Ex Parte Aguera y Arcas

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 25, 2013

11737001 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2013)

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.
11/737,001 04/18/2007 BLAISE AGUERA y ARCAS MFCP.134745 4808
45809 7590 03/25/2013
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
(MICROSOFT CORPORATION)
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
2555 GRAND BOULEVARD
KANSAS CITY, MO 64108-2613
EXAMINER
TUNG, KEE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2677
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/25/2013 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 BLAISE AGUERA Y ARCAS
____________________

Appeal 2010-010617
Application 11/737,001
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-010617
Application 11/737,001

2
STATEMENT OF CASE1
The Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final
rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-19, the only claims pending in the application
on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

The Appellant invented a method for providing zooming user
interfaces (ZUI) for computers. Specification ¶ 0002.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added]:
1. A computer-implemented method of displaying visual
content organized into nodes, the method comprising:
[1] performing a first computing process that facilitates
displaying visual content of a first node on a display device,
wherein the first node contains information indicative of its
own logical coordinate system, and wherein the first node is
displayed in its own logical coordinate system until a
predetermined navigation condition occurs; and
[2] performing a second computing process that facilitates
displaying visual content of the first node in a logical
coordinate system of a second node after the predetermined
navigation condition occurs, wherein the logical coordinate
system of the second node differs from the logical coordinate
system of the first node;
[3] wherein the first computing process and the second
computing process are performed by one or more computing
devices.

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed Jan. 4. 2010), the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Mar. 17,
2010), and Final Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed Aug. 5, 2009).
Appeal 2010-010617
Application 11/737,001

3

REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Dehmlow
Schmidt
US 5,999,187
US 6,885,939 B2
Dec. 7, 1999
Apr. 26, 2005
Reading Topographic Maps, (Feb. 14, 2003)
http://web.archive.org/web/20030212223424/www.map-
reading.com/intro.php (last visited Jan. 6, 2008);
§§ 4-5, 4-7, http://web.archive.org/web/20030214004603/
http://www.map-reading.com/ch4-3.php (last visited Apr. 22, 2006)
(hereinafter “RTM”).

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-7, 9, and 13-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as
being anticipated by Schmidt.
Claims 10 and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schmidt and Dehmlow.
Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schmidt, Dehmlow, and RTM.

ISSUE
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-7 and 9-
19 turns on whether the cited prior art describes “displaying visual content
of a node using its own logical coordinate system until a predetermined
navigation condition and then displaying visual content of the node using the
logical coordinate system of another node.”
Appeal 2010-010617
Application 11/737,001

4

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of the
Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with the Appellant’s conclusions. We adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer in response to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We
concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner. We highlight the
following arguments for emphasis.

Claims 1-7, 9, and 13-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as being
anticipated by Schmidt
The Appellant first contends that Schmidt fails to describe that
“displaying visual content of a node using its own logical coordinate system
until a predetermined navigation condition and then displaying visual
content of the node using the logical coordinate system of another node,” as
recited by claim 1. App. Br. 6-10. The Appellant specifically argues that
Schmidt is silent with respect to each of the various nodes including
information indicative of its own logical coordinate system. App. Br. 7-10.
The Examiner has fully responded to these arguments in the
Examiner’s Answer. Ans. 13-19. We agree with the Examiner and
accordingly adopt the Examiner’s findings of fact. Specifically, we agree
with the Examiner that the Specification describes that “[e]ach node has a
logical coordinate system, such that the entire extent of the node is contained
within an exemplary rectangle defined in this logical coordinate system; e.g.
Appeal 2010-010617
Application 11/737,001

5
a node may define a logical coordinate system such that it is contained in the
rectangle (0, 0) (100, 100).” Ans. 14 (citing Specification ¶ 0027). As such,
we find that the Schmidt’s “bbox field [that] includes floating point
numbers, which define the upper bound and lower bound in each dimension
of the bounding box for an associated node” describes a logical coordinate
system. Ans. 15-16 (citing Schmidt 9:29-32). The Appellant also argues
that the Examiner cited to Schmidt’s bounding box dimensions to describe a
logical coordinate system and such a finding is in error because it
“presumably uses a single coordinate system to locate and size the bounding
boxes using the dimension information. As such, each bounding box is
located using the same coordinate system.” App. Br. 9-10. However, the
Appellant fails to provide any evidence or rationale to distinguish the
claimed logical coordinate system and the Examiner’s findings in Schmidt.
The Appellant presents similar arguments in support of claims 13-16
as those presented in support of claims 1-7 and 9 (App. Br. 10-11) and
therefore are not persuasive for the same reasons indicated supra. As such,
we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1-7, 9, and 13-16.

Claims 10 and 17-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schmidt and Dehmlow
The Appellant presents similar arguments in support of claims 10 and
17-19 as those presented in support of claims 1-7, 9, and 13-16. App. Br.
11-13. These arguments were not found to be persuasive supra and are not
persuasive here for the same reasons.
The Appellant additionally assert that the combination of Schmidt and
Dehmlow fails to teach or suggest “wherein the logical coordinate system of
Appeal 2010-010617
Application 11/737,001

6
the first node is more precise than the logical coordinate system of the
second node,” as per claim 10. App. Br. 12. We are not persuaded by this
argument. The Appellant does not provide any evidence or rationale to
distinguish claim 10 from the cited prior art. Accordingly, we do not
consider the Appellant’s statement as an argument. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (“A statement which merely points out what a claim
recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the
claim.”); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that
the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive
arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and
a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the
prior art.”).

Claims 11 and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable
over Schmidt, Dehmlow, and RTM
We are also unpersuaded by the Appellant’s arguments in support of
claims 11 and 12 (App. Br. 13-14) for the same reasons indicate supra in the
analysis of claims 1-7, 9, and 13-16.

CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-7 and 9-19.

DECISION
To summarize, our decision is as follows.
 The rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-19 is sustained.
Appeal 2010-010617
Application 11/737,001

7

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010).

AFFIRMED

msc