Ex Parte Colaco-Dias

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2013

11132733 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PAULO COLACO-DIAS
____________

Appeal 2010-010776
Application 11/132,733
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-37. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention assigns a single command ID to identical menu items of
separate computer display windows. Spec., p. 2, l. 1 – p. 3, l. 5. Via this
technique, “a given menu command may be used in multiple command
Appeal 2010-010776
Application 11/132,733

2
menus without having to program a given corresponding section of code
more than once.” Spec., p. 3, ll. 3-5.
Claim l is illustrative, with a key disputed limitation emphasized.
1. A method for displaying a MDI Multiple
Document Interface] graphical user interface, comprising:
displaying a parent window;
displaying one or more command menus, corresponding
to one or more parent window features, within the parent
window;
displaying one status bar, corresponding to one or more
parent window features, within the parent window;
displaying one or more child windows;
displaying one or more command menus, corresponding
to at least one of a child window feature and a parent window
feature, within each of the one or more child windows;
displaying one status bar, corresponding to one or more
child window features, within each of the one or more child
windows; and
wherein a selected one of the command menus from the
parent window and a selected one of the command menus from
at least one child window are both mapped to a single section
of code for executing an action such that the single section of
code is programmed only once.
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence of
unpatentability:
Dando US 2003/0058286 A1 Mar. 27, 2003
Roni Raab, MeshMaker Tutorial, MeshMaker 5.2 Manual, Internet
Article, last updated on May 2003, available at
Appeal 2010-010776
Application 11/132,733

3
http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~sheffa/dgp/software/html/tutorial.html (last
visited on 01/30/2013) (“MeshMaker”).

REJECTION.1, 2, and 3
The Examiner rejected claims 1-37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Dando and MeshMaker. Ans. 3-12.
ISSUE
Based upon our review of the record, the arguments proffered by
Appellant, and the findings of the Examiner, we address the following issue:
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in determining that it would
have been obvious to assign the same command ID to identical menu items
of Dando’s parent window and child windows?

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed December 11,
2009 (“App. Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed March 19, 2010 (“Ans.”),
and the Reply Brief filed May 18, 2010.
2 The rejection of claims 15-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been withdrawn.
Ans. 2.
3 The Examiner’s formal statement of rejection (Ans. 3) incorrectly
identifies only claims 1-33 as rejected. However, the Examiner clearly
presents claims 34-37 as also rejected, identifying and addressing them with
particularity in both the “Grounds of Rejection” section (Ans. 12) and
“Response to Arguments” section (Ans. 14-16) of the Answer. Appellant
was aware of the error in the formal statement. App. Br. 4, fn. 1.
Accordingly, we find the Examiner’s misstatement to be harmless error and
consider claims 1-37 as rejected under 35 § U.S.C. 103.
Appeal 2010-010776
Application 11/132,733

4
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-5, 10-14, 19-23, and 28
Appellant addresses claims 1-5, 10-14, 19-23, and 28 as a group.
App. Br. 22. We select claim 1 as representative. Claims 2-5, 10-14, 19-23,
and 28 stand or fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 47.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Dando’s Figure 2 screenshot teaches all but
the emphasized “wherein” limitation of reproduced claim 1. As shown by
Dando’s Figure 2, reproduced below, the screenshot includes a parent
window 41, which in turn includes several child windows 401, 410, 51,
wherein each window includes a command menu. Dando, ¶ [0046].

Dando’s Figure 2 depicts a screenshot of the rejection’s cited
computer display windows.
Appeal 2010-010776
Application 11/132,733

5
To bridge the “wherein” limitation, the Examiner finds that
MeshMaker assigns a single command ID to an added menu item and
toolbar button, such that the menu item and button call the same function.
Ans. 4. The Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to
likewise assign a single command ID to identical menu items of Dando’s
windows 41, 401, 410, 51, e.g., such that, for example, the “file” menu items
call the same function. Ans. 5. The Examiner’s reasoning is identical to the
objective of Appellant’s invention – “mapping] to a single section of code
for executing an action such that the single section of code is programmed
only once” (id.).
Appellant argues that MeshMaker does not assign a single command
ID to respective menu items of a parent window and child window and,
accordingly, cannot suggest this feature for Dando’s windows 41, 401, 410,
51. For example, Appellant argues that: MeshMaker merely links the menu
item and toolbar button (App. Br. 25); MeshMaker is directed to a single
window (id. at 27); and, in turn, the articulated reason for modifying Dando
arises strictly from Appellant’s disclosure (id.).
Appellant neglects the gist of the rejection and cited teachings, which
is as follows. Dando’s screenshot shows that parent and child windows had
respective menu items with identical functions (i.e., identical operations).
MeshMaker shows that artisans are assigning a single command ID to user
commands with identical functions. Thus, given that Dando’s cited menu
items are user commands with identical functions, it would have been
obvious to assign the same command ID to those cited menu items.
It is immaterial whether the Examiner’s proposed reason for assigning
a single command ID corresponds to Appellant’s reason for doing so. See In
Appeal 2010-010776
Application 11/132,733

