviousness
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims
1–8, 10– 18, and 20 is in error because (1) Andrew, Engel, Chewning, and
Duhaime are not analogous art to the claimed invention (Appeal Br. 8–9),
and (2) the combination of applied references fails to teach all claim
limitations (Appeal Br. 10–13).

2 See MPEP 1214.06 (I) for procedures for seeking to overcome a
nonstatutory double patenting rejection following a Board decision.
Appeal 2020-005257
Application 15/629,291

6
1. Analogous Art
“[A]ny need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of
the invention and addressed by the patent [or application at issue] can
provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” KSR
Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007).
Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1)
whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of
the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the
field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the
inventor is involved.
In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Although the Examiner
does not specify which test is met for any individual reference, we consider
both tests in view of the facts set forth by the Examiner and by the record of
the proceeding.
a. Field of Endeavor
Determination of the applicable field of endeavor requires
consideration of “explanations of the invention’s subject matter in the patent
application, including the embodiments, function, and structure of the
claimed invention.” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325. For example, our reviewing
court has found a reference’s pump to be in the same field of endeavor as a
claimed compressor because both moved fluids by piston, cylinder, and
valves. In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442 (Fed. Cir. 1986). A field of
endeavor should not be drawn too narrowly, but instead “closely
approximate the reality of the circumstances surrounding the making of an
invention.” In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (C.C.P.A. 1979) (disagreeing
with Appellant’s assertion that the field of endeavor should be limited only
Appeal 2020-005257
Application 15/629,291

7
to “sonic” carburetors, and finding “subsonic” carburetors to fall within a
“more realistic description of the field”).
In this appeal, both the Appellant and the Examiner provide
characterizations of the field of endeavor of the claimed invention that,
although different, are supported by the record. Appellant characterizes the
field of endeavor of the claimed invention as “configuration of software
applications.” Appeal Br. 9. We note that the Specification, titled
“Dynamic Generated Web UI [“User Interface”] for Configuration,”
supports Appellant’s characterization. See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 17 (“Users can be
able to configure their application with a utility which is designed to be easy
to use and informative.”). Such configuration includes information that is
used to set up applications. Spec. ¶ 13.
The Examiner finds that Appellant’s invention deals with metadata
being stored in a centralized configuration data store that is used among
multiple applications. Ans. 7. This statement was made in the context of
describing “Appellant’s invention described in their specification and their
claimed invention,” in supporting the analogous nature of the applied art. Id.
Consequently, this statement is reflective of the factual grounding for the
Examiner’s finding of analogous art, including for the field of endeavor
prong. The Specification and the Appeal Brief also support the Examiner’s
characterization of the field of endeavor involving configuration data for
multiple applications. See Spec. ¶ 3 (“[c]onfiguration information [that] is
typically used to set up applications”); Appeal Br. 3–4 (describing the
claimed invention as storing, in a centralized configuration data store, data to
be used by first and second user applications). Further, claim 1 reflects
configuration of software applications in the form of retrieving configuration
Appeal 2020-005257
Application 15/629,291

8
information, storing that information, and executing applications according
to that information.
Although Appellant later provides a more narrow characterization of
the field of endeavor as using metadata to construct a configuration user
interface (Reply Br. 2), this instead addresses the problem being solved by
the inventor. See Appeal Br. 9 (“the problem faced by the inventor is how to
use metadata to construct a configuration user interface for configuring
applications”). The field of endeavor should be limited by the scope of the
field, not the particulars of the problem being solved. See In re Clay, 966
F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (describing the field as “the storage of
refined liquid hydrocarbons” rather than “maximizing withdrawal of
petroleum stored in petroleum reservoirs.”); In re Deminski, 796 F.2d at
441–442 (finding the claimed invention directed to the “problem of
removing worn or damaged valves from compressors,” but the field of
endeavor to encompass prior art that moves fluids by a double-acting piston,
cylinder, and valves, regardless of whether such art pertains to a pump or
compressor). Although the solution to the problem being solved is via using
metadata to construct a configuration user interface, the field of endeavor of
the claimed invention is not limited to solutions to that problem.
Accordingly, the field of endeavor of the claimed invention
encompasses configuration of software applications through Appellant’s
disclosed embodiments, functions and structures, without limitation as to
Appellant’s particular solution. As discussed below, the applied Andrew
and Engel references share the same field of endeavor as the claimed
invention.
Appeal 2020-005257
Application 15/629,291

