Ex Parte Baar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2016

12368268 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/368,268 0210912009
23446 7590 06/29/2016
MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD
500 WEST MADISON STREET
SUITE 3400
CHICAGO, IL 60661
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David J.P. Baar
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
24034US05 1585
EXAMINER
HARRISON, CHANTE E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2619
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2016 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):
mhmpto@mcandrews-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID J.P. BAAR, TIMOTHY LOCHNER,
GARTH B.D. SHOEMAKER, ANDREW CARLISLE,
ANDREW SKIERS, and ZEENAT JETHA
Appeal2014-001278
Application 12/368,268
Technology Center 2600
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1, 4--6, 9--12, 15-17, 20-23, 25-28, and 30, all of
the pending claims in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-001278
Application 12/368,268
The disclosed invention relates to displaying detailed information for
selected graphic objects, such as a close-up view of a region of a digital map
image, by using detail-in-context lenses to selected points of the image. In
this approach, the image is distorted to give an appearance of a lens being
applied to the image such that a user can view a large area (e.g., outside the
lens) while focusing in on smaller areas (e.g., inside the focal regions of the
lens) surrounding the selected points. Spec. i-fi-14--5, 9--12, and 15.
Representative claim 1, reproduced from the Claims Appendix of the
Appeal Brief, reads as follows (disputed limitations in italics):
1. A method, comprising:
distorting an image for display on a display device to give an
appearance of a lens being applied to the image; and
adjusting a brightness level of the appearance of the lens for
display on the display device such that the brightness
level of the appearance of the lens differs from a
brightness level of a portion of the image outside the
appearance of the lens,
wherein:
the adjusting is pe~formed by decreasing the brightness
level of the portion of the image outside the appearance
of the lens,
the adjusting causes the display device to consume less
power to display the image, and
the appearance of the lens includes a base region that
surrounds a focal region, the base region having a
magn?fication that varies from a magn?fication of the
focal region to provide a transition/ram thefocal region
to the portion of the image outside the appearance of the
lens.
2
Appeal2014-001278
Application 12/368,268
REJECTION
Claims 1, 4---6, 9--12, 15-17, 20-23, 25-28, and 30 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Card et al. (US
2006/0033762 Al; published Feb. 16, 2006) ("Card") in view of Abramson
et al. (US 2011/0161861 Al; published June 30, 2011) ("Abramson") and
Kerofsky (US 2009/0167789 Al; published July 2, 2009).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief. We agree with and adopt as
our own the Examiner's findings and conclusions of law. We highlight and
address specific findings and arguments for emphasis below.
Appellants argue that the Examiner's "Final Office Action relies only
on Abramson" for disclosing the last limitation in claim 1 reciting "the
appearance of the lens includes a base region that surrounds a focal region,
the base region having a magnification that varies from a magnification of
the focal region to provide a transition from the focal region to the portion of
the image outside the appearance of the lens." See App. Br. 10; Reply Br.
9--10. However, a review of the Final Office Action demonstrates that the
Examiner relies on Card 1, and not Abramson, for teaching the
aforementioned limitation. See Final Act. 4 (citing Card i-fi-f 113, 115; Fig.
17: elements 1710, 1720, 1730); accord Ans. 7. We agree with, and adopt
as our own, the Examiner's finding that Card teaches or suggests the
1 The Examiner appears to have made a typographical error in stating that
"Card ... fails to disclose" the claimed limitations because, within the same
paragraph, the Examiner provides multiple citations to Card for teaching the
claimed limitations. See Final Act. 4.
3
Appeal2014-001278
Application 12/368,268
disputed claim limitation. See Final Act. 4 (citing Card ilil 113, 115; Fig. 17:
elements 1710, 1720, 1730); accord Ans. 7. We are not persuaded by
Appellants' arguments addressing only the teachings of Abramson when the
Examiner relies on Card to teach the aforementioned limitation of claim 1.
Appellants further argue that Abramson does not disclose "adjusting a
brightness level of the appearance of the lens ... the adjusting is performed
by decreasing the brightness level of the portion of the image outside the
appearance of the lens," as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 15. Specifically,
Appellants argue that the Examiner's explanation that Abramson "appears to
have decreased" the brightness is not the same as the claim language, which
recites "decreasing the brightness." See id. at 15-16; Reply Br. 10.
However, we note that Abramson teaches that the area to be magnified "may
be highlighted by color, by being darker or lighter than the surrounding
area .... " Final Act. 5 (citing Abramson i-f 32). One with ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that Abramson's
teaching to make the area to be magnified lighter than the surrounding area
could be accomplished by either decreasing the brightness of the area
surrounding the magnified area, or by increasing the brightness of the
magnified area. "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of
ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 421 (2007).
Appellants also challenge the Examiner's rationale for combining the
teachings of Card and Abramson. See App. Br. 18-19; Reply Br. 11-12.
Specifically, Appellants assert that the Examiner "provides no explanation
as to how one with ordinary skill in the art would have combined Card and
Abramson." App. Br. 19; Reply Br. 12. However, we are not persuaded by
4
Appeal2014-001278
Application 12/368,268
Appellants' arguments. First, the Examiner provides an articulated
reasoning with a rational underpinning for combining the teachings of Card
and Abramson. See Final Act. 5. The Examiner notes that both Card and
Abramson teach improving visibility of an image by increasing
magnification of a focus area in the image, which provides a rational
underpinning for the combination, and reasons that one with ordinary skill in
the art would have combined the teachings of Card and Abramson to provide
the benefit of further enhancing the focus of a select image area. See id. In
other words, the Examiner indicated that combining the teachings of
Abramson with those of Card would help draw a user's attention to the focus
area. Finally, Appellants' arguments amount to nothing more than mere
conclusory statements without attempting to explain why the Examiner's
rationale is insufficient. See App. Br. 18-19; Reply Br. 11-12. Therefore,
we are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments.
Finally, we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the
Examiner's showing of prima facie obviousness is deficient because the
Examiner failed to articulate reasons or findings that demonstrate that there
was a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Card,
Abramson and Kerofsky. See App. Br. 19-20; Reply Br. 12. The
"determination of obviousness 'does not require absolute predictability of
success .... [A ]ll that is required is a reasonable expectation of
success."' Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Phillip Morris Inc., 229
F.3d 1120, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (quoting In re 0 'Farrell, 853 F.2d 894,
903-904 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). Appellants do not present persuasive argument
or objective evidence to demonstrate that one with ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention would not have had a reasonable expectation of
5
Appeal2014-001278
Application 12/368,268
success in combining the teachings of Card, Abramson, and Kerofaky. See
App. Br. 19--20; Reply Br. 12. Therefore, we find Appellants' arguments
unpersuasive.
For all of the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the
rejection of claim 1, and claims 4--6, 9--12, 15-17, 20-23, 25-28, and 30 not
separately and substantively argued (see App. Br. 16-18).
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1, 4--6, 9--12, 15-17, 20-23, 25-
28, and 30.
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
6