Ex Parte Bissantz

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 27, 2015

11703874 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2015)

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.
11/703,874 02/07/2007 Nicolas Bissantz 298-331 1424
28249 7590 08/27/2015
DILWORTH & BARRESE, LLP
Dilworth & Barrese, LLP
1000 WOODBURY ROAD
SUITE 405
WOODBURY, NY 11797
EXAMINER
GOOD JOHNSON, MOTILEWA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2616
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/27/2015 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 NICOLAS BISSANTZ

____________

Appeal 2013-005636
Application 11/703,874
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant is appealing the final rejection of claims 1–4, 6–11, 14, 15,
and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Claims 5, 12, 13, 16–18, and 20 have been
canceled. Br. 13–17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Appeal 2013-005636
Application 11/703,874

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s disclosure relates to a method “for providing sound
information to a user” that improves the user’s “perception of the
information related to a sparkline.” Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative (with emphasis added):

1. A method for providing sound information to a user,
comprising the steps of
displaying on a computer screen a sparkline composed of
at least a first and a second graphical element, said first
graphical element based on one at least a first value, said
second graphical element based on at least a second value,
generating, by the computer, a first sound information to
the user, wherein said first sound information is related to the
first value so that one of tone pitch, tone colour, tone duration,
tone kind or tone loudness, of the first sound information is in
relation to the magnitude of said first value;
marking the first graphical element while generating the
first sound information;
generating, by the computer, a second sound information
to the user, wherein said second sound information is related to
the second value so that one of tone pitch, tone colour, tone
duration, tone kind or tone loudness, of the second sound
information is in relation to the magnitude of said second value;
and
marking the second graphical element while generating
the second sound information,
wherein the first and the second graphical element are
continuously displayed together on the computer screen, but
marked one after the other while the first and the second sound
information is consecutively generated.

Claims 1–3, 6–11, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over BonaVista Systems, BonaVistamicrocharts
charts reduced to the max, Sparklines, Dashboards, Charting for Excel and
Appeal 2013-005636
Application 11/703,874

3
Microsoft Business Intelligence, last visited July 4, 2009, available at
http://www.bonavistasystems.com, 1–2 (2006) (hereinafter “BonaVista”),
Childs (US 2004/0055447 A1; pub. Mar. 25, 2004), and Bissantz, Another
masterpiece of Edward Tufte: Sparklines, 1–3, September 16, 2005 . Final
Act. 2–5.
Claims 4 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over BonaVista, Childs, Bissantz, and Chasanoff (US
2005/0055267 A1; pub. Mar. 10, 2005). Final Act. 5–6.

ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of references teaches the limitation of “marking the second
graphical element while generating the second sound information, wherein
the first and the second graphical element are continuously displayed
together on the computer screen, but marked one after the other while the
first and the second sound information is consecutively generated,” as
recited in claim 1 (with emphases added).

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Brief, the Examiner’s
rejection, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments. We adopt
the Examiner’s findings and conclusions (see Ans. 2–11) as our own, and we
add the following primarily for emphasis.
Appellant argues that the Examiner errs because the combination of
references “does not teach or suggest a system and method wherein a
sparkline is animated by marking graphical elements one after the other
Appeal 2013-005636
Application 11/703,874

4
while sound information is consecutively generated.” Br. 8. In particular,
Appellant contends “Childs makes no teaching or suggestion for displaying
any sparklines or graphical elements” (Br. 9), and the combination of
references “merely discloses a graphical display accompanied by some
disassociated sound” (Br. 10).
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Childs “discloses augmenting [a]
visual display with auditory capabilities.” Ans. 8 (citing Childs at
paragraph 69, which states, “The visual displays can be augmented with
auditory displays to leverage the underutilized human cognitive auditory
capabilities to process sound while performing other tasks.”). We further
agree that Childs’s visual display is encompassed by the claimed “graphical
elements.” See Ans. 10; contra Br. 11. The Examiner finds the combination
of cited references thus teaches “marking the second graphical element
while generating the second sound information, wherein the first and the
second graphical element are continuously displayed together on the
computer screen, but marked one after the other while the first and the
second sound information is consecutively generated,” as recited in claim 1.
Ans 9. Appellant has not persuasively shown the Examiner erred in finding
one skilled in the art would combine Childs’s visual displays, as augmented
with auditory displays, with the teachings of BonaVista and Bissantz.
We find the Examiner has provided an “articulated reasoning with
some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”
KSR Int'l. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Accordingly, we are
unpersuaded the Examiner has erred with regard to the rejection of
Appeal 2013-005636
Application 11/703,874

5
independent claim 1, or independent claim 9 which is not separately argued.1
See Br. 7.

CONCLUSION
Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claims 1 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Dependent claims 2–
4, 6–8, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 19 were not separately argued with particularity.
See Br. 12. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of claims 1–4, 6–11, 14,
15, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–4, 6–11, 14, 15, and
19.
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

kis

1 Should there be further prosecution of this application, the Examiner may
wish to consider reviewing claims 9–11 and 15 for compliance under 35
U.S.C. § 112(6). See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, No. 2013-1130,
2015 WL 3687459, slip op. at 12–16 (Fed. Cir. June 6, 2015) (stating there
is not a “strong” or “heightened” presumption that limitations that do not
include the word “means” do not invoke § 112, sixth paragraph). Although
the Board is authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), no
inference should be drawn when the Board elects not to do so. See Manual
of Patent Examining Procedure § 1213.02.