Ex Parte Destefano

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 17, 2004

09020668 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 17, 2004)

1 Application for patent filed February 9, 1998, entitled
"Three-Dimensional Model to Facilitate User Comprehension and
Management of Information."
- 1 -
The opinion in support of the decision being
entered today was not written for publication
and is not binding precedent of the Board.
_______________
Paper No. 32
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES

Ex parte GEORGE FRANCIS DESTEFANO

Appeal No. 2002-1971
Application 09/020,6681

ON BRIEF

Before JERRY SMITH, BARRETT, and RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent
Judges.
BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the rejection of claims 15-18, 20, 65, and 83-95. Claims 1-14,
19, 21-64, and 66-82 have been canceled.
We reverse.
Appeal No. 2002-1971
Application 09/020,668
2 There is no antecedent basis for "the plurality of
information elements" in steps (c) and (d). Only first and
second information elements are recited in steps (a) and (b).
- 2 -
BACKGROUND
The invention relates to methods for accessing information
from a body of knowledge as concisely described by appellant in
the Summary of the Invention (brief, pp. 2-7).
Claim 15 is reproduced below.2
15. A method of accessing selected information from a
body of knowledge stored in a computer system, the body of
knowledge stratified into a plurality of levels of
abstraction, the method comprising:
(a) concurrently displaying first and second
information elements in first and second lenses on a
computer display, respectively, the first and second
information elements respectively associated with first
and second levels of abstraction in the body of
knowledge;
(b) visually linking the first and second
information elements displayed on the computer display
in a three dimensional workspace to represent a
hierarchical arrangement of the first and second levels
of abstraction, wherein visually linking the first and
second information elements includes orienting the
first and second lenses along an abstraction axis, the
abstraction axis oriented generally perpendicular to
the first and second lenses;
(c) applying a first filter criteria associated
with the first lens to the plurality of information
elements to generate a first set of filtered
information elements:
(d) applying a second filter criteria associated
with the second lens to the plurality of information
elements to generate a second set of filtered
information elements;
Appeal No. 2002-1971
Application 09/020,668
- 3 -
(e) displaying the first set of filtered
information elements in the first lens; and
(f) displaying the second set of filtered
information elements in the second lens.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Rowe et al. (Rowe) 5,819,301 October 6, 1998
Lucas et al. (Lucas) 6,012,072 January 4, 2000
(filed January 5, 1996)
Acrobat Reader 3.0 screen capture, Adobe, pp. 1-3, 1996.
WordPerfect 6.1 screen capture, Corel, Fig. 1 and p. 1,
April 15, 1996.
Claims 15-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Lucas.
Claims 65, 83-88, 90, 91, 93, and 95 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lucas.
Claims 18, 20, 89, and 94 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lucas, Rowe, and Acrobat
Reader.
Claim 92 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lucas and WordPerfect.
We refer to the non-final rejection (Paper No. 28) (pages
referred to as "R__") and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 30)
(pages referred to as "EA__") for a statement of the examiner's
rejection, and to the supplemental appeal brief (Paper No. 29)
(pages referred to as "Br__") for a statement of appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
Appeal No. 2002-1971
Application 09/020,668
- 4 -
OPINION
Grouping of claims
Appellant identifies the following grouping of claims, with
the individual claims within each claim grouping standing or
falling together (Br8).
Group A(1): claims 15 and 16
Group A(2): claim 17
Group B(1): claims 65, 83, 86, 93, and 95
Group B(2): claims 84, 87, 88, and 90
Group B(3): claims 85 and 91
Group C(1): claim 18
Group C(2): claim 20
Group C(3): claims 89 and 94
Group D: claim 92
Group A(1): claims 15 and 16
Claim 15 is directed to the method of accessing information
from a body of knowledge using first and second lenses displaying
first and second information elements, where different filter
criteria are associated with the first and second lenses (see
description at Br2-4). By associating different filter criteria
with different lenses, different views of the body of knowledge
can be concurrently presented to a reader.
The examiner finds that Lucas teaches a three-dimensional
workspace as recited in the preamble, concurrently displaying
first and second information elements in first and second lenses
as recited in paragraph (a), and visually linking the first and
second information elements by orienting the first and second
lenses along an abstraction axis as recited in paragraph (b),
Appeal No. 2002-1971
Application 09/020,668
- 5 -
referring to column 4, lines 6-53, and Figs. 1 and 3 (R3; EA4).
The examiner finds that the steps of applying first and second
filter criteria as recited in paragraphs (c) and (d), and the
steps of displaying of paragraphs (e) and (f), are met by the
"find tool" which displays previously read e-mail messages in the
background, which the examiner considers a first lens, and unread
e-mail messages in the foreground, which the examiner considers a
second lens (R3-4; EA4).
Initially, appellant argues that it is unclear from the
examiner's rejection what elements correspond to the "information
elements" and what correspond to the "lenses" (Br10). Appellant
argues that if the examiner's position is that the documents in
Lucas correspond to information elements, and that the find
function that separates a strand into sub-strands is the filter
function, Fig. 9 of Lucas does not disclose first and second
lenses, where first and second filter criteria are applied to the
information elements for displaying different filtered sets of
information in each of those lenses (Br10). It is argued that it
appears that all of the documents, including those in each
sub-strand defined by a find tool are displayed in the same
window or lens (Br10).
The examiner responds that "lenses" or windows in Lucas
contain "information elements" or data (EA11). The examiner
refers to documents 100a to 100e in Fig. 9 as "windows" (EA11).
Appeal No. 2002-1971
Application 09/020,668
- 6 -
We agree with appellant that the rejection (Paper No. 28)
does not clearly specify how the claimed "lenses" and
"information elements" correspond to elements in Lucas. It was
therefore reasonable for appellant to guess that the examiner
interpreted the "information elements" to correspond to the
document representations (e.g., 19a to 19e in Fig. 1 or 100a to
100e in Fig. 9) and the "lens" to correspond to the window in
which the documents are displayed (e.g., the window in Figs. 1 &
2). Documents 100a to 100e in Fig. 9 are screen objects which
are visual representations of documents and are not "windows," as
stated by the examiner, in the usual sense of scrollable viewing
areas on the screen. The specification states that "[l]enses are
much like windows in common GUI environments, insofar as they
provide a window into a portion of the information in a body of
knowledge" (specification, p. 29). Nevertheless, we will use the
examiner's interpretation of document objects 100a to 100e in
Fig. 9 as "lenses" showing "information elements." These
"lenses" are oriented perpendicular to a strand path, which the
examiner considers to be the "abstraction axis." Thus, according
to the examiner's interpretation, Fig. 9 shows five lenses (100a
to 100e), one for each information element.
Appellant argues that if the examiner takes the alternate
position that the documents in Lucas correspond to lenses, the
find function does not affect what is displayed within each
Appeal No. 2002-1971
Application 09/020,668
- 7 -
document, only what documents are displayed (Br11). It is argued
that Lucas does not disclose applying filter criteria to two
lenses that control what information is displayed within each
lens (Br11).
The examiner does not respond to this argument. The
rejection states that the "find tool" is a "filter" which
arranges e-mail messages which have been previously read in the
background (to the right of knot 104 in Fig. 9), which the
examiner considers to be the "first lens," and e-mail messages
which have not been read in the foreground (to the left of
knot 104 in Fig. 9), which the examiner considers to be the
"second lens" (EA4-5; EA11). There are several problems with
this interpretation. First, the examiner's interpretation of the
foreground and background, areas of the display to the left or
right of a knot and containing several documents, as lenses is
inconsistent with the previous interpretation of the document
objects themselves as lenses. Second, as noted by appellant, the
find tool does not affect what is displayed within document
objects (assuming the document objects are the lenses), as
required by generating and displaying first and second filtered
information elements in paragraphs (c)-(f). Third, the find tool
applies to all the documents; there is no first filter criteria
applied to information elements in a first lens and a second
filter criteria applied to information elements in a second lens.
Appeal No. 2002-1971
Application 09/020,668
- 8 -
For these reasons, we find that the examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of anticipation. The rejection of
claims 15 and 16 is reversed.
It also appears that Lucas is missing more limitations than
the application of different filter criteria to a plurality of
information elements, and the resulting display of different sets
of filtered information elements in different lenses. For
example, the examiner does not explain how the e-mails in Lucas
represent a "body of knowledge stratified into a plurality of
levels of abstraction" and have "first and second levels of
abstraction" and "a hierarchical arrangement of the first and
second levels of abstraction." The specification describes that
"[a] level of abstraction typically relates to a particular
manner of looking at a given collection of information, also
referred to as a body of knowledge" (specification, p. 2). The
e-mails may be completely independent of one another and not
represent a level of abstraction. The examiner refers to a "3D
display of document levels" (EA3), but does not explain how a
"level," which is just the location of a document in a pile, is a
"level of abstraction." While the examiner has found a three
dimensional workspace with objects arranged generally
perpendicular to the strand, these other limitations have not
been addressed. Nevertheless, we address only the arguments
actually presented by appellant.
Appeal No. 2002-1971
Application 09/020,668
- 9 -
Group A(2): claim 17
The anticipation rejection of claim 17 falls with the
rejection of claim 15. The rejection of claim 17 is reversed.
Group B(1): claims 65, 83, 86, 93, and 95
Claim 65 is directed to the method of authoring using an
authoring tool such as tool 600 in Fig. 40 (see description at
Br6-7). The authoring tool may include multiple lenses (e.g.,
lenses 620, 622, and 624) that function as "user input elements"
through which a user (author) inputs information associated with
different levels of abstraction; first and second lenses are
claimed. Specific levels of abstraction may be associated with
different lenses, so that upon input of a new information element
into a lens by a user, that information element is automatically
associated with the particular level of abstraction associated
with that lens.
Appellant argues that Lucas does not disclose the input of
information into a user input element displayed in a three
dimensional workspace (Br13). These limitations are found in
paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of claim 65.
Claim 65 recites, in part, "(a) concurrently presenting a
user with first and second user input elements, the first and
second user input elements respectively associated with first and
second levels of abstraction, and the first and second user input
elements positioned within a three dimensional workspace to
Appeal No. 2002-1971
Application 09/020,668
- 10 -
represent a hierarchical arrangement between the first and second
levels of abstraction."
The examiner finds that Lucas discloses a three-dimensional
workspace at column 4, lines 5-52 (R6; EA6). The examiner finds
that Lucas discloses maintaining the relative positioning of a
first information element, a document in the foreground of
Fig. 1, and a second information element, a document in the
background, in a three-dimensional workspace "based on the
hierarchical arrangement of document abstraction levels in
various 3D shapes" (R6; EA6).
This statement does not specifically identify what the
examiner considers to be the "the first and second user input
elements positioned within a three dimensional workspace."
Limitation (a) requires more than a three-dimensional workspace.
Claim 65 recites, in part, "(b) receiving a first
information element as user input to the first user input
element; (c) receiving a second information element as user input
to the second user input element."
The examiner acknowledges that Lucas does not disclose these
limitations, but concludes that they would have been obvious
because Lucas teaches that "[a]ny paper document can be entered
into the system by scanning" (col. 3, lines 53-54) (R6; EA7).
Appellant argues that this portion of Lucas does not suggest
receiving user input directed to first and second user input
Appeal No. 2002-1971
Application 09/020,668
- 11 -
elements presented to the user in a three-dimensional workspace
(Br13). It is argued that Lucas deals only with the display of
documents within a three-dimensional workspace only after the
documents are inputted into the computer through other means,
such as scanning, and there is no teaching of the ability to
manipulate the content of any document via the three dimensional
workspace, much less receiving user input via user input elements
displayed in such a workspace (Br14).
The examiner responds by essentially repeating the reasoning
of the rejection (EA12). This is not persuasive since it does
not answer appellant's arguments. There is no dispute that Lucas
shows a three dimensional workspace. However, the examiner does
not identify "the first and second user input elements positioned
within a three dimensional workspace." Documents, such as 19a to
19e in Fig. 1 or 100a to 100e in Fig. 9, are screen objects that
are visual representations of documents--they do not allow input
of information. While the parent screen object 17, the find
tool, in Fig. 1 allows input of information, it is questionable
whether it is in the three-dimensional workspace because it is
not on the three-dimensional strand. In any case, two user input
elements are recited and the examiner does not rely on the find
tool. Claim 65 recites that information is received as user
input to the user input elements, where the user elements are
positioned within a three dimensional workspace. The input of
Appeal No. 2002-1971
Application 09/020,668
- 12 -
documents by scanning does not meet these limitations because the
scanning is not user input to an input element in the three-
dimensional workspace. We conclude that the examiner has failed
to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. The rejection of
claims 65, 83, 86, 93, and 95 is reversed.
Group B(2): claims 84, 87, 88, and 90
Group B(3): claims 85 and 91
The rejection of claims 84, 85, 87, 88, 90, and 91 falls
with the rejection of parent independent claim 65. The rejection
of claims 84, 85, 87, 88, 90, and 91 is reversed.
Group C(1): claim 18
Claim 18 is directed to the method including coordinated
scrolling between two lenses to display the same location in a
body of knowledge, so that multiple representations of that
location can be concurrently displayed to a reader (see
description at Br5-6; Figs. 23 and 24).
The examiner finds that the preamble and paragraphs (a) and
(b) are the same as claim 15 and are rejected for the same reason
(R8; EA9). The examiner finds that Lucas fails to disclose the
limitations of claim 18 in the last paragraph beginning at
"wherein." The examiner finds that Rowe and Acrobat Reader teach
selection of an icon in one window to display a page in a second
window and concludes that it would have been obvious to combine
Appeal No. 2002-1971
Application 09/020,668
- 13 -
the teachings of Lucas with Rowe and Acrobat Reader because Rowe
teaches the random access of document pages (R9; EA10).
Appellant argues that neither Rowe nor Acrobat Reader
discloses the display of actual content within the "icons" or
"thumbnails" and, thus, neither reference suggests the
coordinated manipulation of one lens that displays information
elements in response to another lens that also displays
information elements (Br16). It is also argued that Lucas does
not suggest that the display of information in one lens can be
controlled by manipulation of another lens (Br16). It is argued
that the documents in Lucas have very little, if any,
relationship with one another and manipulation of one document
would likely have little meaning in the context of what other
documents are displayed (Br17). Appellant argues that even if
the references did individually suggest each recited feature of
claim 18, there is no suggestion of combining the references as
suggested by the examiner (Br16).
The examiner responds that "Rowe teaches display of a first
window or lens displaying icons with miniaturized display of
content corresponding to the content of a document located in a
second window .... Acrobat Reader teaches the selection of the
content of the miniaturized document icon or lens, and displaying
the same location in a magnified manner, in a second window ..."
(EA13). The examiner concludes that this would have suggested
Appeal No. 2002-1971
Application 09/020,668
- 14 -
combining the teachings "to display the system of Lucas in the
second window of Rowe or Acrobat to allow the display of a
selected area of the document icons of the first window, because
Rowe teaches above the random access of document pages using the
miniaturized document icons" (EA13).
Rowe and Acrobat Reader are relied on for the same feature:
a "thumbnails" window 48 contains icons 50 each of which
represents a separate page in the viewed portable electronic
document (Rowe, Fig. 2b; col. 12, lines 29-32). The user may
select an icon to display the corresponding page in the view
window 39 (Rowe, col. 12, lines 32-34). The currently-displayed
page may have a highlighted label (Rowe, col. 12, lines 34-36),
which is not visible in Fig. 2b of Rowe, but which is shown in
Acrobat Reader. As noted by appellant, the icons in Rowe and
Adobe Reader do not show any content. Although we know from our
own personal experience with Adobe Reader that the icons show
miniature versions of the page (which are not readable, for
example, a line of text on the page being represented by a line
in the icon), this is not actually shown or described in the
references. Thus, the examiner errs in stating that the icons
contain a miniaturized display of content. In any case, we do
not understand how the examiner proposes to modify Lucas in view
of Rowe and Acrobat Reader to arrive at the claimed invention.
The examiner considers the thumbnails windows 48 in Fig. 2b of
Appeal No. 2002-1971
Application 09/020,668
- 15 -
Rowe to be a first lens and the view window 39 to be a second
lens, and that selection of an icon in window 48 causes the
content of that page to appear in the window 39. From the
discussion of claim 15, the examiner finds the first and second
lenses in Lucas to correspond to two of the documents. There are
several problems. First, it is not apparent how or why the
references would be combined. Is the examiner's proposal to put
the display of documents from Fig. 9 of Lucas into the icon
window? If so, why? Second, if the combination has two windows
as shown in Rowe and Acrobat Reader, the windows corresponding to
lenses, why would the lenses be oriented in a three-dimensional
workspace along an abstraction axis? As with claim 15, we find
there are other limitations that are not addressed in the
rejection, but we have only considered the arguments actually
presented. We conclude that the examiner has failed to establish
a prima facie case of obviousness. The rejection of claim 18 is
reversed.
Group C(2): claim 20
Claim 20 is directed to a method of accessing information
from a body of knowledge including "concept highlighting," where
information elements that pertain to the same basic concept, but
defined at different levels of abstraction, may be linked
together and noted to a reader (see description at Br5; Fig. 29).
When one linked information element displayed in one lens is
Appeal No. 2002-1971
Application 09/020,668
- 16 -
selected by a user (e.g., by a mouse over event), the linked
information in the other lens is highlighted to represent the
association of the information elements with the same concept.
Claim 20 recites "concurrently displaying first and second
information elements in first and second lenses on a computer
display, respectively, the first and second information elements
respectively associated with first and second levels of
abstraction in the body of knowledge, and the first and second
information elements associated with a common concept in the body
of knowledge" (emphasis added) and "wherein visually linking the
first and second information elements includes highlighting the
first information element displayed in the first lens in response
to user selection of the second information element in the second
lens" (emphasis added).
The examiner states that "[c]laims 20, 89, and 94 are
directed towards a method for implementing the steps found in
claim 18, and therefore are similarly rejected" (R9; EA10).
Appellant argues that this was the examiner's sole basis for
rejecting these claims and indicates that the examiner has failed
to consider the patentability of each of the claims (Br17). It
is argued that Lucas does not teach highlighting the display of
information elements in one lens in response to user selection of
related information in another lens when such information
elements are associated with a common concept (Br18). It is
Appeal No. 2002-1971
Application 09/020,668
- 17 -
argued that there is no evidence asserted by the examiner as to
the motivation to combine the references (Br18).
The examiner responds with the same reasoning as applied to
claim 18 (EA13).
The rejection does not address the limitations of "the first
and second information elements associated with a common concept
in the body of knowledge" and "highlighting the first information
element displayed in the first lens in response to the user
selection of the second information element in the second lens."
The examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. We do not see how the limitations can be met by the
references. The rejection of claim 20 is reversed.
Group C(3): claims 89 and 94
Rowe and Acrobat Reader do not cure the deficiencies of
Lucas with respect to the rejection of claim 65. Accordingly,
the rejection of claims 89 and 94 is reversed.
Group D: claim 92
WordPerfect does not cure the deficiencies of Lucas with
respect to the rejection of claim 65. Accordingly, the rejection
of claim 92 is reversed.
Appeal No. 2002-1971
Application 09/020,668
- 18 -
CONCLUSION
The rejections of claims 15-18, 20, 65, and 83-95 are
reversed.
REVERSED
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2002-1971
Application 09/020,668
- 19 -
SCOTT A. STINEBRUNER
WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP
2700 CAREW TOWER
441 VINE STREET
CINCINNATI, OH 45202-2917