9
i. Andrew
The record reflects Andrew’s placement in the field of configuration
of software applications. The Examiner finds Andrew to be concerned with
a centralized database to be used for metadata of multiple applications. Ans.
7. This metadata may be used to describe the capabilities or characteristics
of the applications to configure the properties of a command and control
software application. Andrew ¶¶ 49–51, 61, 65. The user may use the
voice-activated command and control software to access, configure, and
execute software applications. Andrew ¶¶ 57, 61–62. Thus, the functions
and structure (for software, the underlying algorithm) of Andrew are similar
to that of the claimed invention, which uses software to automatically
access, retrieve, and store configuration data for multiple applications, and
execute those applications. Accordingly, Andrew is in the same field of
endeavor as the claimed invention.
Appellant’s argument as to why Andrew is not in the same field of
endeavor is not persuasive to the contrary. Appellant argues Andrew to be
in the field of a speech-activated command and control system that identifies
spoken user commands. Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 3 (citing Andrew’s title,
abstract, and claims). However, Appellant provides no explanation of why
Andrew is in a different field of endeavor, except for pointing out alleged
differences in the problems being solved by Andrew and by Appellant. Id.
This is not persuasive because a reference may be in the same field of
endeavor despite addressing a different problem. Deminski, 796 F.2d at
441–442. Appellant acknowledges that the test for the field of endeavor
requires consideration of the “embodiments, function, and structure” of the
claimed invention. Reply Br. 2 (citing Airbus SAS v. Firepass Corp., 941
Appeal 2020-005257
Application 15/629,291

10
F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). However, Appellant has not addressed
Airbus SAS’s complementary requirement that the structure and function of
the reference also be considered and compared to that of the claimed
invention. Airbus SAS, 941 F.3d at 1380 (stating, “the challenged prior art
references of In re Deminski were in the same field of endeavor “because
they disclosed pumps and compressors that had ‘essentially the same
function and structure’ as the claimed piston devices”). Such consideration
may require no more than a “common sense” inquiry. Id. at 1381 (finding
challenged claims “expressly directed to a fire-preventative and fire-
suppressive system” to be in a different field of endeavor from a reference
that lacked any disclosure of fire). However, Appellant does not perform the
required comparison of Andrew with the claimed invention, in sufficient
detail to support a difference in the field of endeavor. Although Appellant
provides a description of the field of invention of Andrew that differs from
that of the claimed invention, Appellant does not persuasively address why
Andrew is in a different field of invention despite the aforementioned
similarities in structure and function exhibited by Andrew. Consequently,
the record reflects that Andrew is in the same field of endeavor as the
claimed invention.
ii. Engel
Engel also shares the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention.
The Examiner finds Engel to be concerned with display functionality for a
configuration settings page for an application having one or more pre-
populated metadata configuration data fields. Id. at 7–9. For new devices,
the configuration data for the device is obtained by a server from the device
or a user interface via software command and stored to permit the user to
Appeal 2020-005257
Application 15/629,291

11
properly execute the programs and receive data therefrom. Engel ¶¶ 24,
117, 120, 126. Thus, the functions and structure of Engel are similar to that
of the claimed invention, which uses software to automatically access,
retrieve, and store configuration data for multiple applications, and execute
those applications. Accordingly, Engel is in the same field of endeavor.
Appellant’s explanation as to why Engel is not in the same field of
endeavor is not persuasive to the contrary. Appellant characterizes the field
of endeavor of Engel as a server adapted to communicate with multiple
communication networks and communicating devices. Appeal Br. 9; Reply
Br. 3 (citing Engel ¶ 2, title, abstract, and claims). However, Appellant does
attempt to provide a comparison of the respective functions and structures of
Engel and the claimed invention. Although Appellant provides a description
of the field of invention of Engel that differs from that of the claimed
invention, Appellant does not persuasively address why Engel is in a
different field of invention despite the aforementioned similarities in Engel’s
structure and function. Consequently, the record reflects that Engel is in the
same field of invention as the claimed invention.
b. Reasonably pertinent to the claimed invention
A reference is reasonably pertinent if “it is one which, because of the
matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an
inventor’s attention in considering his problem.” In re Clay, 966 F.2d at
659. The pertinence analysis must be carried out through the lens of a
person having ordinary skill in the art who is considering turning to art
outside her field of endeavor. Donner Tech., LLC v. Pro Stage Gear, LLC,
979 F.3d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
Appeal 2020-005257
Application 15/629,291

