Ex Parte Drallos

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 16, 2016

12040955 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/040,955 03/03/2008
27572 7590 02/18/2016
HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, PLC
P.O. BOX 828
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48303
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Paul Drallos
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.
15082-000001/US 1485
EXAMINER
KUMAR, ANIL N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/18/2016 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):
troydocketing@hdp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAUL DRALLOS
Appeal2014-003335
Application 12/040,955
Technology Center 2100
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOHN A. EV ANS, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON i\.PPEi\L
Appellant 1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant identifies Paul Drallos, the inventor, as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 4.
Appeal2014-003335
Application 12/040,955
fNVENTION
Appellant discloses a virtual library file system and method. See
Abstract. Claims 1 and 2, reproduced below with key limitations
emphasized, are representative:
1. A graphical display and application launcher system for
a computer having a display for displaying a plurality of
virtual book objects within a predetermined virtual 3D
format, the graphical display and application launcher
system comprising:
a non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores a
plurality of link objects, each link object of said plurality
of link objects corresponding to a computer object having
a file-type, said computer object being accessible to said
computer and said file-type being associated with an
application that is launched separately from said graphical
display and application launcher system;
a publisher module that accesses said computer-readable
medium, that generates said plurality of virtual book
objects for display on said display, each virtual book
object corresponding to a link object of said plurality of
link objects, and that receives user input for configuration
of virtual characteristics associated with said each virtual
book object, said virtual characteristics including at least
one of a size characteristic, a color characteristic, and a
texture characteristic for said each virtual book object; and
a library module, in communication with said publisher
module, that displays on the display said plurality of
virtual book objects according to said user-configured
virtual characteristics, within said predetermined virtual
30 format, said predetermined virtual 3D format including
a plurality of virtual shelves for displaying said virtual
book objects;
wherein the library module receives user input for
navigating said predetermined virtual 3D format from a
first-person-perspective, for selecting an initial location,
2
Appeal2014-003335
Application 12/040,955
based on said navigating, for placement of each virtual
book object of said plurality of virtual book objects on said
virtual shelves of said predetermined virtual 3D format,
and for moving at least one virtual book object of said
plurality of virtual book objects from said selected initial
location to a new selected location, based on said
navigating, for placement of said at least one virtual book
object on said virtual shelves of said predetermined virtual
3Dformat;
wherein said plurality of virtual book objects are
displayed on said display within said predetermined
virtual 3D format, at said user-selected locations on said
plurality of virtual shelves; and
wherein selecting, from within said predetermined virtual
3D format, a particular virtual book object from said
plurality of virtual book objects launches, separately from
said graphical display and application launcher system,
said application associated with said file-type of said
computer object associated with said link object
corresponding to said particular virtual book object.
2. The graphical display and application launcher system
of claim 1 wherein said size characteristic includes a
height, a width, and a thickness of each said virtual book
object and wherein said publisher module receives user
input for configuration of said height, said width, and said
thickness of said virtual book.
REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Card et al. (US 2005/0005246 Al;
published Jan. 6, 2005), McKee et al. (US 2004/0155901 Al; published
Aug. 12, 2004), and Cox et al. (US 5,907 ,845; issued May 25, 1999). Final
Act. 3.
3
Appeal2014-003335
Application 12/040,955
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1-20 in light of
Appellant's arguments that the Examiner erred. We have considered in this
decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any
other arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in
the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's findings of facts
and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this
appeal was taken. Final Act. 2-13; Ans. 3-20. We have considered
Appellant's arguments, but do not find them persuasive of error. We
provide the following explanation for emphasis.
The Examiner rejects claims 1-20 as obvious over Card, McKee, and
Cox. Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds that Card teaches overall navigation
and manipulation of virtual 3D objects. Final Act. 3-5 (citing Card, Fig. 1,
i-fi-fl0-12, 121); Ans. 13-14 (citing Card i-f 121). The Examiner finds that
McKee teaches an application launching system and a method implemented
in a computer system that realizes user preferences for launching
applications for corresponding kinds of files. Id. at 5-6 (citing McKee, Figs.
