Ex Parte McKnight

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 17, 2012

10831060 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2012)

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. 10/831,060 04/23/2004 David Kenneth McKnight CA920030078US1 1525 46320 7590 09/17/2012 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG 950 PENINSULA CORPORATE CIRCLE SUITE 2022 BOCA RATON, FL 33487 EXAMINER PHAM, LINH K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2174 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/17/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte DAVID KENNETH MCKNIGHT ____________________ Appeal 2010-004112 Application 10/831,060 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, KEVIN F. TURNER, and JENNIFER S. BISK, Administrative Patent Judges. BISK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-004112 Application 10/831,060 2 SUMMARY This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-21, all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. The Invention Appellant’s invention relates to “a [computer] graphical user interface having an object viewer that allows a user to view and edit multiple objects having the same properties.” Spec. ¶ [0001]. The Rejections 1. Claims 1, 2, 6-8, 11, 12, and 15-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Turski (US 7,257,571 B2; Aug. 14, 2007 (filed Jan. 26, 2004)). Ans. 3-8. 2. Claims 3, 5, 9, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Turski and Dardinski (US 6,754,885 B1; June 22, 2004 (filed Nov. 23, 1999)). Ans. 9-10. 3. Claims 4, 10, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Turski and Kekic (US 6,788,315 B1; Sept. 7, 2004 (filed Nov. 17, 1997)). Ans. 10. Appeal 2010-004112 Application 10/831,060 3 ANALYSIS The Anticipation Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 6-8, 111, 12, 17, and 18 The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 6-8, 11, 12, 17, and 18 under § 102(e) as anticipated by Turski. Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A method for displaying objects and properties of the objects in a computer object set, the method comprising: capturing an input of a selected object to view; determining if the selected object has a content adapter and if so, retrieving the content view generated by the content adapter; determining if other objects in the content view have a same property adapter and if so, retrieving the property adapter; obtaining at least one property descriptor and its corresponding property value of the objects from the property adapter; and creating an object set property view of the objects and the properties of the objects. Appellant argues that the language cited in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 does not teach any of the recited limitations. App. Br. 5-13. Appellant also asserts that because the rejection is limited to a listing of passages in Turski, with no accompanying explanation, the Examiner has not met the required burden of providing a prima facie case of anticipation. We agree with Appellant. For example, Appellant argues that the limitations “obtaining at least one property descriptor and its corresponding property value of the objects from the property adapter; and creating an object set property view of the 1 Although Appellant’s argument groups independent claim 11 with claims 15-21 (App. Br. 5), we include claim 11 with this group because it recites a limitation substantially equivalent to the obtaining limitation discussed in this section. Appeal 2010-004112 Application 10/831,060 4 objects and the properties of the objects” are not appropriately addressed by the Examiner. App. Br. 9-10 (citing Turski col. 8, ll. 40-67). The Examiner’s rejection is not accompanied by any explanation of (1) how the Examiner is interpreting the language of the claims, or (2) what features in the cited passage correspond to the features recited in the claim. And it is not apparent from the passage itself how it teaches those features. The cited passage (Turski col. 8, ll. 40-67) describes Figure 9 of Turski, reproduced below: Appeal 2010-004112 Application 10/831,060 5 Figure 9 depicts an example of a user interface displaying a list of files and certain properties of those files in “semi-collapsed groups,” categorized by type. Turski explains that Figure 9’s semi-collapsed group view is one of several ways to visualize groups of files. Turski col. 8, ll. 42-45. Other methods of visualization include collapsed views and expanded views. Id. at ll. 48-50. The passage continues to describe a standard Windows® representation of folder lists and the typical manner of viewing parent and child objects through “collapsible” interfaces in which the contents are selectively shown or hidden. Id. at ll. 50-67. It is not apparent, nor does the Examiner sufficiently explain, how the passage discloses any of the limitations at issue. For example, it is unclear what, if anything, in