Ex Parte Dehmann et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 27, 201613501060 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 13/501,060 06/25/2012 Rainer Dehmann 11150/178 5274 26646 7590 12/29/2016 ANDREWS KURTH KENYON LLP ONE BROADWAY NEW YORK, NY 10004 EXAMINER NGUYEN, ANH TUAN V ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2614 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/29/2016 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): u spto @ keny on .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RAINER DEHMANN, MATHIAS KUHN, and FRANK HAUSCHILD Appeal 2016-002488 Application 13/501,0601 Technology Center 2600 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JON M. JURGOVAN, andSHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges. FENICK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 16, 17, and 19-30, all the pending claims in the present application. (Appeal Br. 1.) Claims 1—15 and 18 are cancelled. {Id. at 2.) We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is VOLKSWAGEN AG. (Appeal Br. 2.) Appeal 2016-002488 Application 13/501,060 Invention Appellants’ invention relates to the display of information, in which at least one first graphical object is graphically displayed on a display area. When the first graphical object is to be changed to a second graphical object, the first object disappears and the second object is faded in. During the change, the first graphical object is swiveled out about a first axis disposed outside of the display area; and the second graphical object is swiveled in about a second axis disposed outside of the display area, until it is fully displayed. (Spec. Abstract.) Representative Claim Claim 16, reproduced below with certain disputed limitations emphasized, is representative: 16. A method for displaying information, comprising: graphically displaying at least one first graphical object on a display area; and generating, by a control device, based on a change to a second graphical object, graphic data that controls the display area to cause the first graphical object to disappear and the second graphical object to be faded in, such that, in a perspective representation on the display area, the first graphical object is swiveled out about a first axis disposed apart from and outside of the display area, and, in the perspective representation on the display area, the second graphical object is swiveled in about a second axis disposed apart from and outside of the display area, until the second graphical object is fully displayed. Rejections Appellants appeal the following rejections: Claims 16, 19, 21—23, 25, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 2 Appeal 2016-002488 Application 13/501,060 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gardner (US 6,628,283 Bl; iss. Sept. 30, 2003), Lee et al. (US 2009/0064039 Al; pub. Mar. 5, 2009), and Barth (US 2008/0074427 Al; pub. Mar. 27, 2008). (Final Action 2-8.) Claims 17, 20, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gardner, Lee, Barth, and Brodersen (US 7,747,968 B2; iss. June 29, 2010). (Final Action 8—10.) Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gardner, Lee, Barth, and Nelson et al. (US 2007/0013699 Al; pub. Jan. 18, 2007). (Final Action 10—11.) Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gardner, Lee, Barth, Brodersen, Hotta et al. (US 2010/0073773 Al; pub. Mar. 25, 2010), and Bhakta et al. (US 7,495,631 B2; iss. Feb. 24, 2009). (Final Action 11-12.) Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Gardner, Lee, Barth, and Brodersen. (Final Action 13.) Issues Appellants raise the following issues: (A) Did the Examiner err in finding that Gardner, in combination with Lee and Barth, teaches or suggests “causing] the first graphical object to disappear” as recited in claim 16? (B) Did the Examiner err in finding that Gardner, in combination with Lee and Barth, teaches or suggests “the first graphical object is swiveled out about a first axis disposed apart from and outside of the display area,” as recited in claim 16? 3 Appeal 2016-002488 Application 13/501,060 ANALYSIS (A) “caus[ing] the first graphical object to disappear” The Examiner finds that the combination of Gardner, Lee, and Barth discloses all the elements of claim 1, including the disappearance of the first graphical object (replaced by the second graphical object). (Final Action 2— 3. ) The Examiner cites Fig. 8.2 of Gardner, in which image C of a house replaces previously-displayed image B. (Gardner 8:60—9:20.) Appellants’ principal arguments regarding this limitation (Appeal Br. 4—6) concern Figure 4 of Gardner, in which a three-dimensional montage of photos of an object are displayed together, and the layering and positions of the images are changed based on user actions (Gardner 4:5—8; 6:9-7:36, Fig. 4). However, these arguments do not address the Examiner’s findings that Gardner’s Fig. 8.2 shows four images and the transitions between those images. (Final Action 2—3; Answer 14.) In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue, for the first time regarding Fig. 8.2 and the related Fig. 7 (Gardner 4:16-19), that, “there is no indication from Gardner that the illustrations of Figure 7 describe the whole viewport” and about the relevance of Figure 7 to “the disclosure of Gardner at column 4, line 48 to column 5, line 4, which describes a ‘sidewalk’ for navigating the images of Figure 2.” (Reply Br. 4.) We do not consider this argument, as it appears for the first time in the Reply Brief with no showing of good cause. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2013); See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (Informative) (“[T]he reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make arguments that could have been made in the principal brief on appeal to rebut the Examiner's rejections, but were not.”). 4 Appeal 2016-002488 Application 13/501,060 (B) “the first graphical object is swiveled out about a first axis disposed apart from and outside of the display area ” The Examiner finds Gardner and Lee do not teach that a graphical object is swiveled out about a first axis disposed apart from and outside of the display area, but finds that the combination of Gardner, Lee, and Barth does teach or suggest this limitation, (final Action 2—5.) Specifically, the Examiner finds that Barth’s teachings of a display of medical image data in which the display is rotated around a center which lies outside of the region being presented (Barth 117), combined with the axis which is “an inherent feature of the rotation in [Gardner] Eig. 8.2” teaches or suggests this element. (Final Action 2—5.) Appellants argue that “[njothing in Barth suggests or discloses that the display actually rotates any one of the images.” (Appeal Br. 6—7.) However, as Examiner points out, the rotation of images around an axis is taught by Gardner, with Barth providing a teaching or suggestion that a “rotation center” for image data may be outside of a display area. (Final Action 4—5.) Appellants further argue that: Gardner merely teaches altering a three dimensional montage such that a selected photo is centered and the other photos of the montage will be altered by perspective transformations to adjust to the perspective of the top photo (as if the object was situated with the top photo being viewed straight on). Nothing in Gardner teaches, describes, or even suggests rotation of an image around an axis. (Appeal Br. 7.) We agree, however, with the Examiner that Fig 8.2 of Gardner does show the rotation of an image around an axis. (Final Action 3; Answer 16.) 5 Appeal 2016-002488 Application 13/501,060 Appellants, in the Reply Brief, address for the first time the Examiner’s statement regarding the rationale to combine Gardner, Lee, and Barth. (Reply Br. 5.) However, this statement in the Answer (at 5, 17) was present in the Final Action (at 5) and as this argument appears for the first time in the Reply Brief without a showing of good cause, we do not consider it. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2013); Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d at 1474. Conclusion We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments in their Appeal Brief and Reply Brief of error in the Examiner’s findings or conclusions. Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claim 16, and of independent claim 28,and dependent claims 17, 19-27, 29, and 30, not argued separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 16, 17, and 19—30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv), no time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended. AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation