Ex Parte Beringer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 17, 2012

10285280 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 17, 2012)

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.
10/285,280 10/31/2002 Joerg Beringer 09282.0001-00 1575
22852 7590 10/18/2012
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER
LLP
901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413
EXAMINER
PATS, JUSTIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/18/2012 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 JOERG BERINGER, MICHAEL HATSCHER, and
DENNIS B. MOORE
____________________

Appeal 2011-004865
Application 10/285,280
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, MICHAEL W. KIM, and NINA L.
MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-004865
Application 10/285,280

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1,
3-15, 17-24, 26, 28, and 30-341. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The claims are directed to multi-dimensional voting . Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
associating a first range of values with a first proposition
and a second range of values with a second proposition,
wherein the first and second propositions are questions
presented to a voter;
presenting a voting space having a plurality of locations,
each location corresponding to a unique coordinate of first and
second proposition values;
enabling the voter to vote for the first and second
propositions simultaneously by selecting a location in the
voting space, wherein the vote is one of a plurality of votes by
different voters in individual voting spaces, the votes
expressing an aggregate voter opinion on the first and second
propositions;
recording the first and second proposition values
corresponding to the selected location to a computer memory;
repeating the selecting and recording;
displaying a distribution of the recorded proposition
values in the voting space, the displayed distribution
comprising a first voting density at a first location in the
displayed distribution and a second voting density at a second
location in the displayed distribution, wherein:

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed September 27, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed
December 15, 2010), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed October
26, 2010).
Appeal 2011-004865
Application 10/285,280

3
the first voting density is visually distinguishable
from the second voting density,
the first voting density reflects a number of times
voters selected the first location in the displayed
distribution to vote, and
the second voting density reflects a number of
times voters selected the second location in the displayed
distribution to vote; and
visually refreshing the displayed distribution of the first
voting density and the second voting density during voting of
the first and second propositions, wherein a processor is
configured to execute the visual refreshing on a display at least
continuously while votes are recorded.

Claims 1, 4-6, 8-15, 18-20, 22-24, 26, 28, and 30-34 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Joshua Paul Abrams,
Mathematical Modeling: Teaching the Open-ended Application of
Mathematics, 1-27 (2001) (www.meaningfulmath.org) (hereinafter
“Abrams”), Katherine Ulrich, Flash 5 for Windows and Macintosh: Visual
QuickStart Guide, 1-11 (Oct. 19, 2000)
(http://proquest.safaribooksonline.com/0201716143) (last visited May 25,
2008) (hereinafter “Ulrich”), Normal Schofield et al., Multiparty electoral
competition in the Netherlands and Germany: A model based on
multinomial probit*, 257-93 (1998) (hereinafter “Schofield”), and Moshal
(US 2002/0032637 A1, pub. Mar. 14, 2002).
Claims 3, 7, 17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Abrams, Ulrich, Schofield, Moshal, and Appellants’
Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).

Appeal 2011-004865
Application 10/285,280

4

FINDINGS OF FACT
Specification
FF1. The Specification does not include a lexicographic definition of
“individual voting spaces.”
FF2. Propositions are determined upon which voter preferences are
sought. The propositions may include, for example, a trait, a quality, a
feature, a question or any characteristic where a voter’s opinion may be
desired. The propositions include commercial usages, such as for marketing,
and non-commercial uses, such as for company methodology or voter
sentiment (5:17-21).

ANALYSIS
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that a
combination of Abrams, Ulrich, Schofield, and Moshal renders obvious
independent claim 12 (App. Br. 18-24; Reply Br. 1-2). Appellants assert that
“Abrams’s two dimensional grid itself represents a range of generic political
positions… and not ‘individual voting spaces,’ as recited in claim 1” (App.
Br. 19; emphasis original; Reply Br. 1-2). Initially, we note that the
Specification does not provide a definition of “individual voting space”
(FF1). However, the Specification does give examples of propositions (FF2)
which are broad enough to encompass generic political positions, which
Appellants above admit is disclosed in Abrams. Additionally, Appellants
further admit that the face in Figure 2 of Abrams represents an individual

2 We choose independent claim 1 as representative of all claims. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2011-004865
Application 10/285,280

5
voter’s positions, and that the star in Figure 2 of Abrams represents a
political party. We agree with the Examiner that it would at least have been
obvious to substitute an individual voter for the political party in Abrams
(Ans. 17). Accordingly, Abrams does disclose an “individual voting space.”
Appellants further assert that “Abrams’s two-dimensional grid is not a
space to vote for anything” and that neither Abrams nor Schofield renders
obvious “‘enabling a voter to vote’” (App. Br. 19-20; Reply Br. 2).
However, page 25 of Abrams discloses changing the location of parties in
the two-dimensional grid, which is a form of voting. Moreover, Ulrich
allows a voter to vote on a two-dimensional grid.
Appellants additionally assert that
Ulrich’s color picker does not constitute the claimed ‘first and
second propositions’ at least because it does not teach or
suggest ‘questions presented to a voter,’ as recited in claim 1
(emphasis added). There are no ‘questions’ in the color picker,
(Ulrich, Figure 3.86) and any interpretation of ‘questions’ to
mean selecting a color, would not be reasonable in view of the
specification
(App. Br. 21; Reply Br. 2). However, the Specification makes quite clear
that almost any proposition/question for which a voter’s opinion may be
desired is contemplated (FF2). Accordingly, the question of “what color” in
Ulrich is sufficient to meet the aforementioned aspect of independent claim
1.
Appellants also assert that “Ulrich’s color picker, if substituted into
Abrams’s axes, would function to move a political party in a grid, which is
completely unrelated to color selection, which is the function of Ulrich’s
color picker standing alone” (App. Br. 22; Reply Br. 2). However, we agree
with the Examiner that
Appeal 2011-004865
Application 10/285,280

6
Windows Color Picker, as evidenced by Ulrich, has been
properly relied upon because the Windows Color Picker prompt
windows are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with
which the applicant was concerned, namely ability to deploy
questions regarding multiple propositions for simultaneous
selection. As such, it is considered combinable with Abrams
(Ans. 19).
Appellants assert that “Schofield’s displayed voter positions do not
constitute the claimed ‘first voting density’ and ‘second voting density’
because Schofield’s displayed voter positions do not ‘reflect[] a number of
times voters selected the first [or second] location in the displayed
distribution to vote,’ as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added)” (App. Br. 23;
Reply Br. 2). However, the color gradation in Figures 1, 2, 4-5, and 8 of
Schofield shows that darker colors reflect a greater number of voter
selections of those particular positions on a two-dimensional
social/economic grid. Regarding the specifics of transferring voter
selections to the display of Schofield, we agree with and adopt the
Examiner’s findings and rationales, as set forth on pages 19-20 of the
Examiner’s Answer.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3-15, 17-24, 26, 28, and 30-34
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED
Appeal 2011-004865
Application 10/285,280

7
hh