Ex Parte Bells et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 15, 2012

10940672 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MATTHEW BELLS and JULIAN PAAS1 ____________ Appeal 2010-007322 Application 10/940,672 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21-41.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Research In Motion Limited is the real party in interest. App. Br. 4. 2 Claims 1-20 are cancelled. App. Br. 6. Appeal 2010-007322 Application 10/940,672 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention relates to methods, mobile electronic devices, and a computer program product that enable the customization of colors in a graphical user interface by using a palette to define colors. See generally Abstract; Spec. ¶ [0005]. Such palettes include variable strings to which color values are assigned. The strings are referred to in style sheets where color attributes are specified, such that colors may be redefined in the palette, rather than in the style sheet. E.g., Spec. ¶ [0005]. Claim 21 is illustrative with a key disputed limitation emphasized: 21. A method of defining colors for a graphical user interface on a mobile electronic device, the graphical user interface controlling the operation of the mobile electronic device, the graphical user interface having a plurality of interface elements each having visual attributes, the method comprising: providing on the mobile electronic device a first theme file comprising a first color palette list and a first style sheet, the first color palette list including a plurality of variable strings each of which has an assigned color value, the first style sheet specifying color attributes of at least some of the interface elements, at least one of the color attributes of at least one of the interface elements being specified by reference to one of the variable strings; providing on the mobile electronic device a second theme file comprising a second color palette list, the second color palette list including a plurality of variable strings each having an assigned color value, wherein the variable strings of the second color palette list are the same as the variable strings of the first color palette list, wherein at least one of the variable strings of the second color palette list have different color values than the corresponding variable strings in the first color palette list, wherein the second theme file references the first theme file so as to inherit visual attributes of the first theme file; generating the graphical user interface on a display of the mobile electronic device in accordance with the first theme file, wherein the at least Appeal 2010-007322 Application 10/940,672 3 one of the color attributes of the interface elements is specified by reference to one of the variable strings of the first color palette list; receiving a selection of the second theme file; and re-generating the graphical user interface on the display of the mobile electronic device in accordance with the second theme file in response to the selection, wherein the at least one of the color attributes of the interface elements is specified by reference to one of the variable strings of the second palette list. The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability: Lavendel US 5,615,320 Mar. 25, 1997 Hodges US 6,035,423 Mar. 7, 2000 Ulrich US 2003/0052921 A1 Mar. 20, 2003 Geekee US 2005/0160155 A1 Jul. 21, 20053 Microsoft Windows XP (Microsoft © 1981-2001) [hereinafter Windows]. THE REJECTIONS 1. The Examiner rejected claims 21, 22, 25, 27-29, 32, 33, 36, 37, 40, and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as rendered obvious by Windows. Ans. 4-8.4 2. The Examiner rejected claims 23, 26, 34, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as rendered obvious by Windows and Ulrich. Ans. 8-9. 3. The Examiner rejected claims 24 and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as rendered obvious by Windows, Ulrich, and Lavendel. Ans. 10. 4. The Examiner rejected claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as rendered obvious by Windows and Hodges. Ans. 11. 3 Geekee was filed December 22, 2003. 4 Throughout this decision, we refer to (1) the Supplemental Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed September 9, 2009; (2) the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed December 11, 2009; and (3) the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed February 3, 2010. Appeal 2010-007322 Application 10/940,672 4 5. The Examiner rejected claims 31 and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as rendered obvious by Windows and Geekee. Ans. 11-12. OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER WINDOWS The Examiner finds that Windows teaches or suggests all of the limitations recited in illustrative claim 21. Ans. 4-6. In particular, the Examiner provides four screen shots, labeled Figures 1-4, from Windows and finds that all of the limitations of claim 21 are taught or suggested by the depictions of these Figures.5 Ans. 4-6, 12-14. With respect to the disputed claim limitation noted above, the Examiner finds that [t]he second theme file inherits visual attributes like the shape and size of elements. These elements remain constant throughout every color schemes [sic] (See figures 1 and 2). Each color scheme is provided with the initial attributes that have been previously set. By switching the style (style sheet) from classic to XP (under windows and buttons) [see Windows, Figure 4] it shows that some colors are directly referenced to a particular style. Ans. 13-14 (emphases added). Each of independent claims 32 and 41 includes a limitation identical to the disputed limitation of claim 21, and the Examiner finds that independent claims 32 and 41 are unpatentable for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 21. Ans. 7, 14. Appellants argue that Windows fails to teach or suggest the use of a second theme file which references a first theme file so as to inherit visual attributes of the first theme file. App. Br. 24-26; Reply Br. 2-3. In particular, Appellants argue that 5 Although the Windows XP screen shots, upon which the Examiner relies, were created after the filing date of Appellants’ application, the availability of these screen shots as prior art is not disputed in this appeal. Appeal 2010-007322 Application 10/940,672 5 the Examiner neglects that Windows XP may specify the visual attributes directly in the second theme file. That is, some of the visual attributes in the second theme file may remain constant merely because they happen to be defined in the first theme file and the second theme file to be the same. App. Br. 25; Reply Br. 2. Appellants argue that the Examiner fails to demonstrate that “any possible inheritance in Windows is accomplished by referencing a first theme file in a second theme file,” as recited in claim 21. App. Br. 26; Reply Br. 3. ISSUE Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 21 by finding that Windows would have taught or suggested that “the second theme