12
Appellant characterizes the problem addressed by the inventor is to
create a configuration user interface for a new application that is easily used
for multiple applications without modifying configuration code. Appeal Br.
9; Reply Br. 3 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 13–14). This characterization is generally
supported by the cited section of Appellant’s Specification. As explained in
further detail, Andrew, Chewning, and Duhaime are each references that
would have commended themselves to the inventor’s attention in creating
such a configuration user interface.
i. Andrew
Andrew, in Appellant’s characterization, addresses the problem that
users of speech-activated systems do not always know what available input
operations exist. Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 3. Andrew addresses that problem
by automatically gathering data, from the applications and from user
activity, to create a voice-activated user interface permitting a user to more
easily access the functionalities of the software applications it controls. See,
e.g., Andrew ¶¶ 48–49, 52, 61. Because Andrew automatically gathers data
from applications to form a user interface, we agree with the Examiner that
Andrew would have been of interest to an inventor seeking to create a
configuration user interface for multiple applications, including a new
application. Accordingly, Andrew would have commended itself to the
inventor’s attention in creating a configuration user interface for a new
application that is easily used for multiple applications without modifying
configuration code.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive to the contrary. Appellant
merely states, in a conclusory manner, that an inventor “would not look to
speech-activated command and control systems such as disclosed in Andrew
Appeal 2020-005257
Application 15/629,291

13
for solving the problem faced.” Appeal Br. 9. Appellant adds, “[n]othing
about Andrew would have caused a person of ordinary skill to look to
Andrew and apply its teachings to solve the problem faced by the inventor.”
Reply Br. 3. However, Appellant does not provide any facts or reasoning
that would tend to support this conclusion. Consequently, the record
supports a determination that Andrew is reasonably pertinent to the
particular problem to which Appellant’s inventor was involved.
ii. Engel
Appellant characterizes the problem of Engel as transmissions being
impacted by various components having control of bus transmissions, and
custom local software is required. Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 4. Engel
addresses that problem by storing configuration data obtained from new
devices, preloading that data into a user interface, permitting a user to update
the preloaded data, and storing the updated data. Ans. 8–9. Because Engel
describes a process for preloading data into a user interface, we agree with
the Examiner that Engel would have been of interest to an inventor seeking
to create an easily used configuration user interface for multiple
applications, including a new application. Accordingly, Engel would have
commended itself to the inventor’s attention in creating a configuration user
interface for a new application that is easily used for multiple applications
without modifying configuration code.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive to the contrary. Appellant
merely states, in a conclusory manner, that an inventor “would not look to
servers for communicating with multiple networks such as disclosed in
Engel for solving the problem of using metadata to construct configuration
user interfaces for configuring software applications.” Appeal Br. 9.
Appeal 2020-005257
Application 15/629,291

14
Appellant adds, “Engel describes a problem in communication networks in
which various components have control of bus transmissions for varying
reasons and other components may impact transmissions, and on complex
networks the control, protection, and monitoring often requires custom or
local software and custom graphics for remote viewing.” Reply Br. 3 (citing
Engel [0004]–[0023]). However, Appellant unduly focuses on Engel’s
alleged problem. The reasonably pertinent analysis inquires not into the
reference’s problem, but instead, into “the matter with which [the reference]
deals.” Clay, 966 F.2d at 659. As discussed, Engel deals with configuration
user interfaces for new applications that are easily used. Consequently, the
record supports a determination that Engel is reasonably pertinent to the
particular problem to which Appellant’s inventor was involved.
iii. Chewning
The Examiner finds Chewning to be analogous art because Chewning
is concerned with stored fields for data in which a drop down list provides a
list of selectable values. Ans. 9–10. Appellant argues that Chewning is not
reasonably pertinent to Appellant’s problem because the problem of
Chewning is data prone error entry to a central database and time consuming
lookup associated with individual files held by an insurance agent. Appeal
Br. 9; Reply Br. 4–5.
However, Appellant again errs by focusing solely on the problem of
Chewning rather than the matter with which Chewning deals. Chewning
deals with providing a drop down list in a user interface to reduce data entry
errors in that interface. We agree that this would have been of interest to an
inventor seeking to create an easily used user interface. Accordingly,
Chewning would have commended itself to the inventor’s attention in
Appeal 2020-005257
Application 15/629,291

