Ex Parte Budhiraja et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 26, 201612501302 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/501,302 07/10/2009 Rajesh Budhiraja 111003 7590 08/30/2016 Adobe I Finch & Maloney PLLC 50 Commercial Street Manchester, NH 03101 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. AD01.B966 4081 EXAMINER RICHER, AARON M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2614 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/30/2016 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): docketing@finchmaloney.com nmaloney@finchmaloney.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RAJESH BUDHIRAJA, P ARESH GOEL, DAVID GIDEON MACY, and KALLOL ACHARYA Appeal2015-002685 1 Application 12/501,302 Technology Center 2600 Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges. BAER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellants identify Adobe Systems Incorporated, as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal2015-002685 Application 12/501,302 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-26, all pending claims. Appeal Br. 4, 7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm and designate this as a new ground of rejection under 37 C.F.R § 41.50(b). BACKGROUND A. The Invention Appellants' invention is directed to a method, system, and computer- readable storage medium for "boundary-aligned anti-aliasing." Abstract. Independent claims 1 and 26 are representative and reproduced below, with emphasis added to the disputed elements: 1. A computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving artwork input comprising a first set of one or more graphical elements and a second set of one or more graphical elements, wherein the first set of one or more graphical elements comprises at least one horizontal or vertical line segment; automatically aligning each graphical element in the first set of one or more graphical elements to pixel boundaries based on a pixel resolution of a target imaging device, wherein the one or more graphical elements in the second set are not moved as a result of said automatic alignment; applying an anti-aliasing function to generate a selectively anti-aliased artwork based on the artwork input, wherein applying the anti-aliasing function comprises applying anti- aliasing effects to the second set of one or more graphical elements and not to the first set of one or more graphical elements; and 2 Appeal2015-002685 Application 12/501,302 displaying the selectively anti-aliased artwork on the target imaging device. 26. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing program instructions computer-executable to implement: receiving input comprising a first graphical element at a first position and a second graphical element at a second position, wherein the first graphical element comprises at least one horizontal or vertical line segment; automatically aligning the at least one horizontal or vertical line segment of the first graphical element to a pixel boundary, wherein the first graphical element is moved from the first position, and wherein the second graphical element is not moved as a result of said automatic alignment; selectively applying an anti-aliasing function to generate a selectively anti-aliased artwork based on the input, wherein the anti-aliasing function is selectively applied by ignoring or bypassing horizontal and vertical line segments of the first graphical element; and providing for display the selectively anti-aliased artwork on a target imaging device, wherein the second graphical element is not moved from the second position. Appeal Br. 12, 17-18 (Claims App.). B. The Rejections on Appeal The Examiner rejects claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Ans. 2. The Examiner rejects claims 1---6, 9-14, 17-22, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ramchandani et al. (US 2008/0062204 Al, published Mar. 13, 2008) ("Ramchandani '204"), in view of Ramchandani et al. (US 2008/0030525 Al, published Feb. 7, 2008) ("Ramchandani '525"). Ans. 3. 3 Appeal2015-002685 Application 12/501,302 The Examiner rejects claims 7, 15, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ramchandani '204, in view of Ramchandani '525, and further in view of Dowling et al. (US 200710188497 A 1, published Aug. 16, 2007). Ans. 7. The Examiner rejects claims 8, 16, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ramchandani '204, in view of Ramchandani '525, and further in view of Lynn et al. (US 2003/0229856 Al,published Dec. 11, 2003). Ans. 8. ANALYSIS A. Claim 26 Appellants argue that the specification provides written support for "the second graphic element is not moved from the second position," as recited in claim 26, because the specification discloses boundary alignment functionality that aligns boundaries of a line segment to pixel boundaries of a target imaging device, and further discloses that the boundary alignment functionality is applied selectively to individual graphical elements. Appeal Br. 6 (citing Spec. i-fi-f 14, 27). Appellants further argue that the specification does not disclose a requirement that the second graphical element must be moved, as "all disclosed movement of the second graphical element is characterized as optional in one way or another." Reply Br. 2. We do not find this argument persuasive. Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. The mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion. MPEP § 2174.05(i). Claim 26 requires that the second graphical element "is not moved as a result of said automatic alignment" and "is not moved from the 4 Appeal2015-002685 Application 12/501,302 second position." Although Appellants' specification describes non- movement of a graphical element (i.e., selective application of boundary alignment functionality) as part of automatic alignment, we agree with the Examiner that it is silent as to general non-movement of the graphical element beyond automatic alignment. See Ans. 11-12; Spec. i-f 27. We have considered Appellants' other arguments, and we do not find them persuasive. Thus, we agree that Appellants' specification fails to provide written description support for "the second graphic element is not moved from the second position," as recited in claim 26. B. Claims 1-25 Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because none of the cited references teach "wherein the one or more graphical elements in the second set are not moved as a result of said automatic alignment," as recited in independent claims 1, 9 and 17. Appeal Br. 7-11. More specifically, Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that Ramchandani '525 teaches the aforementioned claim limitation as Ramchandani '525 describes that "by snapping the horizontal and vertical edges of the visual element to the pixel grid, two abutting objects are landed on neighboring pixels." Appeal Br. 10 (citing Ramchandani '525 i-f 28). Appellants further argue that Ramchandani '525's use of the word "alternatively" does not imply the existence of an alternative implementation where "landing or moving does not take place," but instead refers to the previous sentence of paragraph 28 of Ramchandani '525 describing "snapping the edge of the visual element to the pixel grid." Reply Br. 3--4. 5 Appeal2015-002685 Application 12/501,302 Ramchandani '525 teaches receiving information from a client to identify visual elements "(e.g. which one or more areas are important for symmetric appearance)," and using the information to snap (i.e., move) those identified visual elements to a pixel grid to create an adjusted image. Ramchandani '525 i-fi-124, 26-27. Thus, Ramchandani '525 teaches a first set of graphical elements (i.e., the identified visual elements) and a second set of graphical elements (i.e., the remaining non-identified visual elements), and further teaches that the graphical elements in the second set (i.e., the non-identified visual elements) are not moved, as only the identified visual elements are moved. Because we find Ramchandani '525 teaches "wherein the one or more graphical elements in the second set are not moved as a result of said automatic alignment," as recited in independent claims 1, 9, and 17, we find Appellants' aforementioned argument unpersuasive. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 17. We further sustain the rejection of claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-25, not argued separately. NEW REJECTIONS UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) Notwithstanding our concurrence with the Examiner's ultimate obviousness finding regarding claims 1-25, we designate our affirmance a new ground of rejection because we have relied on new facts and reasons in support of the rejection of these claims. Compare supra with Ans. 13 (finding Ramchandani '525 i128 describes one alternative where abutting objects land on neighbor pixels and another alternative where landing or moving does not take place). Our new ground of rejection designation preserves Appellants' procedural safeguards. In re Stepan Co., 660 F.3d 6 Appeal2015-002685 Application 12/501,302 1341, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("Had the Board labeled its rejection as a new ground of rejection, Stepan could have reopened prosecution to address the newly-alleged deficiencies in its Declaration with the examiner."); In re Leithem, 661F.3d1316, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("Mere reliance on the same statutory basis and the same prior art references, alone, is insufficient to avoid making a new ground of rejection when the Board relies on new facts and rationales not previously raised to the applicant by the examiner."). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides that "[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review." 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellants, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims: ( 1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the Examiner, in which event the proceeding will be remanded to the Examiner .... (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record .... DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 7 Appeal2015-002685 Application 12/501,302 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 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation