Autodesk, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 20, 2020

14808995 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 2020)

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.
14/808,995 07/24/2015 Mason J. Foster 30566.510-US-U1 5583
55895 7590 05/20/2020
GATES & COOPER LLP - Autodesk
HOWARD HUGHES CENTER
6060 CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 830
LOS ANGELES, CA 90045
EXAMINER
LOWENBERGER, AARON J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
4100
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/20/2020 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):
docketing-us@gates-cooper.com
gates-cooper@blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MASON J. FOSTER and DAMIAN PAUL STEPHEN WILLCOX

____________

Appeal 2019-002355
Application 14/808,995
Technology Center 4100
____________

Before NORMAN H. BEAMER, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.

PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Autodesk, Inc. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-002355
Application 14/808,995

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The application is directed to “perform[ing] multiple actions based on
a reality captured image” in which “[a]n adjustable splitter splits a viewport
into viewing panes with the ability to freely adjust the splitter angle.”
Abstract. Claims 1, 2, 4, and 24–30 are pending; claims 1 and 26 are
independent. Claims Appendix 1–4 (Appeal Br. 19–22). Claim 1 is
reproduced below for reference:
1. A computer-implemented method for splitting a viewport,
comprising:
displaying a viewport having multiple viewing panes,
wherein the multiple viewing panes are separated by an
adjustable splitter that extends from a first edge of the viewport
to a second edge of the viewport;
displaying a circular glyph coincident with the adjustable
splitter, wherein the circular glyph includes an indication of the
angle;
displaying a grip glyph coincident with the circular glyph;
and
dragging the grip glyph around the circular glyph, wherein
the dragging modifies the angle of the adjustable splitter; and
rotating an angle of the adjustable splitter while continuing
to extend the adjustable splitter to edges of the viewport, wherein
the rotating changes geometric angles that define a geometric
shape of the multiple viewing panes.
Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 24, 26, 27, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Miyashita (US 2010/0097338 A1; Apr. 22,
Appeal 2019-002355
Application 14/808,995

3
2010), Robbins (US 6,326,978 B1; Dec. 4, 2001), and Jackson (US
2013/0055126 A1; Feb. 28, 2013). Final Act. 3.2
Claims 4 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Miyashita, Robbins, Jackson, Mitra (US 2010/0011309
A1; Jan. 14, 2010), and Birdwell (US 2008/0276162 A1; Nov. 6, 2008).
Final Act. 13.
Claims 25 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Miyashita, Robbins, Jackson, and Albertson (US
2008/0313565 A1; Dec. 18, 2008). Final Act. 17.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues “the claim limitations explicitly recite various
attributes of the circular glyph with respect to the adjustable splitter” and “it
is improper to reject the claim limitations by dissecting and separating the
circular glyph from the adjustable splitter as they [are] closely intertwined
and related to each other in the claims.” Reply Br. 2; see also Appeal Br. 9,
10. Particularly, Appellant contends “neither Robbins nor Miyashita (either
alone or when combined) provide the ability for a circular glyph that is: (1)
coincident with the adjustable splitter; [and] (2) includes an indication of the
angle.” Reply Br. 2. Appellant further contends that
there is no ability or suggestion to combine Robbins with
Miyashita because nobody would look to window rotation to
determine how to rotate and configure a rotation that splits a
single window into two different viewing areas. For a
motivation to combine, the Action relies on Robbins[’]

2 While Robbins and Jackson are not included in the heading of the
rejection, these references are applied in the body of the rejection. See Final
Act. 4–5.
Appeal 2019-002355
Application 14/808,995

4
disclosure of “selectively rotating windows would provide a
more manageable computer interface.”
Appeal Br. 7, citing Final Act. 4.
The Examiner finds “Robbins teaches displaying a circular glyph
coincident with a line, wherein the circular glyph includes an indication of
the angle (e.g., see Fig. 2 showing circular glyph coincident with the line
containing point 30).” Final Act. 4.3 The Examiner further finds that “when
combining the teachings of Miyashita with those of Robbins, it would be
obvious to display the circular glyph that is displayed on a rotated object (the
line that is a border of a rotated window) in Robbins on the rotated object
(the adjustable splitter) of Miyashita.” Ans. 5. Elsewhere the Examiner
finds the motivation to modify the teachings of Miyashita with those of
Robbins “because it would provide a more manageable user interface.”
Final Act. 4, citing Robbins 2:25–26.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner’s
combination reasoning in the Answer is conclusory. See id. In the Final
Action, the Examiner’s motivation to combine the references ignores the full
context of Robbins’ statement, which discloses “[w]ith a method of this
type, selectively rotating windows would provide a more manageable
computer interface.” Robbins 2:25–27. Here, Robbins explains the benefit
of “a more manageable computer interface” is due to the teaching of

3 We note it is unclear what the Examiner refers to as comprising the circular
glyph in Robbins. We find that only the glyph in rotation button 28 could
reasonably be considered as “showing circular glyph coincident with the line
containing point 30.” Final Act. 4 (emphasis omitted); Robbins Fig. 1.
Robbins teaches that as window 10 is rotated, the position of rotation button
28 similarly rotates, and its change in position could be considered as the
claimed “indication of the angle.” See Robbins Figs. 1, 2.
Appeal 2019-002355
Application 14/808,995

5
“selectively rotating windows.” That is, the Examiner cites a motivation to
combine that is expressly tied to a teaching not used in the combination; thus
the rejection lacks a rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. “[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by
mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, we are constrained by the record to reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, as well as independent claim
26 commensurate in scope, and all dependent claims.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

REVERSED

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 24, 26,
27, 29
103 Miyashita,
Robbins,
Jackson
1, 2, 24, 26, 27,
29
4, 28 103 Miyashita,
Robbins,
Jackson, Mitra,
Birdwell
4, 28
25, 30 103 Miyashita,
Robbins,
Jackson,
Albertson
25, 30
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4, 24–30