Ex Parte Bastide et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 29, 201612827094 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/827,094 06/30/2010 75949 7590 IBM CORPORATION C/O: Fabian Vancott 215 South State Street Suite 1200 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 07/01/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Paul Roger Bastide 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. RSW920100064US1 4527 EXAMINER SUN, LIP ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2143 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/01/2016 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): patents@fabianvancott.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PAUL ROGER BAS TIDE, MATTHEW E. BROOMHALL, and ROBERT EDWARD LOREDO Appeal2014--006602 1 Application 12/827,094 Technology Center 2100 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, TERRENCE W. MCMILLIN, and MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of claims 1-30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claim 1, reproduced below with key disputed limitations emphasized and reference lettering added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system for implementing visual cues in web conferencing compnsmg: a slide presentation comprising a plurality of pages; 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as International Business Machines Corporation. App. Br. 2 Appeal2014-006602 Application 12/827,094 [L 1] a visual cue comprising a graphical icon embedded, by a user during creation of the slide presentation, in a page of the slide presentation; a web conferencing server presenting the page of the slide presentation which comprises the visual cue, the visual cue being linked with at least one executable action; a visual robot operated by the web conferencing server, the visual robot configured to: [L2] automatically recognize the visual cue when the page of the slide presentation is displayed in a web conference and wherein the visual robot is configured to automatically recognize the visual cue without the icon of the visual cue being manually selected by a user during the web conference; associate the visual cue with the at least one executable action; and execute the at least one executable action. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Meyer Doney Moran Dantwala Carro Haveliwala Dorai Melikian Reid us 6,061,602 US 2002/0122077 Al US 6,509,912 Bl US 203/0043271 Al US 2005/0022108 Al US 2007/0300165 Al US 2008/0066136 Al US 2008/0107345 Al US 2011/0185297 Al REJECTIONS May 9, 2000 Sept. 5, 2002 Jan. 21, 2003 Mar. 6, 2003 Jan.27,2005 Dec. 27, 2007 Mar. 13, 2008 May 8, 2008 July 28, 2011 Claims 1---6, 9-13, 15-17, 20-22, 26, 28, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dantwala, Haveliwala, Reid, and Melikian. 2 Appeal2014-006602 Application 12/827,094 Claims 7 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dantwala, Haveliwala, Reid, Melikian, and Dorai. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dantwala, Haveliwala, Reid, Melikian, Dorai, and Carro. Claims 14, 19, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dantwala, Haveliwala, Reid, Melikian, and Moran. Claims 23, 27, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dantwala, Haveliwala, Reid, Melikian, and Meyer. Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dantwala, Haveliwala, Reid, Melikian, and Doney. ANALYSIS Claims 1-20, 23-25, 27, 29, and 30 With regard to independent claim 1, the Examiner finds Dantwala teaches a majority of the recited limitations, including presenting visual cues in a video presentation, associating the visual cue with an executable action, and executing the action. Final Act. 3--4 citing Dantwala Figs. 1, 2, 4 i-fi-124, 31, 39, 40. The Examiner finds Dantwala does not disclose the entirety of the "visual cue" ("L 1" in claim 1 above) and "automatic recognition" ("L2" in claim 1 above) limitations, nor the "web conferencing server" and "slide presentation" recited in claim 1. The Examiner cites Haveliwala, Reid, and Melikian to teach or suggest these limitations. The Examiner finds Haveliwala teaches a web conferencing server that performs video and web-based, multimedia conferencing. Final Act. 5 citing Haveliwala Figs. 2, 3, i128. The Examiner finds Reid teaches image manipulation and editing in a visual presentation, as well as embedding a 3 Appeal2014-006602 Application 12/827,094 visual cue comprising a graphical icon in a slide of the presentation. Final Act. 6 citing Reid Fig. 4 i-fi-f l, 4, 65. Finally, the Examiner finds Melikian teaches automatic pattern recognition with respect to a learned image in a target image, absent manual selection of the learned image by a user. Final Act. 7 citing Melikian Figs. 1, 33, i-fi-171-72. Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to combine the teachings of Dantwala, Haveliwala, Reid, and Melikian and sets forth a rationale in support of the combination. See Final Act. 5-8. We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's findings and conclusion to the extent consistent with our analysis below. First, Appellants argue that Melikian is directed to pattern recognition within an image, and therefore "does not teach recognition of a graphical icon embedded in a page of a slide presentation." App. Br. 13 (emphasis omitted). In particular, Appellants argue that the image in Melikian is not a slide and the target within the image is not a visual cue of a page in a presentation displayed in a web conference. Id. at 12-13. Second, Appellants argue that Reid fails to teach the "visual cue" limitation L 1 because Reid is directed to editing slides and therefore "does not teach or suggest embedding any type of visual cue into a slide." App. Br. 12. Appellants contend Reid "merely teaches [that] a user may use tools to 'add objects 142 to and/or edit objects 142 on the slide 140 (such as the depicted graphic object and character objects)[]."' Id. at 13 quoting Reid i1 65, emphasis omitted. Appellants' first argument regarding Melikian is not persuasive because Reid is cited for teaching the "slide presentation" and "visual cue" limitation L 1, as discussed above. The Examiner cites Melikian to teach the 4 Appeal2014-006602 Application 12/827,094 "automatic recognition" limitation L2. Final Act. 7-8 citing Melikian Figs. 1 and 33; i-fi-171, 72; see also Ans. 35-36. Appellants' second argument is also not persuasive. Reid teaches creating slides and expressly discloses that the edit mode is "displayed when one embodiment of a presentation application is in an edit mode, such as for slide creation or modification." Reid i165 (emphasis added). Coupled with Reid's teaching that users can add various objects to slides, including graphical objects 142, we concur with the Examiner's finding that Reid teaches that visual cues, such as graphical objects, can be embedded in slides by a user during slide creation or slide presentation. See id. For the forgoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the applied combination of references teaches or suggests the disputed limitations recited in claim 1, the commensurate limitations of claims 15 and 20, and the limitations of dependent claims 2---6, 9-13, 16, 17, and 29, which are not separately argued, except to rely upon arguments presented with respect to claim 1. 2 Claims 7, 8, 14, 18, 19, 23-25, 27, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over various combinations of Dantwala, Haveliwala, Reid, Melikian, Dorai, Carro, Moran, and Doney. We reach the same conclusion with respect to these claims as we reach with respect to independent claims 1, 15, and 20, from which these claims depend, for substantially similar reasons. Therefore, we sustain the rejections of claims 1-20, 23-25, 27, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 2 See, e.g., App. Br. 15-16, 19-20. 5 Appeal2014-006602 Application 12/827,094 Claims 21, 22, 26, and 28 With regard to dependent claim 21, Appellants argue that the combination fails to teach that "the visual cue is displayed to all participants in the web conference," "because Haveliwala does not teach visual cues or visual cues that are part of a visual presentation." App. Br. 17. This argument is unpersuasive because it fails to address the Examiner's specific findings. As discussed above, Reid and Dantwala teach the "visual cue" limitation L 1. Further, the Examiner cited Haveliwali with respect to claim 21, which teaches a web conferencing server which provides online presentations to each attendee of the conference, including full collaboration capabilities. See Final Act. 15 citing Haveliwala i-fi-13, 4, 28; see also Ans. 36-37. Thus, we concur with the Examiner's finding that the combination of Dantwala, Reid, Melikian, and Haveliwala teaches or suggests displaying the visual presentation with the visual cue taught by Reid and Dantwala to all participants in Haveliwala's web conference. See Ans. 37. With regard to dependent claim 22, Appellants argue that the visual cues in Dantwala are not static graphical icons because Dantwala teaches that the cues are directed to the resultant executable action and because the images (i.e., of Dantwala's "visual cues") change as the computing operation progresses. See App. Br. 17-18 citing Dantwala Fig. 4 i-fi-131, 38. Although Dantwala uses the phrase "visual cue" with respect to the actions to be taken, the Examiner actually cites the images embedded within the template, specifically graphical images 46a, 46b, and 46c of Figure 4, as teaching that the visual cue comprises a static graphical icon. Final Act. 16 citing Dantwala Fig. 4; see also Ans. 38-39. Further, the Examiner also 6 Appeal2014-006602 Application 12/827,094 cites to Reid to teach that the graphical objects embedded within the slide are static graphical images. Final Act. 16 citing Reid Fig. 4; see also Ans. 38-39. Appellants apparently misconstrue the teachings of Dantwala in paragraph 31. The Examiner finds Dantwala' s teaching that the "template 45 will change appropriately as the computing operation progresses" refers to how the template changes in accordance with user interaction with the graphical icons 46a, 46b, and 46c or in accordance with continuing the presentation. Ans. 39. Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner's specific findings. For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Dantwala, Haveliwala, Reid, and Melikian teaches or suggests the disputed limitations recited in dependent claims 21 and 22, and the limitations of claims 26 and 28, which are not separately argued, except to rely upon arguments presented with respect to claim 21 and 22. 3 Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 21, 22, 26, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 3 See, e.g., App. Br. 18-19. 7 Appeal2014-006602 Application 12/827,094 DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-30 are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation