Ex Parte Armstrong et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 27, 2014

10801195 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte STEVE ARMSTRONG, SCOTT HOKENESS, and
PATRICK DOBROWSKI
____________________

Appeal 2012-0016621
Application 10/801,195
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2012-001662
Application 10/801,195

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-44. App. Br. 6. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants invented a method and system for remotely viewing in a
common visual user interface display format (95) entity data associated with
different sections of a process plant. Fig. 4, Spec. [0002]. In particular, the
plurality of sections are arranged in a navigational tree (94) specifying
different categories of entity data stored in different formats in a database to
enable a user to display any selected section in a common visual interface
format. Id. at [0013].
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1 is representative. It reads as follows:
Claim 1: A remote data viewing system of a process plant having a
plurality of data source applications, each of which collects or generates
entity data pertaining to one or more different entities within the process
plant, the remote data viewing system comprising:
a primary data collection platform configured to collect the entity data
pertaining to the one or more different entities within the process plant from
the data source applications, wherein two or more of the plurality of data
source applications each presents the entity data in different visual user
interface display formats;
a database configured to store the entity data pertaining to the one or
more different entities within the process plant collected by the primary data
collection platform;
a web server coupled to the primary data collection platform and
configured to provide remote access to the entity data stored in the database
at one or more remote platforms; and
Appeal 2012-001662
Application 10/801,195

3
a display application stored on a computer readable memory and
configured to execute on a processor within one of the one or more remote
platforms to create a display for the entity data, the display including a
navigational tree having a plurality of sections specifying different
categories of entity data in the database and a display view, wherein the
display application enables a user to select the different ones of the sections
of the navigational tree to specify different entity data to be displayed and
presents the entity data associated with a selected section of the navigational
tree in the display view in a predetermined viewing format, wherein the
predetermined viewing format is a common visual user interface display
format for presenting entity data associated with each of the plurality of
sections specifying the different entity data to be displayed in a same visual
user interface format without presenting a same type of entity data in
multiple different visual user interface display formats.

Prior Art Relied Upon
Nixon et al. US 2002/0077711 A1 June 20, 2002
Kall et al. US 2003/0149608 A1 Aug. 7, 2003
Latzel US 2004/0230897 A1 Nov. 18, 2004
Spriggs et al. US 6,889,096 B2 May 3, 2005
Saleh et al. US 7,363,588 B2 Apr. 22, 2008

Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-10, 15, 17, 19, 22-25, 27, 28, 30-34, 36, 42, and 43
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
combination of Nixon and Saleh.
Claims 19, 22, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Nixon, Saleh, and Latzel.
Claims 3, 16, 18, 29, 35, and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Nixon, Saleh, and
Spriggs.
Claims 6, 11-14, 20, 21, 37-40, and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
Appeal 2012-001662
Application 10/801,195

4
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Nixon, Saleh, and
Kall.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 6-24, and the Reply Brief, pages 1-8.2

Dispositive Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, did the Examiner err in finding
Nixon and Saleh are properly combined to teach or suggest displaying entity
data associated with a selected section of a navigational tree in a common
visual user interface display format, as recited in claim 1?

Appellants argue the proffered combination of references does not
teach or suggest the disputed limitations emphasized above. App. Br. 8-17;
Reply Br. 2-5. In particular, Appellants argue “while Nixon et al. discloses a
navigational tool and Saleh et al. discloses mapping from multiple
applications into a common interface, one of ordinary skill in the art would
not look to combine the respective teachings.” App. Br. 10. First,
Appellants submit that although Nixon discloses displaying in different
types of screens data associated with a selected section of a navigational
tree, Nixon does not teach that the selected navigational section is displayed
in a common viewing format. App. Br. 11. Further, Appellants argue

2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed April 4, 2011), the Reply Brief (filed August
30, 2011), and the Answer (mailed June 30, 2011) for the respective details.
We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants
actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellants could have
made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2012-001662
Application 10/801,195

5
because Saleh’s disclosure of a common graphical user interface (GUI)
display format does not present entity data associated with sections of a
navigational tree, Saleh does not cure Nixon’s deficiencies. Id. at 14; Reply
Br. 4.
Second, Appellants submit the Examiner’s proposed rationale to
modify Nixon with Saleh’s teachings would not support the finding of
obviousness. According to Appellants, Saleh’s mechanism for directly
mapping application data to a common GUI would change the principle of
operation of Nixon. App. Br. 15-17; Reply Br. 5.
In response, the Examiner finds Nixon’s disclosure of displaying a
navigational tree in a GUI selected section in a common manner and format,
taken in combination with Saleh’s disclosure of a predetermined viewing
format being a common visual user interface display format for presenting
section data would predictably result in a system that provides users with
less difficulty in operating various applications. Ans. 9, 37-43.
Consequently, the Examiner submits the teachings of Nixon and Saleh are
properly combined to teach the disputed limitations. Id.
Based upon our review of the record before, we agree with the
Examiner’s underlying factual findings and ultimate conclusion of
obviousness regarding claim 1. We therefore adopt as our own these
findings and conclusions, which incorporate herein by reference. We
nonetheless highlight the following for emphasis. First, we note despite
Appellants’ initial acknowledgement that Nixon teaches a navigation tool
and Saleh teaches mapping applications into a common display interface,
App. Br. 10, Appellants argue Nixon does not teach displaying information
in a common viewing format, id. at 11, or Saleh does not teach the
Appeal 2012-001662
Application 10/801,195

