Ex Parte Furches et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2016

12135948 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/135,948 06/09/2008
61947 7590 09/21/2016
Apple - Blank Rome
c/o Blank Rome LLP
717 Texas Avenue, Suite 1400
HOUSTON, TX 77002
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Elizabeth Caroline Furches
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.
P5469US1 (119-0364US1) 4684
EXAMINER
BADAWI, ANGIE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2172
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2016 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):
mbrininger@blankrome.com
houstonpatents@blankrome.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ELIZABETH CAROLINE FURCHES and
MIKE MATAS
Appeal2015-006070
Application 12/135,948
Technology Center 2100
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-20. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-10, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Orimoto (US 2005/0044500 Al; publ. Feb. 24,
2005) and Rublee (US 2006/0244756 Al; publ. Nov. 2, 2006). Ans. 3---6.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Orimoto, Rublee, and Tanaka (US 2005/0047659 Al; publ. Mar. 3, 2005).
Ans. 6-7.
Appeal2015-006070
Application 12/135,948
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Orimoto, Rublee, and Van Splunter (US 2002/0149600 Al; publ. Oct. 17,
2002). Ans. 7-8.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Orimoto, Rublee, and Gudjonsson (US 2007 /0219878 Al; publ. Sept. 20,
2007). Ans. 8-9.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Van Splunter and Tanaka. Ans. 9-12.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Orimoto, Rublee, and Cymbalski (US 5,867,595; iss. Feb. 2, 1999). Ans.
12-14.
We affirm-in-part.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to "presenting graphical information."
Spec. i-f 2. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
increasing an intensity of a visual effect to be applied to a
user interface element to be rendered over a background area
based on a characteristic feature of the background area, the
characteristic feature of the background area being based on
color values for a sample of pixels from the background area, and
wherein the characteristic feature is distinct from the visual
effect; and
rendering the user interface element based on the
increased intensity of the visual effect.
2
Appeal2015-006070
Application 12/135,948
ANALYSIS
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF
CLAIMS 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-10, 13, AND 14 OVER 0RIMOTO AND RUBLEE
The Examiner finds Orimoto and Rublee teach all limitations of claim
1. Ans. 3--4; see also Ans. 14-17. In particular, the Examiner finds Orimoto
teaches all limitations of claim 1 except for "the characteristic feature of the
background area being based on color values for a sample of pixels from the
background area," for which the Examiner relies on Rublee. Ans. 3 (citing
Rublee i-f 19). The Examiner reasons:
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made to utilize the teaching
of taking a sample of pixels of a background color and examining
it to determine a color value of Rublee with the teaching of agent
display device and agent of Orimoto because Rublee teaches
using an anti-aliasing algorithm[] when rendering a foreground
graphical object to smooth out displayed or printed text wherein
determining the algorithm to use is dependent on the background
color. (i-f 5 lines 1-7)
Ans. 4.
Appellants present the following principal arguments:
"Rublee is directed to a technique for smoothing out displayed or
printed text, not a technique for increasing an intensity of a visual effect."
App. Br. 8.
There is no indication in Orimoto or Rublee why the importance
of a background [in Orimoto] would be based on a sampling of
colors of background pixels. In fact it is completely unclear how
a sampling of colors of background pixels could determine
importance of a background. Thus, there is no motivation to
combine the references.
App. Br. 8-9; see also Reply Br. 5.
3
Appeal2015-006070
Application 12/135,948
We are not persuaded of any error in the Examiner's findings. Nor
are we persuaded of any error in the Examiner's legal conclusion of
obviousness.
Contrary to Appellants' arguments, the teachings of Orimoto and
Rublee are not limited to determining importance of a background in
Orimoto and smoothing out displayed text in Rublee.
Orimoto (Abstract) discloses: "The agent importance level setting
unit (120) sets an agent importance level of the agent information to be
displayed. The display status determination unit (150) determines the
transparency level of the agent information to be displayed, based on the
agent importance level." Orimoto renders over a background area based on
the importance level of the background. See Orimoto, i-f 11.
