Ex Parte Brunswig et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 6, 2017

13735976 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 6, 2017)

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. 13/735,976 01/07/2013 Frank Brunswig 34874-926F01US 1009 64280 7590 03/08/2017 Mintz Levin/SAP Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. One Financial Center EXAMINER TAKELE, MESEKER Boston, MA 02111 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2141 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/08/2017 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): IPDocketingBOS @ mintz.com IPFileroombos @ mintz. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte FRANK BRUNSWIG, OLAF DUEVEL, and BARE SAID Appeal 2016-007443 Application 13/73 5,9761 Technology Center 2100 Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Technology The application relates to ways to “provide value help to users of [a] business system,” such as providing “permissible values for entry” in a form. Spec. 12. Illustrative Claim Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with the limitation at issue emphasized: 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is SAP SE. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2016-007443 Application 13/735,976 1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs, the one or more programs having instructions which when executed by at least one programmable processor, cause the at least one programmable processor to perform operations comprising: receiving an indication associated with a user interface element, the indication representing a value help request for the user interface element; sending a request for a value help to a value help business object configured to provide the value help to a user interface including the user interface element, the user interface element bound to a portion of the value help business object, the value help comprising information to provide assistance when making an entry at the user interface element; and receiving, at the user interface comprising the user interface element, a response to the request, the response comprising the value help. Rejections Claims 1—5, 7—12, and 14—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Dipaolo et al. (US 5,367,619; Nov. 22, 1994). Final Act. 4. Claims 6, 13, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Dipaolo and Lesandro et al. (US 2012/0054095 Al; Mar. 1, 2012). Final Act. 16. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding Dipaolo discloses “a value help business object,” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS We have only considered those arguments that Appellants actually raised in their briefs. Arguments that Appellants could have made but chose 2 Appeal 2016-007443 Application 13/735,976 not to have not been considered and are deemed waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013). Anticipation (Claims 1—5, 7—12, and 14—19) Claim 1 recites “sending a request for a value help to a value help business object configured to provide the value help to a user interface including the user interface element, the user interface element bound to a portion of the value help business object” (emphasis added). Dipaolo teaches “a form data entry system . . .to assure that only complete, consistent and valid data entries are made.” Dipaolo Abstract. One means by which this is implemented is through dynamic constraint of the inputs in certain fields based upon values previously entered in certain other fields. Menus are used for this purpose. Field values listed on the menu which may be selected by the user are variable depending upon data previously entered. Dipaolo 6:13—19; Ans. 4. For example, returning to FIG. 1, when the user selects a menu driven field, a window 15 is presented on the screen next to the current field. This window contains the menu 16 listing current, valid value for that field. . . . These valid rpm selections are a function of previous data entered for the motor. Dipaolo 6:19—27. The rules for how selections in one field affect other fields come from a “rulebase” in “a simple tabular format.” Dipaolo Abstract; Ans. 3^4. In addition, “hypertext help forms can be called to provide the user with context sensitive help information.” Dipaolo 15:24— 26; Ans. 4—5. Appellants contend Dipaolo’s rulebase is “different from sending a request for a value help to a ‘value help business object’ as recited in claim 1.” App. Br. 8. However, Appellants have not adequately explained why or 3 Appeal 2016-007443 Application 13/735,976 how they are different, or why Appellants focus on Dipaolo’s ralebase rather than the code resulting in Dipaolo’s menu or hypertext help. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“the Board reasonably interpreted [37 C.F.R. §] 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art”). Appellants rely on a single paragraph from the Specification (| 25) to argue “a value help business object is a way to ‘structure an object in terms of a real world business task.’” App. Br. 8. However, that paragraph does not define a business object. Instead, it discusses “an example of a business object” and explains a “business object 200 may be used to structure an object in terms of a real world business task.” Spec. 125 (emphasis added) (repeating “may” eight times). Thus, these are examples of what a business object may be, not a definition of what a business object is or must be. Such examples fail to “clearly express an intent” to define the term. Thorner v. Sony ComputerEntm’tAm. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quotations omitted); see also Phillips v. A WII Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“although the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments”). Moreover, even if we did accept Appellants’ definition of a value help business object, Appellants have not explained how Dipaolo’s context- sensitive interface in a “motor negotiation system” fails to teach an object structured in terms of a real world business task (e.g., negotiating a sale of motors). See Dipaolo Fig. 1, 4:38-45; Ans. 5. “It is not the function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, 4 Appeal 2016-007443 Application 13/735,976 looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art.” In re Baxter TravenolLabs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Accordingly, given the record before us, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and claims 2—5, 7—12, and 14—19, which Appellants argue are patentable for similar reasons. See App. Br. 9—10, 2; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Obviousness (Claims 6, 13, and 20) Appellants argue “[dependent claims 6, 13, and 20 are patentable over Dipaolo for at least the reasons stated above with regard to independent claims 1, 8, and 15” and because “Lesandro fails to cure the deficiencies of Dipaolo.” App. Br. 11. We are not persuaded Dipaolo is deficient for the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 6, 13, and 20. DECISION For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—5, 7—12, and 14—19 under § 102 and claims 6, 13, and 20 under §103. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED 5