Ex Parte Barton et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 26, 2012

11007536 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte EDWARD M. BARTON, SEEMA GURURAJ, DELBERT B. HOOBLER III, and CARLOS R. PEREZ ____________ Appeal 2010-000343 Application 11/007,5361 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before MARC S. HOFF, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and THOMAS S. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 8, 9, 11, and 13-16.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 The real party in interest is International Business Machines Corporation. 2 Claims 1-7, 10, 12, and 17-23 have been cancelled. Appeal 2010-000343 Application 11/007,536 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention concerns a system for configuring an application without prior knowledge of the application. The system includes (1) means for receiving page layout information indicative of a page layout of a configuration wizard page for configuring the application wherein the page layout information excludes executable instructions for rendering and displaying the configuration information and (2) rendering and displaying the configuration wizard page based on the page layout information (Spec. 2). Independent claim 8, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 8. A system comprising: at least one processor; at least one memory storing instructions operable with the at least one processor for configuring an application without any prior knowledge of the application, the instructions being executed for: receiving page layout information indicative of a page layout of a configuration wizard page for configuring the application, wherein the page layout information excludes executable instructions for rendering and displaying the configuration wizard page; rendering and displaying the configuration wizard page based on the page layout information; Appeal 2010-000343 Application 11/007,536 3 receiving configuration option data detailing an option of the configuration wizard page, wherein the configuration wizard page is rendered and displayed based on the page layout information and the configuration option data; and receiving and verifying user input data responsive to a display of the configuration wizard page. REFERENCES Bybee US 2003/0222908 Al Dec. 04, 2003 REJECTIONS Claims 8, 9, 11, and 13-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Bybee. ISSUES Appellants argue that Bybee does not teach page layout information excluding executable instructions for rendering and displaying the configuration wizard page (App. Br. 8).3 Appellants further argue that Bybee fails to teach rendering and displaying pages based on the page layout information (App. Br. 9). Appellants contend that Bybee does not teach receiving and verifying user input data (App. Br. 9). 3 Appellants’ argument that Bybee does not teach configuring an application “without any prior knowledge of the application” appears for the first time in the Reply Brief (pp. 4-5). In the absence of good cause why this argument was not earlier presented, it is not considered. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1473-74 (BPAI 2010). Appeal 2010-000343 Application 11/007,536 4 With respect to dependent claim 9, Appellants assert that Bybee does not teach a callback to the application for a configuration wizard definition file (App. Br. 10). With respect to dependent claim 13, Appellants assert that Bybee does not teach transmitting the at least one verified user option value to the application (App. Br. 10). Appellants’ contentions present us with the following issues: 1. Does Bybee teach page layout information excluding executable instructions for rendering and displaying the configuration wizard page? 2. Does Bybee teach rendering and displaying the configuration wizard page based on the page layout information? 3. Does Bybee teach receiving and verifying user input data responsive to a display of the configuration wizard page? 4. Does Bybee teach executing a callback to the application for a configuration wizard definition file? 5. Does Bybee teach verified user input data including at least one verified user option value? PRINCIPLES OF LAW “A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that each and every limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed in a single prior art reference.” In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). Appeal 2010-000343 Application 11/007,536 5 ANALYSIS CLAIMS 8, 11, 15, AND 16 We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Bybee does not teach page layout information excluding executable instructions for rendering and displaying the configuration wizard page (App. Br. 8). The Examiner finds that layout transformation subroutine 1200, in which XGL layout data is examined to position user interface components, meets this limitation (Ans. 4; Bybee ¶¶ [0092], [0093]). We agree with the Examiner that “if packages are retrieved from a server, then the information is received” (Ans. 7). Appellants’ contention that Bybee teaches a wizard page display subroutine but does not appear to teach rendering and displaying pages based on the page layout information (App. Br. 9) is also unpersuasive. Appellants assert that Bybee instead teaches passing containers of packages to a client “that presumably included executable instructions for rendering and displaying the wizard pages” (App. Br. 9). Appellants fail to provide any evidence that Bybee’s containers of packages actually include executable instructions. We do not adopt Appellants’ unsupported allegation. We are likewise unpersuaded by Appellants’ further argument that Bybee does not teach receiving and verifying user input data (App. Br. 9). We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Bybee teaches such verification in subroutine 1700 (Ans. 9; Bybee Fig.17). Bybee teaches verification at decision block 1730, “where a determination is made whether more input is required or whether there was an error in the user’s input” (¶ [0100]). Appeal 2010-000343 Application 11/007,536 6 We find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 8, 11, 15, and 16 under § 102. We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection. CLAIM 9 We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Bybee does not teach a callback to the application for a configuration wizard definition file (App. Br. 10). We agree with the Examiner’s finding that subroutine 1300, where objects in the XGL package are transformed into user interface components as laid out according to the layout components previously transformed in subroutine block 1200 (Ans. 10), corresponds to the recited application callbacks (Ans. 11). We find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 9 under § 102. We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection. CLAIMS 13 AND 14 We find Appellants’ argument that Bybee does not teach transmitting the at least one verified user option value to the application (App. Br. 10) to be unpersuasive to show that the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellants that Bybee is silent with regard to verified user option values. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Bybee teaches that “if the user signs up for an account, the XGL server 400 might check all the account information received from the user and, once validated, provide a confirmation 740 back to client device 300” (Ans. 11, Bybee ¶ [0080]). We find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 13, or claim 14 dependent thereon, as anticipated by Bybee. We will sustain the § 102 rejection. Appeal 2010-000343 Application 11/007,536 7 CONCLUSIONS 1. Bybee teaches page layout information excluding executable instructions for rendering and displaying the configuration wizard page. 2. Bybee teaches rendering and displaying the configuration wizard page based on the page layout information. 3. Bybee teaches receiving and verifying user input data responsive to a display of the configuration wizard page. 4. Bybee teaches executing a callback to the application for a configuration wizard definition file. 5. Bybee teaches verified user input data including at least one verified user option value. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 8, 9, 11, and 13-16 is affirmed. 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)(2010). AFFIRMED peb