Ex Parte Luther et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 23, 2014

10965624 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PAUL S. LUTHER and
ROBERT BRUCE MAHAFFEY
____________

Appeal 2011-011904
Application1 10/965,624
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before TONI R. SCHEINER, DEMETRA J. MILLS, and
ULRIKE W. JENKS, Administrative Patent Judges.

JENKS, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims directed to a
user interface aggregator that controls the presentation of the user interface
for multiple software applications. The Examiner has rejected the claims as
obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part.

1 Appellants identify International Business Machines Corporation of
Armonk, New York as the Real Party in Interest (App. Br. 2).
Appeal 2011-011904
Application 10/965,624

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 8, 10-12, 14, and 27-40 are on appeal, and can be found in the
Claims Appendix (App. Br. 23-29). Claim 8 is illustrative of the claims on
appeal, and reads as follows:
8. A method to control a user interface [UI] for performing
input and output of information with multiple software
applications, comprising the steps of:
interacting with a UI aggregator to specify the user
interface for the multiple software applications, the UI
aggregator including (i) a first component that applies uniform
aspects of the user interface across all applications and
computing devices, (ii) a second component that controls a
styling of information presented on the user interface, and (iii) a
third component that modifies the user interface according to
conditions in a computing environment, wherein the second
component accepts at least one styling command, the at least
one styling command allowing a selection of terse or discursive
presentation of the information on the user interface, the at least
one styling command allowing presentation of (i) key words,
(ii) summarized information, (iii) elaborate information, and
(iv) condensed information, based on the information;
interacting between the UI aggregator and the multiple
software applications to implement the user interface;
uniformly controlling across the multiple software
applications a presentation of the output using the UI
aggregator such that the UI aggregator performs a combination
of (i) adjusting a parameter of a user interface of an application
in the multiple software applications, and (ii) transforming a
content of an application in the multiple software applications
to a format of the user interface; and
creating in the UI aggregator user modifiable profiles
configured to uniformly control the presentation of the output
using the user interface based on user profile instructions
received at the UI aggregator.

Appeal 2011-011904
Application 10/965,624

3
The Examiner has rejected claims 8, 10-12, 14, and 27-40 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 2003/0126330 A1,
published Jul. 3, 2003 (Balasuriya), US 6,976,217 B1, issued Dec. 13, 2005
(Vertaschitsch et al.), referred to as Vertaschitsch and US 2003/0013492 A1,
published Jan. 16, 2003 (Bokhari et al.), referred to as Bokhari. (Ans. 4.)

The Issue
The Examiner takes the position that Balasuriya disclosed all the
limitations of claim 8 but for identifying “multiple software applications,
[however,] it would be obvious that accessing of the multimodal apparatus
includes accessing multiple software applications” (Ans. 7), and showing
that “the second component accepts at least one styling command, the
styling command allowing a selection of terse or discursive presentation of
the information on the user interface” (id.). The Examiner looks to
Vertaschitsch for teaching a multimodal apparatus using multiple software
applications and Bokhari for teaching that “[t]he user having the ability to
choose the number of characters and lines of text represents a styling
command for selecting a terse or discursive presentation of text data.” (Id.)
Does the preponderance of the evidence of record support the
Examiner’s conclusion that the combination of references renders the claims
obvious?

Findings of Fact
FF1. Balasuriya disclosed:
[A] multimodal communication system and method creates and
accesses a multimodal profile that contains at least multimodal
preference information, such as desired input modality and a
Appeal 2011-011904
Application 10/965,624

4
desired output modality for a given communication apparatus.
The multimodal profile also includes at least one identifier
associated with the multimodal preference information or multi-
modal preference information for a given scenario without an
identifier. When used, the identifier may identify, for example,
an environmental situation that a user may encounter, such as
the user being in a meeting, in a vehicle other environment, or
other utilizing a specific service. For example, a multimodal
profile is customizable and may dictate that the multimodal
communication apparatus use voice as the mechanism for
inputting information and uses voice for outputting information
when the multimodal communication device is in a car, but
another set of multimodal preference information for a given
user profile may dictate that the communication apparatus use a
tactile interface for receiving input from a user and provide a
visual interface for outputting of information on the
communication device. Accordingly, the multimodal
communication method and apparatus configures at least one
multimodal communication apparatus for a multimodal
communication session based on the accessed multimodal
preference information from the multimodal profile.
(Balasuriya 1: 0012.)
FF2. Balasuriya disclosed:
[T]he multimodal communication apparatus and method creates
a multimodal profile by presenting a user interface to a user,
that is adapted to receive input and output modality preference
data to define differing multimodal preference information for a
plurality of multimodal communication scenarios. Each of the
multimodal communication scenarios is associated with an
identifier. For example, one multimodal communication
scenario may be, as noted above, that the user and device are
located in a vehicle and hence text output may not be desirable.
Another multimodal communication scenario may be that the
user and communication apparatus is present in a meeting so
that audio output may not be desirable to avoid interruption of
dialog occurring during the meeting. The method and
apparatus also stores received input and output modality
Appeal 2011-011904
Application 10/965,624

