2020003304 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 2021)

COLIN, Jean-Claude

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 2, 2021

2020003304 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 2021)

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. 15/524,199 05/03/2017 Than Marc-Eric GERVAIS 0840-1013 4062 466 7590 08/02/2021 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC 901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD 11TH FLOOR ARLINGTON, VA 22203 EXAMINER DU, HAIXIA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2600 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/02/2021 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): pair_nixon@firsttofile.com ptomail@nixonvan.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte THAN MARC-GERVAIS, BRUNO LOUBET, NICOLAS BESSON, YVES GUIMIT, MIKAEL PETITALS, and SEBASTIEN ROQUES ____________ Appeal 2020-003304 Application 15/524,199 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and, JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judges. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 22–40. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). SUMMARY OF THE DECISION We REVERSE. 1 Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as SENA Geoenergy Storage AB. (Appeal Br. 1). Appeal 2020-003304 Application 15/524,199 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The Appellant’s claimed invention relates to producing animation of the multipage type in that each still image has scalability properties to be saved on multiple levels (Spec., Abstract). Claim 22, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 22. A process for producing an animation, wherein said animation is of a multipage type, said process comprising: obtaining an animation medium comprising a plurality of still images with scalability properties, wherein said animation medium is a file; wherein the plurality of still images comprises a playing order, each of said still images is stored in at least one level, each level having a rank corresponding to a resolution, wherein a higher rank corresponds to a higher resolution; and wherein there are at least three ranks; arranging in the animation medium, in a reading order of said animation medium: all levels of a first rank in the playing order, the first rank being a lowest rank; then all levels of a second rank in the playing order, the second rank being an immediately higher rank than said first rank; and then repeatedly arranging in the animation medium, in the reading order of the animation medium, each consecutive rank, by arranging all levels of each consecutive rank in the playing order, until all of the levels of each of the still images have been arranged. Appeal 2020-003304 Application 15/524,199 3 THE REJECTIONS The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the rejections: Name Reference Date Shiomi US 2004/0085460 A1 May 6, 2004 Anderson-Sprecher US 2015/0161823 A1 June 11, 2015 Sirohey US 2007/0014480 A1 Jan. 18, 2007 Visharam US 2007/0016594 A1 Jan. 18, 2007 Chui US 2008/0144711 A1 June 19, 2008 Hobbs US 8,442,311 B1 May 14, 2013 The following rejections are before us for review: 1. Claims 36, 38, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite. 2. Claims 22–28, 30, 31, 36, 37, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Anderson-Sprecher, Visharam, and Sirohey. 3. Claims 29, 38, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Anderson-Sprecher, Visharam, Sirohey, and Chui. FINDINGS OF FACT We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence2. 2 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Patent Office). Appeal 2020-003304 Application 15/524,199 4 ANALYSIS Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) The Examiner determines that claim 36 is indefinite because it is unclear if the “image medium” recited in the claim is the same or different from the “animation medium” recited in claim 22, from which rejected claim 36 depends (Non-Final Act. 3; Ans. 8, 9). Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 36 is improper because “the recitation in claim 22, that the animation medium is a file, is not inconsistent with the recitation in claim 36 that the image medium is also a file” (Appeal Br. 8). We agree with the Appellant. Here, the cited claim limitation is not indefinite. The recitation in claim 36 that “wherein an image medium is a file” would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as referring to a medium that is distinct from the animation medium, and which further defines the claimed invention. Accordingly, this rejection is not sustained. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 22 is improper because the prior art fails to disclose the claim limitation requiring: arranging in the animation medium, in a reading order of said animation medium: all levels of a first rank in the playing order, the first rank being a lowest rank…. repeatedly arranging in the animation medium, in the reading order of the animation medium, each consecutive rank, by arranging all levels of each consecutive rank in the playing order, until all of the levels of each of the still images have been arranged. (Appeal Br. 5–7). Appeal 2020-003304 Application 15/524,199 5 In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the cited claim limitation is shown by Anderson-Sprecher at Figure 4 and paragraphs 60, 61, 73, and 74 (Non-Final Act. 4-6; Ans. 4, 5). We agree with Appellant. Here, the argued claim limitation requires in part “arranging in the animation medium, in a reading order of said animation medium: all levels of a first rank in the playing order, the first rank being a lowest rank.” Thus, the claim requires that the arrangement of the reading order has the “first rank being the lowest rank” in terms of resolution. The rejection cites to this limitation as being disclosed by Anderson-Sprecher at Figure 4 and paragraphs 60, 61, 73, and 74 (Non-Final Act. 4–6), but these citations fail to disclose this limitation. For example, Anderson-Sprecher at Figure 4 does disclose having “high” and “low” resolutions, but there is no disclosure of a prior “arranging” and here the “high” level resolution is displayed first, in contrast to the claim limitation for “the first rank being a lowest rank” for the resolution. Here, the argued claim limitation is not disclosed in the cited portion of Anderson-Sprecher at Figure 4 and paragraphs 60, 61, 73, and 74, as asserted. Sirohey does disclose resolutions stored from lowest to most full resolutions in a stream (Sirohey ¶ 49). However, the initial arrangement of the resolutions is not disclosed. Visharam has been cited in the rejection to disclose the use of an animation medium file (Non-Final Act. 7). Here, the claim limitation requiring “arranging in the animation medium, in a reading order of said animation medium: all levels of a first rank in the playing order, the first rank being a lowest rank” has not been Appeal 2020-003304 Application 15/524,199 6 shown in Anderson-Sprecher, as asserted in the rejection for the reasons given above. Further, the cited combination of Anderson-Sprecher, Visharam, and Sirohey in the rejection to meet the claim limitations lacks articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings to sustain the rejection without impermissible hindsight. For these above reasons, the rejection of claim 22 and its dependent claims are not sustained. Claim 40 contains a similar limitation, and the rejection of this claim and its dependent claims are not sustained for the same reasons given above. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We conclude that Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 36, 38, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). We conclude that Appellant has shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 22–28, 30, 31, 36, 37, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Anderson-Sprecher, Visharam, and Sirohey. We conclude that Appellant has shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 29, 38, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Anderson-Sprecher, Visharam, Sirohey, and Chui. Appeal 2020-003304 Application 15/524,199 7 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 36, 38, 39 112(b) Indefiniteness 36, 38, 39 22–28, 30, 31, 36, 37, 40 103 Anderson-Sprecher, Visharam, Sirohey 22–28, 30, 31, 36, 37, 40 29, 38, 39 103 Anderson-Sprecher, Visharam, Sirohey Chui 29, 38, 39 Overall Outcome 22–40 REVERSED