file references the first theme file so as to inherit visual attributes of the first theme file?” ANALYSIS 1. Claim Construction. We begin by construing the disputed limitation of claim 21 which recites, in pertinent part, that “the second theme file references the first theme file so as to inherit visual attributes of the first theme file” (emphases added). In construing this limitation, we apply the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage, as those words would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account any definitions supplied by Appellants’ Specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Appeal 2010-007322 Application 10/940,672 6 Appellants do not expressly define “visual attributes.” In an example, however, Appellants describe “visual attributes” as including “things such as colours, fonts, font-size, font-weight, background images, etc.” Id. (emphases added). Thus, “visual attributes” encompasses color attributes. See Spec. ¶¶ [0036]-[0039]. A pertinent definition of the verb, to “reference,” is “to furnish (a book, dissertation, etc.) with references.” WEBSTER’S ENCYCLOPEDIC UNABRIDGED DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 1206 (1989). Further, a pertinent definition of the noun, “reference,” is “direction or a direction to some source of information.” Id. Referring to the Specification, Appellants explain that “[a] theme file 130 may specifically reference another theme file from which attributes not specifically set in the newly selected theme file[, e.g., theme file 130,] are to be inherited, or may by default inherit attributes from the previously selected theme file.” Spec. ¶ [0058] (emphasis added). Thus, Appellants’ theme file only need contain a reference to another theme file, such that a theme file may comprise a color palette and a reference to another theme file. Id. Consequently, Appellants’ color attributes may be specified in the style sheet or by reference to another theme file or by default from a previously selected theme file. Id.; see also Spec. ¶ [0046] (describing style sheets). Claim 21, however, recites that “the second theme file references the first theme file” (emphasis added). A pertinent definition of the verb, to “inherit,” is “to receive qualities, powers, duties, etc., as by inheritance.” WEBSTER’S ENCYCLOPEDIC UNABRIDGED DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE at 732. Thus, we construe the disputed limitation to provide that Appeal 2010-007322 Application 10/940,672 7 Appellants’ second theme file furnishes direction or a direction to the first theme file for color attributes to be inherited by the second theme file. 2. Claim 21. As noted above, the Examiner finds that, because Windows Classic style sheet6 and Windows XP style sheet have at least some of the same visual attributes, e.g., “Normal” font-size, Windows XP style “references” Windows Classic style, and Windows XP style “inherits” visual attributes from Windows Classic style. Ans. 13-14; see also Microsoft, Figure 4 (depicted in the “Active Windows”). Although one or more visual attributes, such font-size or color, may remain constant between Windows Classic style and Windows XP style, we find that this does not demonstrate that Windows XP style “references” Windows Classic style, so that Windows XP style may “inherit” the constant visual attribute or attributes from Windows Classic style. As Appellants note, any constant visual attributes need not result from inheritance, but, instead, may merely result from the separate specification of the same visual attributes in both a first and a second theme file, e.g., in Windows Classic style and Windows XP style. App. Br. 25; Reply Br. 2. In addition, Appellants in their disclosure describe two ways that inheritance of visual attributes may occur by reference or by default. Spec. ¶ [0058]. Assuming arguendo that the Examiner demonstrated inheritance between Windows Classic style and Windows XP style, we do not find that 6 Although claim 21 does not recite that the second theme file comprises a second style sheet, the Examiner finds that Windows Classic style and Windows XP style correspond to style sheets of Appellants’ theme files. Ans. 14. Appeal 2010-007322 Application 10/940,672 8 the Examiner demonstrates that the inheritance occurs by reference. App. Br. 25-26. Thus, even if the Examiner had demonstrated that inheritance of color attributes occurs, the Examiner has failed to demonstrate how that inheritance has occurred. Therefore, as argued by Appellants, although Windows may accomplish a similar result to that recited in claim 21, the Examiner does not demonstrate that Windows accomplishes that result according to the claimed method. App. Br. 20-21. Accordingly, we find error in the Examiner’s finding that Windows teaches or suggests that the second theme file references the first theme file so as to inherit visual attributes of the first theme file, as recited in claim 21. Therefore, because the Examiner does not demonstrate that Windows teaches or suggests all of the limitations of claim 21, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 21. In view of the foregoing construction of the disputed limitation of claim 21 and the Examiner’s error in applying Windows to that claim, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 32 and 41and of dependent claims 22, 25, 27-29, 33, 36, 37, and 40, which depend directly from claim 21 or 32. Because this issue is dispositive regarding our reversal of the rejection of these claims, we do not address Appellants’ other arguments concerning the Examiner’s alleged errors. App. Br. 26-32; Reply Br. 3. OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS OVER WINDOWS, ULRICH, LAVENDEL, HODGES, AND/OR GEEKEE We also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of (1) claims 23, 26, 34, and 35 over Windows and Ulrich; (2) claims 24 and 38 over Windows, Ulrich, and Lavendel; (3) claim 30 over Windows and Hodges; and (4) claims 31 and 39 over Windows and Geekee. Ans. 8-12. Appeal 2010-007322 Application 10/940,672 9 Each of these claims depends, directly or indirectly, from one of independent claim 21 or 32. Because the Examiner has not demonstrated that Windows or the other applied references supply the disputed limitation of claims 21 and 32, we also reverse the obviousness rejections of dependent claims 23, 24, 26, 30, 31, 34, 35, 38, and 39, for the reasons set forth above. Because this issue is dispositive regarding our reversal of the rejections of these claims, we do not address Appellants’ other arguments concerning the Examiner’s alleged errors. App. Br. 32-39. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 21-41 under § 103(a). ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 21-417 is reversed. REVERSED babc 7 Upon further consideration of this application, the Examiner should consider whether the description of a computer-readable medium in claim 41 complies with the requirements of 35 U.S.C § 101. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007).