Ex Parte Cameron

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 14, 2019

13918790 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 14, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/918,790 06/14/2013
50400 7590 05/16/2019
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
Scott Cameron
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.
2058.895US 1 1017
EXAMINER
CHU, JENQ-KANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/16/2019 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):
uspto@slwip.com
SLW@blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SCOTT CAMERON 1
Appeal2018-006727
Application 13/918,790
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and MICHAEL T. CYGAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
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 through 20, which constitute all the
claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Business Objects
Software Ltd. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2018-006727
Application 13/918,790
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method for use in a browser document
object model, which allows objects to be moved to front in the z-order and
their positions relative to each other is maintained. Spec. paras. 2, 16.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below.
A method for altering ordering of graphical elements to
be presented on a display, the method comprising:
representing a plurality of graphical elements as a
document object model (DOM) having a plurality of nodes,
each node representing a different graphical element, the DOM
having an ordering of the nodes, each node having a z-value
field assigned a value of either front or back indicating that a
corresponding graphical element is to be displayed in a front
layer for a z-value or a back layer for a z-value of back;
altering the value in the z-value field of a plurality of
nodes having a z-value of back to have a z-value of front; and
reordering the DOM so that the plurality of nodes having
altered values in their respective z-value fields are at the front
of the DOM, in front of any nodes having an unaltered value of
front in their corresponding z-value fields, while maintaining
relative ordering among the plurality of nodes having altered
values in their respective z-value fields.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE2
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 9, 10, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Jooste (US 2013/0050253 Al, published
2 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed
January 29, 2018, the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed June 11, 2018, the
Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed September 13, 2017, and the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed April 27, 2018.
2
Appeal2018-006727
Application 13/918,790
February 28, 2013), and Malamud (US 5,694,561 Al, issued December 2,
1997). Final Act. 7-11.
The Examiner has rejected claims 2, 11, and 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Jooste, Malamud, and Shao (US
2009/0132907 Al, published May 21, 2009). Final Act. 11-12.
The Examiner has rejected claims 3, 4, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Jooste, Malamud and Shore (US
2013/0145306 Al, published June 6, 2013). Final Act. 13-16.
The Examiner has rejected claims 5 through 8, and 17 through 20
under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Jooste, Malamud and
Berkowitz (US 5,649,183, issued July 15, 1997). Final Act. 16-23.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant's arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejection, and the Examiner's response to Appellant's
arguments. Appellant's arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner's obviousness rejections.
Appellant argues, on pages 6 through 15 of the Appeal Brief and
pages 2 through 8 of the Reply Brief, that the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 1, 9, and 13 is in error. The dispositive issue presented
by these arguments is did the Examiner error in finding the combination
Jooste, and Malamud teach "reordering the DOM so that the plurality of
nodes having altered values in their respective z-value fields are at the front
of the DOM, in front of any nodes having an unaltered value of front in their
3
Appeal2018-006727
Application 13/918,790
corresponding z-value fields" as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in
independent claims 9 and 13.
The Examiner's rejection cites to Jooste to teach this limitation. Final
Act 8-9 (citing paragraphs 23-27, 35, 26, Fig. 2, 3A-3F, Answer 7 and 8
(citing Figures 4A and 4C). In response to Appellant's arguments that the
limitation is not taught by Jooste, the Examiner states;
This use of the term "unaltered value" is referring to the
original value of the node. It does not prohibit the value from
being altered, but merely referring to its value in a pre-altered
state. Thus, the claim limitation is broad enough to cover an
instance where the node with a z-value previously containing
"front" is changed to a value of "back" when a different node is
selected as the new front node.
Answer 8.
We disagree with the Examiner's claim interpretation and finding that
J ooste teaches the disputed claim limitation. The claim discusses nodes
having altered z-field values of front and unaltered z-filed values of front,
thus, construing the "unaltered value" as referring to its prior value is not
correct. Thus, the claim limitation directed to an "unaltered value of front
means" the value for that node before and after, the other node was altered,
remains the same "unaltered" and is the value of "front." As the Examiner's
findings rely upon improper claim interpretation we conclude the
Examiner's rejection based upon the combination of Jooste and Malamud is
in error. Further, we have reviewed the cited teachings of Jooste, and while
Jooste, in paragraph 36, teaches the double buffer technique may result is
swapping layers, changing the z order of images in the DOM, this is
changing the value for both images thus there is no teaching with respect to
an unaltered value as claimed. The Examiner has not cited Malamud as
4
Appeal2018-006727
Application 13/918,790
teaching this disputed limitation. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 9 and 13.
The Examiner's rejections of dependent claims 2 through 8, 10
through 12, and 14 through 20 similarly rely on Jooste to teach the disputed
limitation of the independent claims. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejections of these claims for the same reasons as claims 1, 9 and
13.
DECISION
We reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 20
under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
REVERSED
5