this passage equates to the “property adapter.” The Examiner does not respond directly to Appellant’s argument that Turski does not disclose this claim limitation. See Ans. 10-12. As a result, Appellant is forced to rely on the minimal information in the rejection: “obtaining at least one property descriptor and its corresponding property value of the objects from the property adapter; (see Turski, col. 8, lines 40- 70) and creating an object set property view of the objects and the properties of the objects. (see Turski, col. 8, lines 40-70).” Ans. 3-4. However, the rejection does not adequately explain how the cited passage discloses the limitations at issue so that Appellant is properly notified and able to respond as required. See Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007). For this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of (1) independent claim 1; (2) independent claims 7 and 11 which contain substantially the same limitation; (3) dependent claims 2, 6, 8, and Appeal 2010-004112 Application 10/831,060 6 12, which depend from claims 1, 7, and 11; and (4) claims 17 and 18, which depend from independent claim 15 (discussed below), but include the “property adapter” limitation. The Anticipation Rejection of Claims 15, 16, and 19-21 The Examiner also rejected claims 15, 16, and 19-21 under § 102(e) as anticipated by Turski. The rejection of these claims similarly was accompanied by little to no explanation. Independent claim 15, however, does not include the limitations discussed above with respect to claim 1. In fact, claim 15, reproduced below, is stated in such broad terms that it requires an independent analysis. 15. An object set property viewer in a computer system having an object system, comprising: means for selecting an object by a user; means for retrieving the children of the object; means for determining which children of the object have the same properties; and means for displaying the objects and the properties. Appellant states, without further explanation, that claims 15-21 “stand or fall together with independent claim 11.” App. Br. 5. No further mention is made of claims 15-21. See generally App. Br. 5-13. Hence, we assume that the argument section with the heading “Claim 11” is Appellant’s sole argument for the patentability of claims 15-21. In this section, Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 11 because the language relied upon in Turski does not teach the “concept of determining of [sic] the content has one or more children objects having the same property adapter.” App. Br. 11 (citing Appeal 2010-004112 Application 10/831,060 7 Turski col. 6, ll. 12-22). This argument apparently refers to claim 11’s requirement of “computer readable program code configured to determine the content of the selected object . . . [and] to determine if the content has one or more children objects.” Appellant asserts that Turski does not refer to “a same property adapter.” Id. Nor does it teach “the content has one or more children objects.” Id. Appellant’s argument does not persuade us that the rejection of claims 15, 16, and 19-21 should be reversed. First, these claims do not include any limitation relating to a “property adapter.” Second, the Examiner equates the claimed object and its children with folders and files in a file system as described in Turski. Ans. 11-12 (citing Spec. ¶ [0031]). This is consistent with the Specification, which uses folders and files throughout as example objects. See, e.g., Fig. 4. The Specification also uses the terms “children” and “content” interchangeably to describe contents of an object. Spec. ¶ [0011] (“A content viewer uses the selected object’s content adapter to display its content, sometimes referred to as the object’s children.”). The rejection of claim 15 points to language in Turski describing Figure 3—a view of folders (objects) containing other folders and files (children of the object). Ans. 7 (citing Turski col. 6, l. 65—col. 7, l. 5). Consequently, we are not persuaded that Turski does not teach content with one or more children and we sustain the rejection of claim 15. For the same reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 16 and 19-21. The Obviousness Rejections We reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 3-5, 9, 10, 13, and 14. Despite nominally arguing these claims separately, Appellant Appeal 2010-004112 Application 10/831,060 8 relies on the arguments made in connection with the anticipation rejection of independent claims 1, 7, and 11, discussed above, and alleges that Dardinski and Kekic fail to cure those purported deficiencies. App. Br. 12-13. We are persuaded by these arguments for the reasons previously discussed. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 15, 16, and 19-21 is affirmed. The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-14, 17, and 18 is reversed. 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-IN-PART babc