3A, 4A--4H, i-fi-f 10, 41, and 62). The Examiner finds that Cox discloses an
example configuration of books, bookshelves and bookcases and teaches
explicit user manipulation of virtual book objects. Final Act. 7 (citing Cox,
Fig. 4, col. 3, 11. 17-33, 54---64); Ans. 14. The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to modify the
teachings of Card with the teachings of McKee to provide the user with an
application launcher system (Final Act. 6), and with the teachings of Cox to
provide the user with a configurable virtual library module (id. at 8).
4
Appeal2014-003335
Application 12/040,955
Claims 1 and 9
Appellant first contends that the Examiner errs because none of the
cited references teaches or suggests the limitation "wherein the library
module receives user input for navigating said predetermined virtual 3D
format from a first-person-perspective," recited in claim 1. App Br. 16-17.
Appellant argues that Cox discloses a tree-type hierarchical data structure
that uses a naming convention based on a library metaphor, and does not
disclose 3D graphical representations of bookcases and bookshelves, as
claim 1 requires. Id. at 18. Appellant further argues that the claimed
invention can be distinguished from Card's teaching that the user may
activate a tilting function to rotate a page in three-dimensional space because
"in first-person-perspective navigation of a 3D environment, the observer
controls the x, y, and z movement of the viewpoint of the virtual camera,"
while "the Card description requires that the viewpoint of the camera remain
stationary, while the 3D object is allowed to tilt." Reply 4 (citing Card, i-f
121).
We do not find Appellant's arguments persuasive of error. The plain
language of claim 1 does not require that "the observer controls the x, y, and
z movement of the viewpoint of the virtual camera," and we decline to
import that limitation into the claim. Moreover, the Examiner relies on
Card's disclosure of the navigation of and manipulation of virtual 3D
objects, as modified by the teachings of McKee and Cox. Ans. 13-14. The
test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior art would
have suggested to an artisan of ordinary skill. See In re Keller, 642 F .2d
413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Nonobviousness cannot be shown by attacking
references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of
5
Appeal2014-003335
Application 12/040,955
references. Id.; see also In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986). We agree with the Examiner that modifying Card's disclosure
of navigation and manipulation of virtual 3D objects with Cox's teachings of
books, bookshelves, and bookcases teaches or suggests "wherein the library
module receives user input for navigating said predetermined virtual 3D
format from a first-person-perspective," as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 4
(citing Card, Fig. 1, i-fi-f 11-12), 7 (citing Cox, col. 3, 11. 17-33).
Appellant next contends that the Examiner errs because none of the
references teaches or suggests the limitation "selecting an initial location,
based on said navigating, for placement of each virtual book object of said
plurality of virtual book objects on said virtual shelves of said predetermined
virtual 3D format," recited in claim 1. App Br. 17. Appellant relies on the
same argument made for claim 1 that the "tilting" disclosed in Card is
distinguishable from the "navigating" limitation recited in claim 1. Reply 4--
5. Appellant further argues that, in Card, "the system itself determines the
placement and location of document objects" and "does not allow for a user
to select an initial location for placement of a virtual book object on a virtual
shelf of the virtual 3D format, as recited by claim 1." App. Br. 20.
Appellant argues that in claim 1, "the user selects all of the locations for the
virtual book objects and the system itself does not select locations for any of
the virtual book objects on its own, without input from the user .... " Id. at
22.
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error. In
addition to the reasons set forth above with regard to the "navigating"
limitation, we agree with the Examiner that Cox teaches that "a hierarchy of
arrangements-by navigating---can be provided depending on individual
6
Appeal2014-003335
Application 12/040,955
need." Final Act. 7; Ans. 15-16. Appellant has not persuaded us that the
cited disclosure in Card in combination with the teachings of McKee and
Cox, does not teach or suggest the disputed claim limitation.
