Ex Parte Muller

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 28, 2012

11318805 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/318,805 12/27/2005 Michael Muller LOT920050146US1 (119) 6874
46321 7590 11/29/2012
CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''KEEFE, LLP
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
950 PENINSULA CORPORATE CIRCLE
SUITE 2022
BOCA RATON, FL 33487
EXAMINER
DISTEFANO, GREGORY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2175
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/29/2012 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 MICHAEL MULLER
____________

Appeal 2010-000348
Application 11/318,805
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MARC S. HOFF, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Appeal 2010-000348
Application 11/318,805

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention is a method for managing an integrated
multidimensional view of a structured collection of objects in a graphical
user interface (GUI). In one embodiment, the method includes providing a
view of at least a portion of objects in the structured collection according to
a first dimension; selecting one of the objects in the provided view; and
embedding within the provided view an in-line view of attributes of the
selected one of the objects according to a second dimension (Spec. 1, 4).
Independent claims 1 and 5, reproduced below, are representative of
the subject matter on appeal.
1. A data processing system configured to render an integrated
view of a multidimensional structured collection of objects, the data
processing system comprising:
a graphical user interface (GUI) for a host application in a
computing platform;
multidimensional view processing logic coupled to the host
application, the logic comprising program code enabled to render an
inline multidimensional view of a structured collection of unique
objects in the GUI.

REFERENCES
Roberge US 6,154,750 Nov. 28, 2000
Weise US 2004/0243938 A1 Dec. 2, 2004

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Weise in view of Roberge.

Appeal 2010-000348
Application 11/318,805

3
ISSUES
Appellant argues, inter alia, that the combination of Weise and
Roberge does not teach or fairly suggest rendering “an inline
multidimensional view of a structured collection of unique objects,” as claim
1 recites (App. Br. 6-8). Appellant contends that the Examiner improperly
construed “inline” as “from top to bottom” in the Final Office Action (App.
Br. 6).
Appellant’s arguments present us with the following issues:
1. Does the combination of Weise and Roberge teach or fairly
suggest rendering an inline multidimensional view of a structured collection
of unique objects?
2. Does the combination of Weise and Roberge teach or fairly
suggest providing a view of at least a portion of objects in a structured
collection according to a first dimension, selecting one of the unique objects,
and embedding within the provided view an in-line view of attributes of the
selected (unique object) according to a second dimension?

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Section 103(a) forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are
such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at
the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in
the art to which said subject matter pertains.’

KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations
including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences
between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in
App
App

the a
Grah
U.S.
any p
contr
view
claim
of at
dime
categ
displ
that
dime

the t
Figu
eal 2010-0
lication 11
rt, and (4)
am v. Joh
at 407, (“W
articular c
ols.”)
Indepen
of a struc
s 5 and 1
tributes of
nsion” (em
Weise il
ories of a
ayed verti
Weise doe
nsion, or a
Figure 4
Figure 4
wo child-n
Expansi
re 6 of We
00348
/318,805
where in e
n Deere C
hile the
ase, the [G
dent claim
tured colle
1 recite “e
the select
phasis ad
lustrates a
selected c
cally, just
s not prov
multidim
of Weise
shows a tr
odes (¶ [0
on of the “
ise, illustr
vidence, s
o., 383 U.
sequence o
raham] f
AN
1 recites “
ction of un
mbedding
ed one of t
ded).
variety of
ategory ar
as the cate
ide an in-l
ensional in
is illustrat
ee structu
027]).
Categories
ated below
4
o-called s
S. 1, 17-18
f these qu
actors con
ALYSIS
render[ing
ique obje
within the
he unique
tree struct
e indeed d
gories are
ine view a
-line view
ed below:
re with the
” node res
:
econdary c
(1966). S
estions mi
tinue to de
] an inline
cts in the G
provided
objects ac
ures (Figs
isplayed in
displayed
ccording t
.
root note
ults in the
onsiderati
ee also K
ght be reo
fine the in
multidim
UI.” Inde
view an in
cording to
. 3-13) in w
-line, but
vertically
o a second

expanded
structure
ons.
SR, 550
rdered in
quiry that
ensional
pendent
-line view
a second
hich sub-
are
. We find

, showing
shown in

App
App

level
App
the v
Exam
dime
be th
Exam
the t
mult
emb
seco
Exam

sugg
of un
eal 2010-0
lication 11
Figure 6
expanded
The view
ellant’s inv
iew of the
iner that
nsions” (A
at of the d
iner’s int
erm “mult
We there
idimension
edding of a
nd dimens
iner’s § 1

1. The c
est render
ique objec
00348
/318,805
shows a tr
.
s taught i
ention, no
expansion
the nodes
ns. 4) or t
ifferent hi
erpretation
idimension
fore find
al view o
n in-line v
ion, as Ap
03 rejectio
ombinatio
ing an inlin
ts.
ee structu
n Weise ar
second (i
of a node
of Weise “
hat “the ‘m
erarchical
does not
al.”
that Weise
f a structur
iew of att
pellant’s c
n of claim
CON
n of Weis
e multidim
5
re with the
e all vertic
.e., horizon
or level. W
may be ex
ultidimen
levels of W
comport w
does not p
ed collect
ributes of
laims recit
s 1-16.
CLUSION
e and Rob
ensional
root node
ally orien
tal) dime
e are not
panded to
sional’ vi
eise” (An
ith the com
rovide an
ion of obje
a selected
e. We wil
S
erge does n
view of a

and one f
ted. Unlik
nsion is em
persuade
display m
ew is inter
s. 16). Th
mon mea
inline
cts, or the
object acc
l not susta
ot teach o
structured
urther
e
ployed fo
d by the
ultiple
preted to
e
ning of

ording to a
in the
r fairly
collection
r

Appeal 2010-000348
Application 11/318,805

6
2. The combination of Weise and Roberge does not teach or fairly
suggest providing a view of at least a portion of objects in a structured
collection according to a first dimension, selecting one of the unique objects,
and embedding within the provided view an in-line view of attributes of the
selected (unique object) according to a second dimension.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-16 is reversed.

REVERSED

gvw