6
navigational tree, id. at 14. We agree with the Examiner that, in considering
the general form of Appellants’ arguments in the principal Brief, Appellants
initially attacked the individual teachings of Nixon and Saleh separately, as
opposed to the combined disclosures proffered by the Examiner. Ans. 37.
We note that one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking the references
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, the
respective references relied on by the Examiner must be read, not in
isolation, but for what the combination teaches or suggests when considered
as a whole. In particular, we echo the Examiner’s finding that Nixon’s
disclosure of displaying in a navigational tree common information
pertaining to selected sections of a process plant is complemented by Saleh’s
disclosure of a GUI for presenting such selected section information in a
common display format. Ans. 37-43. We thus find the cumulative weight
and the totality of the evidence on this record favor the Examiner’s position
that the combined disclosures of Nixon and Saleh would have taught or
suggested the disputed limitations.
Second, to the extent Appellants’ arguments challenge the
Examiner’s rationale to combine the references, Appellants are reminded
the U.S. Supreme Court has held “[t]he combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
416 (2007). The Court further instructs that:
Often, it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated
teachings of multiple patents; . . . and the background
knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the
art, all in order to determine whether there was an apparent
Appeal 2012-001662
Application 10/801,195

7
reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed
by the patent at issue.

Id. at 418.
Additionally, the Court instructs that:
“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by
mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness”. . . . [H]owever,
the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can
take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person
of ordinary skill in the art would employ.

Id. (citation omitted.)
We find the ordinarily skilled artisan, being a creative individual,
would have been able to fit the cited teachings Nixon and Saleh together like
pieces of a puzzle to predictably result in the disputed limitations. In
particular, we agree with the Examiner the proffered combination would
predictably result in a system displaying in a common format in a GUI
selected section data arranged in a navigational hierarchy for facilitate ease
of use and process of various applications associated therewith. Ans. 9.
While it may be necessary for an Examiner to identify a reason for
modifying the familiar elements obtained from the prior art in establishing a
prima facie case of obviousness, the identification of such a reason is not a
sine qua non requirement. So long as the Examiner provides an articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to substantiate the obviousness
rejection, such a conclusion is proper. In this case, the afore-cited rationale
provided by the Examiner is more than just a mere conclusory statement. In
Appeal 2012-001662
Application 10/801,195

8
our view, such a statement suffices as an articulated reason with a rational
underpinning to support the proffered combination. As noted above, the
case law allows the Examiner to look to the state of the prior art, including
the knowledge of the ordinarily skilled artisan, to arrive at such a reason for
combining the known elements of the prior art. Consequently, the
Examiner’s reliance upon widely available knowledge in order to arrive at
an articulated reason with a rational underpinning to support the proffered
combination is proper. Therefore, we find unavailing Appellants’ argument
that Saleh’s disclosure would render Nixon’s solution unsuitable for its
intended purpose or that it teaches away from the same.3 We are satisfied
that because Nixon and Saleh disclose prior art elements that perform their
ordinary functions to predictably result in a GUI that presents navigational
data for a selected section in a common display format, the proffered
combination teaches or suggests the disputed limitations.
For at least the aforementioned reasons, we find Appellants have not
sustained the requisite burden on appeal of providing arguments or evidence
persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1. It
therefore follows that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in

3 An argument that the system is rendered unsuitable for its “intended
purpose” is a “teach[] away” argument. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902
(Fed. Cir. 1984) (The court concluded that in effect, “French teaches away
from the board's proposed modification” because “if the French apparatus
were turned upside down, it would be rendered inoperable for its intended
purpose”). The Federal Circuit has held “[a] reference may be said to teach
away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be
discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led
in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting In re Gurley, 27 F.3d
551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
Appeal 2012-001662
Application 10/801,195

9
finding that the combination of Nixon and Saleh renders claim 1
unpatentable.
Regarding the rejection of claims 2-44, because Appellants have not
presented separate patentability arguments or have reiterated substantially
the same arguments as those previously discussed for patentability of claim
1 above, claims 2-44 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-44 as set forth above.
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

cdc