Ex Parte Szeto et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 26, 201713238270 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/238,270 09/21/2011 JACK W. SZETO RSW920110062US1 8152-0130 3329 73109 7590 01/30/2017 rWnnt Fnrsvfiie& Kim T T C EXAMINER 20283 State Road 7 Ste. 300 VAUGHN, GREGORY J Boca Raton, EL 33498 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2178 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/30/2017 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): ibmptomail@iplawpro.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JACK W. SZETO, RAMRATAN VENNAM, and PATRICK W. WOLF Appeal 2016-000888 Application 13/23 8,2701 Technology Center 2100 Before STEPHEN C. SIU, ERIC S. FRAHM, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is IBM Corporation. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2016-000888 Application 13/238,270 INVENTION Appellants’ application relates to user log-in to a system to access a view of a user interface to be presented on a display. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as follows: 1. A method comprising: during a user log-in to a system to access a view of a user interface to be presented on a display, receiving a user command to be executed prior to presenting the view on the display, wherein the user is not prompted to enter the user command; responsive to the user command, configuring the view m accordance with the user command; and presenting the view, as configured in accordance with the user command, on the display. REJECTIONS Claims 1—5, 10-14, and 19-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Smith (US 2011/0321156 Al; published Dec. 29, 2011). Claims 6, 15, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Smith and Research Disclosure, Method to Exclude and Lock Windows, published December 2006 (“MEL Win”). Claims 7—9, 16—18, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Smith and Tsai et al. (US 2013/0051632 Al; published Feb. 28, 2013) (“Tsai”). 2 Appeal 2016-000888 Application 13/238,270 ANALYSIS Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because the cited portions of Smith do not disclose the limitation “during a user log in to a system to access a view of a user interface,” recited in claim 1. App. Br. 10. Appellants argue that in Figures 4A-4C of Smith, a preconfigured result associated with the password is accessed, not a view, as claimed. Id. Appellants further argue that when the “pre-configured keyword or sub password” is entered in Smith, the view has already been accessed. Id. at 11 (citing Smith 134). Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error. Appellants point to a definition of “view” in the Specification (App. Br. 11 (citing Spec. 121), but fail persuasively to distinguish the disclosure in Figures 4A-4C of Smith from that definition. We are not persuaded that what is shown in Figures 4A-4C of Smith is other than a “graphic representation of a user operating space (e.g., a desktop) provided by an operating system and represented on a display, for example by a graphical user interface,” as the Specification describes. See Spec. 121. Moreover, Appellants have not identified in the record before us persuasive evidence that claim 1 and the Specification require a particular type of access, such as initial access, to a view of a user interface. Where, as here, the claim term in question is not facially narrow and the Specification lacks a specific intent to narrow, we decline to import narrowing limitations into the plain meaning of the claim term. Appellants further argue that Smith does not disclose the limitation “configuring the view in accordance with the user command” because Smith 3 Appeal 2016-000888 Application 13/238,270 presents different results in the same view in response to a particular password. App. Br. 12 (emphasis added). Again, we do not find persuasive Appellants’ arguments that Figures 4A-4C of Smith do not show views to a user interface. The Examiner found that Figures 4A-4C show views to a user interface, and that the views are different. Ans. 7. The Examiner further explained that Smith discloses that, when a system user desires to access a view of a user interface related to Rachel’s conversations, a user command is entered (in the form of a password), where the command does not have a prompt, and that allows the user to log-in into the account and access the desired information. The desired view is shown in Figure 4C. Id. at 8. Appellants have not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s findings or persuasively distinguished Smith’s disclosure from the definition of “view” in the Specification. For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that Smith discloses the limitations of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of independent claim 1, as well as the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of independent claims 10 and 19, which Appellants state fall with claim 1. App. Br. 9. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2, 11, and 20, for which Appellants make no additional arguments. Id. Rejection of Claims 3—6, 12—15, 21—23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and further recites “wherein: the user command is received in conjunction with a user log-in to the operating system to un-lock the view of the user interface previously presented on the display.” App. Br. 19. Appellants contend the cited portions of Smith do 4 Appeal 2016-000888 Application 13/238,270 not disclose the additional limitation recited in claim 3. Id. at 13. In particular, Appellants argue that the main password and the sub-password in Smith are not received "in conjunction," as claim 3 requires. Id. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not clearly identified that a user command is received in conjunction with a user log-in in Smith. The Examiner finds that paragraph 42 of Smith discloses that “the user command (sub-password) and the user log-in (main password) are described as being received in conjunction.” Ans. 10. Upon review of paragraph 42, we find that Smith discloses that a computer can enter one of a number of modes depending on the password the user enters, but does not disclose that the main password and sub-password are received “in conjunction,” as claim 3 requires. Thus, the Examiner has characterized paragraph 42 of Smith unreasonably. On the record before us, because the Examiner has not identified in Smith all the disputed limitations, we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 3, as well as the other claims which recite similar limitations. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 3—6, 12—15, and 21—232 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Smith. Rejection of Claims 7—9, 16—18, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Appellants make no separate, substantive arguments with regard to the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 7—9, 16—18, 24, and 25 over Smith and Tsai, but rather state that “claims 7—9, 16—18, and 24—25 stand or 2 Appellants state that claims 6, 15, and 23 should stand or fall with independent claim 1. App. Br. 15. Those claims, however, ultimately depend from claims 3, 12, and 21, respectively. 5 Appeal 2016-000888 Application 13/238,270 fall together with [independent claim 1.” App. Br. 16. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 7—9, 16—18, 24, and 25. DECISION We affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1,2, 10, 11, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). We reverse the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 3—6, 12—15, and 21-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). We affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 7—9, 16—18, 24, and 25 under 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). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation