Ex Parte Gates

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 26, 2018

13181294 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 2018)

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.
13/181,294 07/12/2011 Adam Gates ORACP0050 4100
7590
Trellis IP Law Group/Oracle
1900 Embarcadero Road
Suite 109
Palo Alto, CA 94303
EXAMINER
NICHOLS, JENNIFER ELIZABETH-JO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2142
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/30/2018 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):
docket@trellislaw.com
megan@trellislaw.com
ann@trellislaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ADAM GATES
Appeal 2017-007911
Application 13/181,294
Technology Center 2100
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 8-16, 19, and 20.2 Claims 2, 6, 7, 17, and 18 are
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We Affirm.
1 Appellant identifies Oracle International Corporation as the real party in
interest. (Appeal Br. 3).
2 Claim 20 was rejected in the Final Action (25-31), mailed Oct. 22, 2015.
In the Appeal Brief (5) Appellant indicates “Claim 20 has been cancelled.”
However, we find no entry of any amendment of record cancelling
claim 20. Therefore, the rejection of claim 20 is before us on appeal. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.31(c).
Appeal 2017-007911
Application 13/181,294
The Invention
The claimed invention relates to “software and more specifically to
systems, user interfaces, and methods for accessing, displaying, and
monitoring data.” (Spec. ^ 1).
Representative Claim
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on Appeal:
1. A method, performed by a computer system, for facilitating access to
data, the method comprising:
displaying, by the computer system, a dashboard on a first portion of
a display screen, where the dashboard includes a dashboard windshield
display area to view data;
modeling, by the computer system, the dashboard after a dashboard of
a vehicle selected from a group of vehicles including a car, a boat and an
airplane;
inputting, by the computer system, a plurality of interface gauges into
a queue, where interface gauges in the queue are not displayed on the
display screen and where an interface gauge is a graphical depiction of
content of an interface gauge, where the content of the interface gauge
dynamically changes according to changes in content or predetermined
parameters or metrics underlying the interface gauge;
pushing, by the computer system, the content of a selected interface
gauge to the dashboard windshield display area for viewing, where the
dashboard windshield display area is substantially larger than a display area
of an interface gauge;
updating, by the computer system, the content pushed to the
dashboard windshield display area at a specified rate to control a rate of
change at which pushed content changes in the dashboard windshield
display area;
configuring, by the computer system, one or more translation or
scrolling paths; and
translating or scrolling, by the computer system, one or more of the
plurality of interface gauges in the queue on a second portion of the display
screen along a configured translation or scrolling path while pushed content
of the selected interface gauge is displayed in the dashboard windshield
display area.
2
Appeal 2017-007911
Application 13/181,294
(Contested limitations emphasized).
Rejections 3
A. Claims 1,3,4, 8-10, 12-16, 19, and 20 are rejected under pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combined teachings and
suggestions of Sareen et al. (US 2010/0107115 Al, pub. April 29, 2010)
(“Sareen”), Santoro et al. (US 2005/0283734 Al, pub. Dec. 22, 2005)
(“Santoro”), Frohwein (US 2010/0023874 Al, pub. Jan. 28, 2010), Chaudhri
et al. (US 2008/0168367 Al, pub. July 10, 2008) (“Chaudhri”), and
McCarthy, Jr. (US 7,788,146 B2, iss. Aug. 31, 2010) (“McCarthy”).
B. Claim 5 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of Sareen, Santoro,
Frohwein, Chaudhri, McCarthy, and Clayton et al. (US 2009/0070409 Al,
pub. March 12, 2009) (“Clayton”).
C. Claim 11 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of Sareen, Santoro,
Frohwein, Chaudhri, McCarthy, and Connors et al. (US 2010/0138316 Al,
pub. June 3, 2019) (“Connors”).
3 The Examiner withdrew the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 8-16, 19, and 20 (Advisory Act., mailed Feb. 5,
2016, p. 2), responsive to the after-final amendment filed on Jan. 22, 2016,
that was entered on appeal to the Board. We note the entered Jan. 22,
2016 amendment includes claim 20, which is not cancelled, contrary to
Appellant’s statement on page 5 of the Appeal Brief: “Claim 20 has been
cancelled.” We additionally note the Advisory Action (1) includes a
typographical error, incorrectly referring to “22 January 2015” as the date of
the after-final amendment. The correct date the after-final amendment was
filed is Jan. 22, year 2016.