15
creating a configuration user interface for a new application that is easily
used for multiple applications without modifying configuration code.
iv. Duhaime
The Examiner finds Duhaime, applied only to the rejections of claims
7 and 17, to be analogous art because Duhaime is concerned with security
features for sensitive data in a database. Ans. 10–11. Appellant argues that
Duhaime is not reasonably pertinent to Appellant’s problem because the
problem of Duhaime is reduction of the usefulness of a display when
sensitive data is masked. Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 5.
However, Appellant again errs by focusing solely on the problem of
Duhaime rather than the matter with which Duhaime deals. Duhaime deals
with providing enhanced security in a user interface. We agree that this
would have been of interest to an inventor seeking to create a configuration
user interface for multiple applications, including a new application.
Accordingly, Duhaime would have commended itself to the inventor’s
attention in creating a configuration user interface for a new application that
is easily used for multiple applications without modifying configuration
code.
2. Claim Limitations
As an initial matter, Appellant admits that the Appeal Brief addressed
language that does not exist in claim 1, but states, “the original arguments in
the Appeal Brief stand.” Reply Br. 6. Thus, the additional arguments in the
Reply Brief addressing the actual claim language are newly raised.
Arguments newly raised in the Reply Brief and not responsive to an
argument raised in an Examiner’s Answer are not considered absent good
cause. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41. Appellant has not presented a showing of good
Appeal 2020-005257
Application 15/629,291

16
cause for consideration of the newly made arguments; therefore, we address
the original arguments in the Appeal Brief only.
Furthermore, because the language addressed in the Appeal Brief
differs from the actual language of claim 1, the original arguments made in
the Appeal Brief that the below-listed limitations are not taught in the cited
prior art amount only to a general allegation of unpatentability, although we
address each argument on its merits against the actual claim language.
a. Retrieving metadata
Appellant argues that no reference teaches or suggests the limitation,
hereinafter referred to as the “retrieving metadata” limitation, of
retrieving, by a configuration application on a computer system
from a centralized configuration data store, configuration
metadata and first configuration data, the configuration
metadata comprising a first configuration element of a first user
application on the computer system and a second configuration
element of a second user application on the computer system,
and the first configuration data comprising a first data value for
the first configuration element.
Reply Br. 5–6.
The Examiner relies upon Johnson for teaching the limitations
emphasized in italics:
retrieving, by a configuration application on a computer system
from a centralized configuration data store, configuration
metadata and first configuration data, the configuration
metadata comprising a first configuration element of a first
user application on the computer system and a second
configuration element of a second user application on the
computer system, and the first configuration data comprising a
first data value for the first configuration element.
Non-Final Act. 3. The Examiner relies upon Andrew for teaching a
centralized data store. Id. at 6. The Examiner relies upon Engel for teaching
Appeal 2020-005257
Application 15/629,291

17
a centralized data store from which is retrieved configuration metadata and
configuration data, wherein the first configuration data comprises a first data
value for the first configuration element. Id. at 8. The Examiner has,
therefore, pointed to teachings in Johnson, Andrew, and Engel such that
their combination teaches all of the claimed “retrieving metadata”
limitations.
Appellant’s argument that the combined teachings of Johnson,
Andrew, Engel, and Lipinski do not teach the “retrieving metadata”
limitation (Appeal Br. 10–12) is not persuasive because the Examiner has
accounted for a teaching of each element of the “retrieving metadata”
limitation by at least one of the cited references. Appellant’s further
argument that none of the individual references teaches the entirety of the
“retrieving metadata” limitation (Appeal Br. 11) is not persuasive either,
because the test for obviousness is “what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Nor are we persuaded by Appellant’s remaining arguments that the
Examiner has “cherry-picked” the references using hindsight reconstruction
of the claims, and dissected the claims instead of considering the claims as a
whole. Appeal Br. 12. It has been noted that,
[a]ny judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a
reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it
takes into account only knowledge which was within the level
of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was
made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from
applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.
In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). The Examiner has
supported each teaching with citations to prior art, and provided reasoned
Appeal 2020-005257
Application 15/629,291