6
re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (C.C.P.A. 1971) (Hindsight reasoning
is permitted “so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was
within the level of ordinary skill in the art] … does not include knowledge
gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure.”). The references teach: user
commands (menu items) ascribed the same function; and an easy way of
ascribing user commands the same function. The decision to combine such
teachings arises from mere common sense. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“Rigid preventative rules that deny
factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under
our case law nor consistent with it.”).
Appellant further argues that MeshMaker’s command ID is not
assigned to the tool bar button, but rather “refers to a single command menu
[item] since the tool bar button is merely a shortcut to the associated
command menu item.” Reply Br. 3.4 We disagree in light of MeshMaker’s
clear instructions:
[W]e want the menu item and the toolbar button to have the
same effect (the same function called), so we will give the new
button the same ID as you gave the menu item[.] … Now both
the toolbar button and the menu item have the same ID.
MeshMaker, pp. 1-2. The passage unequivocally instructs the reader to
assign a single command ID to both the menu item and tool bar button,
particularly so as to call the same function. In the absence of a compelling
reason to do otherwise, e.g., a persuasive artisan declaration, we must take
this teaching as plainly presented. That is, the matter-of-fact teaching – “we

4 The Reply Brief lacks page numbers. We have counted the cover page as
page 1 of the brief.
Appeal 2010-010776
Application 11/132,733

7
want …, so we will …” – implies that the technique of assigning a single
command ID to identical user commands was notoriously well known.
Appellant further argues that “[t]here is no disclosure in the references
as to how a modification of Dando to include the features to have coding
similar to that of MeshMaker could be effected in a multiple window
interface environment.” Reply Br. 5. Given that Appellant’s Specification
summarily instructs the reader to assign a single command ID to parent and
child windows, we find that artisans are skilled enough to do so. To the
extent Appellant may seek confirmation that artisans are skilled enough to
apply MeshMaker’s exact technique to Dando’s system, we note that no
such showing is required. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (C.C.P.A.
1981) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference[.]”).
Appellant further argues that the Examiner failed to show a “status
bar” within Dando’s cited windows; that is, to show “displaying one status
bar …” by a parent window and child window, as claimed. According to
Appellant, the Examiner rather cites a “title bar 52” (as referenced in Dando
¶ [0052]) at the top of a window. App. Br. 28. To show the “title bar 52” is
not a “status bar,” Appellant provides a dictionary definition of “status bar”
as follows: “a strip along the bottom of a software or Internet application
that indicates what is happening with a task or information like date, time,
cursor, or scroll position, page number, open applications, etc.” Id.
However, we do not find Appellant’s arguments to be persuasive because
the “status” label of “status bar” is non-functional descriptive language,
limiting only the informational content of the status bar. Such mere
Appeal 2010-010776
Application 11/132,733

8
informational content is not entitled to patentable weight. See In re Lowry,
32 F.3d 1579, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the obviousness rejection of
claims 1-5, 10-14, 19-23, and 28 over Dando and MeshMaker.
Claims 30-37
Though presented under separate heading, Appellant’s arguments for
claims 30-33 merely reiterate the contentions for claims 1-5, 10-14, 19-23,
and 28. App. Br. 29-33; Reply Br. 6-9. To the extent Appellant may
presume that those contentions differ for claims 30-33,5 our above analysis
already addresses the added feature of assigning a single command ID to a
call function, as claimed (“the single menu command id is associated with a
section of code”). Accordingly, we affirm the obviousness rejection of
claims 30-33 over Dando and MeshMaker.
Appellant also presents separate arguments for claim 34-37, but again
merely reiterates the contentions for claims 1-5, 10-14, 19-23, and 28. App.
Br. 33-37; Reply Br. 9-11. To the extent Appellant may presume that those
contentions differ for claims 34-37,6 our above analysis already addresses
the added feature of assigning a single menu command id to respective menu

5 If Appellant views the repeated arguments as differing amongst claims,
then the difference should be meaningfully explained and supported.
Otherwise, Appellant fails to address – and we likewise will not attempt to
address – how the separately argued claims respectively distinguish over the
prior art. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (affirming in
part because Appellant “merely argued that the claims differed from [the
prior art], and chose not to proffer a serious explanation of this difference.”);
In re Baxter Travenol Labs, 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not
the function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail than argued
by an appellant[.]”).
6 See fn. 4.
Appeal 2010-010776
Application 11/132,733

9
items of multiple child windows, as claimed (“a plurality of command
menus from a plurality of child windows are mapped to a single section of
code”). Accordingly, we affirm the obviousness rejection of claims 34-37
over Dando and MeshMaker.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-37 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).

AFFIRMED

llw