5
preference data and associates the identifier to the designated
input and output modality preference data. This may be done,
for example, through an object oriented database or any other
suitable linking mechanism.
(Balasuriya 2: 0014.)
FF3. Balasuriya disclosed:
[T]he method includes receiving, via the user interface, input
and output modality preference data 200a-200n that defines
different multimodal preference information 202 for different
multimodal communication scenarios. The multimodal
preference information 202 may include, for example, media
preference information (e.g. such as whether output text is in all
caps, whether voice out is in pulse code modulated (PCM)
format, whether output text is encrypted or other suitable
variables), session preference information (e.g., network control
information), ambient condition levels, or any other desired
preference information. . . . Accordingly, each identifier
identifies a different multimodal profile. There may be multiple
multimodal profiles for a given user, a software application or
multimodal communication apparatus.
(Balasuriya 3: 0025.)
FF4 Balasuriya disclosed:
[W]ith the “in meeting” scenario, media preference information
206a may be selected by a user so that all text that is output to
the graphical output interface 118 is presented in all capital
letters.
(Balasuriya 3: 0026.)
FF5. Bokhari disclosed:
In one aspect of the present invention, the content is first
aggregated in a habitat. . . . As an option, a maximum character
length of text content displayed upon selection of a link on the
wireless device is configurable. This allows the user to select
how many characters of the text content are displayed. As
another option, a number of lines of text content displayed upon
Appeal 2011-011904
Application 10/965,624

6
selection of a link on the wireless device is configurable. This
allows the user to select how many lines of the text content is
displayed.
(Bokhari 1: 0005.)

Principle of Law
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).

Analysis
Appellants contend that there is insufficient motivation to combine the
references (App. Br. 15-20). According to Appellants, “Balasuriya only
teaches adjusting an output of the multimodal user interface according to a
user profile but does not teach or suggest adjusting a parameter of another
application.” (Id. at 16.)
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ contention. Balasuriya
recognizes that “[s]pecifying such input and output modality preferences
each time a user is in a communication session can be time consuming and
potentially complicated.” (Balasuriya 1: 0004.) According to Balasuriya, it
was known to store information for an individual application “that may
contain user information such as a user’s preferences for a software
application, contact information and, for example, a communication device’s
capabilities, such as whether or not the communication device can encrypt or
decrypt information, and other capabilities.” (Balasuriya 1: 0005.)
Balasuriya’s method “facilitates customization of input and output interface
Appeal 2011-011904
Application 10/965,624

7
selection along with other desired multimodal preferences.” (Balasuriya 1:
0006.)
We agree with the Examiner’s position that Balasuriya’s “multimodal
profile that contains at least multimodal preference information, such as
desired input modality and a desired output modality for a given
communication apparatus” (FF1) meets the limitation of “a first component
that applies uniform aspects of the user interface across all applications and
computing devices.” (Ans. 5; FF1; see also FF3.) According to the
Examiner “[w]hen used, the identifier may identify, for example, an
environmental situation that a user may encounter, such as the user being in
a meeting, in a vehicle other environment, or other utilizing a specific
service” (FF1) this meets the limitation of “a third component that modifies
the user interface according to conditions in a computing environment”
(Ans. 5; FF1). We agree that Balasuriya teaches that depending on the
environmental situation, the input and output parameters of the
communication device are changed to adjust to a particular situation such as
being in a car or in a meeting (FFs 1-3). We also agree with the Examiner
that Balasuriya’s teaching of using different scenarios that require different
media preferences for the information depending on whether the device is
used in the car or meeting, including presenting different styles so that for
example the “output interface 118 is presented in all capital letters,” meets
the limitation of “a second component that controls a styling of information
presented on the user interface” (Ans. 5; FF4).
We find that the Examiner has reasonably interpreted the disclosure of
Balasuriya as meeting the contested claim limitations. Accordingly, we are
not persuaded by Appellants’ contention that the combination of references
Appeal 2011-011904
Application 10/965,624