18
rationale for combining the teachings of each reference to show that the
entirety of the “retrieving metadata” limitation is taught or suggested in the
prior art. Non-Final Act. 3–13. The Examiner further provides an
explanation of how the respective teachings would be combined to teach or
suggest the entirety of the “retrieving metadata” limitation. Id. at 12–13.
Appellant does not explain, nor do we discern, how such teachings and
rationale for their combination are drawn solely from applicant’s disclosure.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner’s rejection improperly
relies on hindsight reconstruction of the claims.
b. Retrieving values from central database and pre-populating
data
Appellant further argues that none of the references, alone or
combined, teaches a “single configuration graphical user interface for
multiple applications.” Appeal Br. 12. Appellant here refers to the language
of the limitation, referred to hereinafter as the “generating” limitation, which
states, in pertinent part:
generating, using the configuration application, a
graphical user interface, the graphical user interface comprising
a first data entry field pre-populated with the first data value
retrieved from the centralized configuration data store, and a
second data entry field associated with the second configuration
element;
storing, by the configuration application in the
centralized configuration data store, a second configuration
data comprising a second data value for the second
configuration element, wherein:
the second data value is received via the second data entry field
of the graphical user interface, the first configuration data is
used by the first user application during execution for
configuration of the first user application, and the second
Appeal 2020-005257
Application 15/629,291

19
configuration data is used by the second user application during
execution for configuration of the second user application.
Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
Appellant admits that Johnson discloses multiple applications, but
argues that Johnson does not teach a single user interface for these multiple
applications. Appeal Br. 12. Appellant argues that no other cited reference
teaches this limitation. Id. Appellant specifically addresses Engel, arguing
that “Engel does not appear to even discuss a graphical user interface.” Id.
at 13.
However, the Examiner relies upon Engel for teaching one database
that is used for storing information and values for multiple applications,”
i.e., a “centralized database.” Non-Final Act. 7–8 (citing Engel Fig. 9). The
Examiner further finds Engel to teach a “configuration web page listing
different settings in which values for the settings can be pre-
populated/loaded from the database, entered/changed, and saved.” Id. at 8
(citing Engel ¶ 113).
Appellant does not contest this teaching in the Appeal Brief, and this
limitation is not addressed further in the Reply Brief. Here, Appellant
admits Johnson teaches multiple applications and user interfaces, the
Examiner points to teaching of a graphical user interface in Johnson (Non-
Final Act. 3–4 (citing Johnson ¶ 34) and the Examiner has explained how
Engel teaches a centralized database for presenting data regarding multiple
applications on a single configuration web page that the user can read and
alter; i.e., a user interface. The Examiner has provided a reasoned
explanation of how the combined teachings of Johnson and Engel suggest a
single configuration graphical user interface for multiple applications. Thus,
we are not persuaded that the Examiner has erred in finding the combined
Appeal 2020-005257
Application 15/629,291

20
teachings of the references to teach or suggest a “single configuration
graphical user interface for multiple applications” in the claimed manner.
With respect to “pre-populating” values, Appellant argues that neither
Johnson nor any other cited reference teaches pre-populating. Appeal Br.
12–13 (and not addressed further in the Reply Brief). However, as discussed
above, the Examiner finds Engel to teach a configuration web page having
pre-populated values. Non-Final Rejection 8 (citing Engel ¶ 113). Because
the Examiner has provided a reasoned explanation of how the references
teach this limitation, and in the absence of specific arguments to the
contrary, we are not persuaded the Examiner has erred.
CONCLUSION
For the above-described reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s
nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 1–20, and the Examiner’s
obviousness rejections of claims 1–8, 10–18, and 20 over the applied art, as
summarized below.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 Nonstatutory
Double Patenting,
1–20
1–3, 10–
13, 20
Johnson, Andrew,
Engel, Lipinski
1–3, 10–
13, 20

4, 14 Johnson, Andrew,
Engel, Lipinski,
Chewning, Weisner
4, 14
5, 15 Johnson, Andrew,
Engel, Lipinski,
Chewning, Collins
5, 15
6, 16 Johnson, Andrew, 6, 16
Appeal 2020-005257
Application 15/629,291

21
Engel, Lipinski,
Armstrong
7, 17 Johnson, Andrew,
Engel, Lipinski,
Duhaime
7, 17
8, 18 Johnson, Andrew,
Engel, Lipinski,
Young
8, 18
Overall
Outcome
1–20
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