Ex Parte Szeto et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 26, 2017

13238270 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 26, 2017)

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