Ex Parte Britt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 11, 2014

11147607 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 11, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CLINTON DUANE BRITT and JOSEPH FRANCIS MANN
____________

Appeal 2011-013393
Application 11/147,607
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1–251. We have
jurisdiction to review the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6.
The invention relates generally to interface devices and particularly to
the configuration of such interface devices. Spec. ¶ 1.

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed April 15, 2011) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed September 12,
2011), and the Examiner’s Ans. (“Ans.,” mailed July 12, 2011).
Appeal 2011-013393
Application 11/147,607

2

Claim 1, reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed
subject matter.
1. A method for configuring a human machine
interface device for a programmable logic controller,
comprising:
in the human machine interface device, receiving a query
from a general purpose viewer running on a configuration
station;
interpreting the query by server-side scripting executed
by a processor in the interface device to identify a plurality of
device elements and to display visual representations of the
device elements in a design-time environment, wherein the
design-time environment provides for configuration of the
interface device and the plurality of device elements; and
transmitting the design-time environment and visual
representations from the interface device to the configuration
station.

Claims 1–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mansour (US 2002/0129096 A1; pub. Sep. 12, 2002),
Underwood (US 7,100,195 B1; iss. Aug. 29, 2006), and Melzer (US
2003/0097189 A1; pub. May 22, 2003).
We REVERSE.
ANALYSIS
Claim Construction
The Specification discloses the following:
A run-time environment 14 enables an operator (e.g., a human
user) to interact with an application, such as a process during
run-time (e.g., during use of the interface, typically during
interaction with or observance of a process in operation). A
design-time environment permits a designer to configure the
interface and its components.
Appeal 2011-013393
Application 11/147,607

3

Spec. 6 ¶ 31. Accordingly, we construe “design-time environment” as a
software environment that permits a designer to configure an operator
interface and its components of an application.
“Instantiate” is construed as “[a] process of creating an object using
an object-oriented programming language such as Java or C++ or a
development tool.” In Dictionary of Multimedia and Internet Applications:
A Guide for Developers and Users, Hoboken: Wiley, 1999.
http://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/wdmia/instantiate/0 (last
visited Jun. 9, 2014.)
Obviousness Rejection of Independent Claim 1
We are persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that a combination
of Mansour, Underwood, and Melzer discloses or suggests
interpreting the query by server-side scripting executed
by a processor in the interface device to identify a plurality of
device elements and to display visual representations of the
device elements in a design-time environment, wherein the
design-time environment provides for configuration of the
interface device and the plurality of device elements,
as recited in independent claim 1. App. Br. 10–11, 13–14; Reply Br. 5.
Independent claim 18 recites a similar limitation. With the exception of “by
server-side scripting,” the Examiner cites portions of Mansour, and in
particular paragraphs 68 and 144 of Mansour, as disclosing the
aforementioned claim limitation. Ans. 5, 21–23. We disagree. Specifically,
we disagree that the cited portions of Mansour disclose “design-time
environment” as construed.
Mansour discloses a distributed user interface (“UI”) system that
employs UI forms that represent different types of application UIs, where
the UI form is a description of a layout of a client device display. Mansour
Appeal 2011-013393
Application 11/147,607

4

¶ 68. However, the cited paragraph of Mansour does not disclose
configuring any of the aforementioned UI forms, as would be required to
meet the “interpreting” limitation, and specifically, the “design-time
environment” of the “interpreting” limitation.
Mansour further discloses a client device establishing a connection
with a UI server, and the UI server comparing a received identifier from the
client device with known or previously-connected client devices. Mansour
¶ 144. Again, however, the cited paragraph of Mansour does not disclose
configuring any of the UIs or identifiers, as would be required to meet the
“interpreting” limitation, and specifically, the “design-time environment” of
the “interpreting” limitation.
Neither Underwood nor Melzer are cited for remedying the
aforementioned deficiency of Mansour with respect to the “interpreting”
limitation.
We do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 18, or
their respective dependent claims 2–9 and 19–25.
Obviousness Rejection of Independent Claim 10
We are persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that a combination
of Mansour, Underwood, and Melzer discloses or suggests “receiving a
query from a general purpose viewer running on a configuration station for a
change in a property of a device element stored in the interface device” and
“changing the property of the device element in the interface device,” as
recited in independent claim 10. App. Br. 11–12; Reply Br. 6. The
Examiner makes the same citations to paragraphs 68 and 144, neither of
which disclose changing a property of any device element of either the UI
form or the UI server. Ans. 9, 24.
Appeal 2011-013393
Application 11/147,607

5

The Examiner further cites paragraphs 88 and 89 of Mansour as
corresponding to the aforementioned limitations, focusing on the word
“changes” in the following citation: “[o]ther than telling the client device
what UI changes to make based on the current UI state and actions selected
by the user, the job of the UI server is basically to be a remote data source.”
Mansour ¶ 89. The Examiner is incorrect. As mapped to the claim, the
client device of Mansour corresponds to the recited “general purpose
viewer” and the UI server of Mansour corresponds to the recited “interface
device.” The aforementioned portion of Mansour only discloses making
changes to the general purpose viewer (client device), and not the UI server
(interface device), as required to meet the aforementioned limitation of
independent claim 10.
Neither Underwood nor Melzer are cited for remedying the
aforementioned deficiency of Mansour with respect to the “receiving” and
“changing” limitations.
We do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 10, or its
dependent claims 11–13.
Obviousness Rejection of Independent Claim 14
We are persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that a combination
of Mansour, Underwood, and Melzer discloses or suggests “interpreting the
query by server-side scripting executed by a processor in the interface device
interface to instantiate a device element, the device element including a
functionality associated therewith,” as recited in independent claim 14. App.
Br. 12–13; Reply Br. 6. With the exception of “by server-side scripting,” the
Examiner cites portions of Mansour, and in particular paragraphs 68 and 144
of Mansour, as disclosing the aforementioned claim limitation. Ans. 12, 25.
Appeal 2011-013393
Application 11/147,607

6

We disagree. Specifically, we disagree that the cited portions of Mansour
disclose “instantiate a device element” as construed, which requires a
“creation of an object.” Neither paragraphs 68 nor 144 disclose any such
object creation.
We do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 14, or its
dependent claims 15–17.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–25 is REVERSED.
REVERSED

hh