Appellant next contends that that the Examiner errs because none of
the references teaches or suggests "moving at least one virtual book object
of said plurality of virtual book objects from said selected initial location to
a new selected location, based on said navigating, for placement of said at
least one virtual book object on said virtual shelves of said predetermined
virtual 3D format," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 17. Appellant relies on
the same arguments made for the "selecting" limitation, discussed above.
App. Br. 18-21, 23.
For the same reasons we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's
findings with regard to the "selecting" limitation, we are not persuaded that
the Examiner errs in finding that the combination of Card, McKee, and Cox
discloses "moving at least one virtual book object of said plurality of virtual
book objects from said selected initial location to a new selected location,
based on said navigating, for placement of said at least one virtual book
object on said virtual shelves of said predetermined virtual 3D format," as
recited in claim 1. We agree with the Examiner that Cox teaches that, as in a
real library, the user can reorganize and re-categorize the books as needed
(Ans. 16 (citing Cox, col. 3, 11. 17-33)) and that an operator may select a
"modify" control 172, shown in Figure 8, to move books ((Reply 16 (citing
Cox, col. 3, 11. 54---64); see also Cox, col. 3, 1. 65---col. 4, 1). Appellant has
not persuaded us that the cited disclosure in Card, in combination with the
teachings of McKee and Cox, does not teach or suggest the disputed claim
limitation.
7
Appeal2014-003335
Application 12/040,955
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1,
as well as the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 9, which Appellant
argues is patentable for similar reasons. App. Br. 29.
Claims 2 and 10
Appellant contends that the Examiner errs in finding that Card teaches
or suggests "wherein said size characteristic includes a height, a width, and a
thickness of each said virtual book object and wherein said publisher module
receives user input for configuration of said height, said width, and said
thickness of said virtual book," as recited in claim 2. App. Br. 23-24.
Specifically, Appellant argues that the size characteristic described in
paragraphs 153-154 of Card, cited by the Examiner, relates to increasing the
graphical size of a book that is large due to the number of pages it contains.
App. Br. 24 (citing Card, i-fi-f 153-54). Appellant argues that, in Card, the
system chooses the size of the book, while the system of claim 1 receives
user input to configure a height, a width, and a thickness of the virtual book.
Id. Appellants further argue that the zoom function disclosed in paragraph
118 "is simply a feature for enlarging text and reading" and "is unrelated to
how the books actually appear and are displayed on the shelf .... " Reply.
7.
Appellant's arguments fail as attacking references individually. See
Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097; Keller, 642 F.2d at 426. Moreover, we agree with
the Examiner that Card teaches or suggests "said size characteristic includes
a height, a width, and a thickness of each said virtual book object," and
"wherein said publisher module receives user input for configuration of said
height, said width, and said thickness of said virtual book." Final Act 4
(citing Card, i-fi-f 16, 70-72 and Figure 27); Ans. 17 (citing Card, i-fi-f 118-
8
Appeal2014-003335
Application 12/040,955
122). Appellant has not persuaded us that the cited disclosure in Card, in
combination with the teachings of McKee and Cox, does not teach or
suggest the disputed claim limitation.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 2.
We also sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 10, which depends
from claim 9 and for which Appellant refers to and relies on the arguments
made for claim 2. App. Br. 29.
Claims 3---8, 11-20
Appellant argues that the Examiner errs in finding each of dependent
claims 3-8 and 19 unpatentable. App. Br. 24--32. Appellant's arguments
fail, however, as attacking references individually. See Merck, 800 F.2d at
1097; Keller, 642 F.2d at 426. Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claims 3-8 and 19. We also sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claims 11-16 and 20, for which Appellant refers to and relies on
the arguments made for claims 3-8 and 19, respectively. We also sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 17 and 18, not argued separately.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
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
9