3
Appeal 2017-007911
Application 13/181,294
Grouping of Claims
Based upon Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 9-11), we decide the
appeal under rejection A of independent claims 1,19, and 20, and dependent
claims 3, 4, 8-10, and 12-16 (not separately argued), on the basis of
representative claim 1. We decide the appeal of dependent claim 5, rejected
under rejection B, separately, infra. See App. Br. 12. We decide the appeal
of dependent claim 11, rejected under rejection C, separately, infra. {Id.).
To the extent Appellant has not advanced separate, substantive arguments
for particular rejected claims or issues, such arguments are waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
ANALYSIS
In reaching this decision, we consider all the evidence presented and
all arguments actually made by Appellant. We find Appellant’s arguments
unpersuasive for the reasons discussed infra. We adopt as our own: (1) the
findings and legal conclusions set forth by the Examiner in the Final Office
Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-35), and (2) the
findings, legal conclusions, and explanations set forth in the Answer in
response to Appellant’s arguments. (Ans. 2-6). We highlight and address
specific findings and arguments for emphasis in our analysis below.
Rejection A of Claims 1, 3, 4, 8—10, 12—16, 19, and 20
Underpre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Rejection of Representative Claim 1
Issue: Under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), did the Examiner err by
finding the cited combination of Sareen, Santoro, Frohwein, Chaudhri, and
McCarthy would have taught or suggested the contested limitations:
4
Appeal 2017-007911
Application 13/181,294
displaying, by the computer system, a dashboard on a
first portion of a display screen, where the dashboard includes
a dashboard windshield display area to view data,
modeling, by the computer system, the dashboard after a
dashboard of a vehicle selected from a group of vehicles
including a car, a boat and an airplane,
inputting, by the computer system, a plurality of interface
gauges into a queue, where interface gauges in the queue are
not displayed on the display screen and where an interface
gauge is a graphical depiction of content of an interface gauge,
where the content of the interface gauge dynamically changes
according to changes in content or predetermined parameters
or metrics underlying the interface gauge,
pushing, by the computer system, the content of a
selected interface gauge to the dashboard windshield display
area for viewing, where the dashboard windshield display area
is substantially larger than a display area of an interface
gauge,
within the meaning of representative independent claim 1? 4
At the outset, and based upon a preponderance of the evidence, we are
not persuaded by Appellant’s contentions asserting that Santaro, Frohwein,
and McCarthy do not teach the “pushing” limitation, because Appellant
admits Sareen teaches the “pushing” limitation. (App. Br. 11). Although
Appellant initially avers that Sareen’s “thumbnail is a miniaturized version
of a window,” Appellant subsequently acknowledges, with reference to
Sareen: “There is teaching of pushing the content of the thumbnail from the
thumbnail to the work area.” (Id.) (emphasis added).
4 We give the contested claim limitations the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d
1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See Spec, e.g., Tj 120 (“In general, the
functions of particular embodiments can be achieved by any means as is
known in the art.”) (emphasis added).
5
Appeal 2017-007911
Application 13/181,294
We find unavailing Appellant’s attempt to argue the references
separately. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986) (One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.).
Appellant further urges: “[tjhere are no teachings in Santoro relating
to a dashboard having a windshield displaying pushed content from a gauge
and having a plurality of gauges translating or scrolling below the
windshield.” (App. Br. 11).
However, the Examiner finds Santoro’s tiles teach, or at least suggest,
the disputed “gauges,” which refresh automatically.5 (Final Act. 9-10). See
e.g., Santoro ^ 74 (“A tile is different from an icon because it provides a
real-time or near real-time view of the underlying information in that it
contains continually refreshed content.”) (emphasis added).
Given the strength of the evidence cited by the Examiner (Final Act.
8-14), we find Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive. See App. Br. 9-11.
On this record, we find a preponderance of the evidence supports the
Examiner’s underlying factual finding that Santoro’s grid of tiles (which
displays data from multiple sources), in combination with the teachings and
suggestions of the other cited references, provides sufficient support for the
legal conclusion of obviousness. (Santoro 19, 64, 74; Fig. 1).
5 Our reviewing court guides: ‘“the question under [35 U.S.C. § 103] is not
merely what the references expressly teach but what they would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made.’” Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807
(Fed. Cir. 1989), cert, denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989) (emphasis added); see
also MPEP § 2123.
6
Appeal 2017-007911
Application 13/181,294
Appellant also advances a hindsight argument: “[tjhese [(claimed)]
features are related and the combination would only be obvious to a person
apprised of the teachings of the present application.” (App. Br. 11).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s hindsight argument, because
Appellant has not provided any objective evidence of record that shows that
combining the respective teachings of the cited references would have been
“uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art,” or that
the Examiner’s proffered combination would have “represented an
unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price,
Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Furthermore, we find the
Examiner has set forth sufficient “articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988).