8
does not teach “the three specific components included in the UI aggregator”
as recited by the claims (App. Br. 15).
Appellants contend that “Vertaschitsch teaches that many software
applications exist and they make people’s lives easier. Appellants agree that
many applications exist in the world and they make people’s lives easier.
However, this revelation of Vertaschitsch is insufficient to teach or suggest
the adjusting feature as recited in amended claim 8.” (App. Br. 18.)
We are not persuaded. Vertaschitsch not only provides that the
personal digital assistant can make life easier but this “small, slim, device,
about the size of your wallet . . . can run many different software
applications.” (Vertaschitsch, col. 1, ll. 44-48.) We find no error with the
Examiner’s conclusion that “[t]he teachings in Vertaschitsch disclose that it
is obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention that a portable
device that is multi-modal [also] includes multiple software applications.”
(Ans. 12.)
Appellants contend that “[a]s is commonly understood in the English
language, terse text is distinct from truncated text. Bokhari does nothing
more than truncate the text at a fixed length - either by a character count or
line count - nothing more.” (Reply Br. 5.) Appellants contend that
Bokhari teaches that a user may configure the device to display
a fixed number of characters or lines from the text associated
with a link. In other words, when a user selects a link to
display the link’s contents, the display of that content can be
limited [to] a fixed number of characters or lines. This teaching
in Bokhari is insufficient to teach or suggest the specific aspects
of the second component of the UI aggregator according to
claim 8.
(App. Br. 19.)
Appeal 2011-011904
Application 10/965,624

9
We are not persuaded. As recognized by the Examiner
Bokhari discloses adjusting the amount of information that is
displayed based on the size of the user interface. The truncation
of text data allows for the text data to be presented in a terse
manner where the data is displayed succinctly to convey the
context of the information while efficiently using the screen
space. The truncation and displaying of terse data also reads on
presentation of key words, summarized information and
condensed information. The truncation of the link data leaves
key words that are still displayed and associated with the link
data.
(Ans. 12.) Here, the Examiner has provided a reasonable interpretation and
application of the term terse as it applies to the claims. Appellants fail to
identify any evidentiary basis on this record that rebuts the Examiner’s
reasoning that truncation of text in a manner that allows the text to be
displayed on a small screen would not be considered presenting the
information in a terse manner as required by the claims. In re Geisler, 116
F.3d 1465, 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Argument of counsel cannot take the
place of evidence).
We conclude that the combination of references establishes a prima
facie case of obviousness and Appellants have not presented sufficient
rebuttal or other evidence to overcome the Examiner’s case. See In re
Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we affirm the
rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over
Balasuriya, Vertaschitsch, and Bokhari. As claims 10, 11, 14, 27-33, and
35-40 have not been argued separately, they fall with claim 8 (App. Br. 20).
37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(vii).
With respect to claims 12 and 34, Appellants contend that “neither
Balasuriya nor Vertaschitsch nor Bokhari teach or suggest anything that can
Appeal 2011-011904
Application 10/965,624

10
be considered analogous to a mode that modifies one of (i) pitch, (ii) rate,
and (ii) spacing between words in spoken information, or a mode that
enhances reading of a text in the manner” recited in the claims (App. Br. 21).
We find that Appellants have the better position. The Examiner cites
to paragraph 12 and 21 of Balasuriya for teaching “that mode modifies one
of pitch, rate, and spacing between words in spoken information” (Ans. 9).
According to the Examiner “Balasuriya discloses environments and
examples where a certain comprehension need is determined” (id. at 13).
The mere disclosure of an environment that may benefit from making
adjustments to the pitch, rate, or spacing between words does not mean that
the reference necessarily functions in that manner to achieve better
comprehension. “[O]bviousness requires a suggestion of all limitations in a
claim.” CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir.
2003). Here the limitation of pitch, rate, or spacing between words is not
found in the cited portions of Balasuriya. It is well settled that inherency
“may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that
a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not
sufficient.” In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981). Because the
Examiner has not established that these limitations are necessarily present in
Balasuriya we reverse the rejection claims 12 and 34 that recite the
limitation “wherein a mode modifies one of (i) pitch, (ii) rate, and (ii)
spacing between words in spoken information.”

Appeal 2011-011904
Application 10/965,624

11
SUMMARY
We affirm the rejection of claims 8, 10, 11, 14, 27-33, and 35-40
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Balasuriya, Vertaschitsch
and Bokhari.
We reverse the rejection of claims 12 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being obvious over Balasuriya, Vertaschitsch and Bokhari.

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

cdc