(Final Act. 10, 12, 13, and 14).
Nor has Appellant provided any objective evidence of secondary
considerations (e.g., unexpected results), which our reviewing court guides,
“operates as a beneficial check on hindsight.” Cheese Systems, Inc. v. Tetra
Pak Cheese and Powder Systems, Inc., 725 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir.
2013).
For at least these reasons/1 on this record, and based upon a
preponderance of the evidence, we are not persuaded of error regarding the
6 In considering claim 1 as a whole, we broadly but reasonably construe the
claim to be directed to displaying data intended for human viewing (i.e.,
displaying pushed content of the selected interface gauge in the dashboard
windshield display area - claim 1). To the extent the argued patentability of
claim 1 turns solely upon the informational content of the visual data
intended for human perception, the Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure (MPEP) guides: “where the clai m as a whole is directed [to]
7
Appeal 2017-007911
Application 13/181,294
Examiner’s underlying factual findings and ultimate legal conclusion of
obviousness for representative claim 1. Because Appellant has not
persuaded us the Examiner erred, we sustain rejection A of representative
claim 1, and of grouped independent claims 19 and 20, and grouped
dependent claims 3, 4, 8-10, and 12-16 (not separately argued), which fall
with claim 1. See Grouping of Claims, supra.
Rejection B of Dependent Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Regarding rejection B of claim 5, Appellant notes: “Claim 5 depends
on claim 1.” (App Br. 12). Appellant argues: “[t]he limitations of claim 1
not taught by Sareen, Santoro, Frohwein, Chaudhri and McCarthy are also
not taught by Clayton. Accordingly, claim 5 is allowable.” (Id.).
However, we find no deficiencies regarding the Examiner’s base
combination of Sareen, Santoro, Frohwein, Chaudhri, and McCarthy, for the
reasons discussed above regarding claim 1. On this record, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred, because we find Appellant does not advance
separate, substantive arguments that address the Examiner’s specific
conveying a message or meani ng to a human reader independent of the
intended computer system, and/or the computer-readable medium merely
serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship
exists.” MPEP § 2111.05 (III.) (9th Ed., Rev. 07.2015, Last Revised Nov.
2015). Thus, we construe the recited rendered “data” as non-functional
descriptive material (NFDM), which is merely intended to be displayed for
human perception (viewing). See Ex parte Nehis, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1889
(BP A! 2008) (precedential) (“[T]he nature of the information being
manipulated does not lend patentability to an otherwise unpatentable
computer-implemented product or process.”).
8
Appeal 2017-007911
Application 13/181,294
findings regarding rejection B of claim 5. See Final Act. 31-33. Arguments
not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Therefore, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, we are not
persuaded of error regarding the Examiner’s underlying factual findings and
ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness for dependent claim 5.
Accordingly, we sustain rejection B of claim 5.
Rejection C of Dependent Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Regarding rejection C of claim 11, Appellant notes: “Claim 11
depends on claim 1. (App. Br. 12). Appellant argues: “[t]he limitations of
claim 1 not taught by Sareen, Santoro, Frohwein, Chaudhri and McCarthy
are also not taught by Conners. Accordingly, claim 11 is allowable.” (Id.).
However, we find no deficiencies regarding the Examiner’s base
combination of Sareen, Santoro, Frohwein, Chaudhri, and McCarthy, for the
reasons discussed above regarding claim 1. On this record, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred, because we find Appellant does not advance
separate, substantive arguments that address the Examiner’s specific
findings regarding rejection C of claim 11. See Final Act. 33-34.
Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Therefore, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, we are not
persuaded of error regarding the Examiner’s underlying factual findings and
ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness for dependent claim 11.
Accordingly, we sustain rejection C of claim 11.
9
Appeal 2017-007911
Application 13/181,294
Reply Brief
To the extent Appellant may advance new arguments in the Reply
Brief not in response to a shift in the Examiner's position in the Answer, we
note arguments raised in a Reply Brief that were not raised in the Appeal
Brief, or are not responsive to arguments raised in the Examiner's Answer,
will not he considered except for good cause, which Appellant has not
shown. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err with respect to obviousness rejections A, B,
and C of claims 1, 3-5, 8-16, 19, and 20 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over the cited prior art combinations of record, and we sustain the rejections.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-5, 8-16, 19,
and 20 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. §41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
10