Rublee (Abstract) discloses: "At least a portion of the foreground
area can be rendered based on the predicted attribute value." Rublee (i-f 19)
discloses: "attribute prediction module 135 can be used for predicting the
background color when rendering a foreground area of an electronic
document." Rublee (i-f 5) discloses: "it can be important to know the
background color as it may determine the anti-aliasing algorithm to use."
Thus, Rublee renders over a background area based on background color.
Because Orimoto already considers a characteristic feature of the
background (the importance level of the information in the background)
when rendering over a background area, a skilled artisan would have readily
considered other information available in the background when rendering
over a background area. In light of Rublee's teaching of sampling
background pixels when rendering over a background area, considering
background color, as opposed to importance, when rendering over a
4
Appeal2015-006070
Application 12/135,948
background area in Orimoto would have been a predictable use of prior art
elements according to their established functions - an obvious
improvement. As the U.S. Supreme Court has explained:
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary
skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its
patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used
to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art
would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the
same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
application is beyond his or her skill. Sakraida [ v. Ag Pro, Inc.,
425 U.S. 273 (1976)] and Anderson's-Black Rock[, Inc. v.
Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969)] are illustrative-a
court must ask whether the improvement is more than the
predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions.
KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, as well as
claims 2, 5, 6, 8-10, 13, and 14, which are not separately argued with
particularity.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF
CLAIMS 3 AND 11 OVER 0RIMOTO, RUBLEE, AND TANAKA
Appellants do not argue claims 3 and 11 with particularity. See App.
Br. 9.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 3 and 11 for
the reasons discussed above when addressing claim 1.
5
Appeal2015-006070
Application 12/135,948
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF
CLAIMS 4 AND 12 OVER 0RIMOTO, RUBLEE, AND VAN SPLUNTER
Claims 4 and 12 each further recite: "wherein the characteristic
feature of the background area is brightness."
The Examiner finds Van Splunter's background area's opacity teaches
this further recited limitation. Ans. 7-8 (citing Van Splunter i-fi-1 3, 11, 14,
28); see also Ans. 17-24.
Appellants present the following principal argument:
"Appellant respectfully notes that 'brightness' and 'opaqueness['] are
not the same." App. Br. 10; see also Reply Br. 6.
Appellants have persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding Van
Splunter teaches the further recited limitation in claims 4 and 12.
We conclude that "brightness" is distinct from opacity. Spec. (i-f 21)
discloses: "an opacity or alpha value is used to describe the degree to which
a user interface element (or part thereof) is transparent or opaque." Figure 4
depicts brightness 410 along the x-axis and opacity 420 along the y-axis.
Van Splunter (i-f 28) discloses alpha-blending or opacity-blending.
Thus, the characteristic feature of the background area in Van Splunter is
opacity, or alpha, which is distinct from "brightness."
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 4 and
12.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF
CLAIMS 7 AND 15 OVER 0RIMOTO, RUBLEE, AND GUDJONSSON
Appellants do not argue claims 7 and 15 with particularity. See App.
Br. 11-12.
6
Appeal2015-006070
Application 12/135,948
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 7 and 15 for
the reasons discussed above when addressing claim 1.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF
CLAIMS 16-19 OVER VAN SPLUNTER AND TANAKA
The Examiner finds Van Splunter and Tanaka teach all limitations of
claim 16. Ans. 9-11; see also Ans. 24--26. In particular, the Examiner finds
Van Splunter teaches all limitations of claim 16 except for "deriving an
opacity curve using the respective opacity values and the respective
characteristic feature values, wherein the opacity values are distinct from the
characteristic feature values," for which the Examiner relines on Tanaka.
Ans. 10-11 (citing Tanaka Fig. 9A; i-fi-143, 48, 49). The Examiner reasons:
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art
at the time the invention was made to utilize the teaching of
methods to derive a brightness data value curve of Tanaka with
the teaching of methods to blend digital pictures of Van Splunter
because Tanaka teaches the invention allowing a thumbnail
display to be made and if the image is a character image then
enlarge the thumbnail to make characters more understandable.
(Abstract)[.]
Ans. 11.
Appellants present, among other arguments, the following principal
argument:
"Tanaka recites calculation of an opacity curve from analysis of two
areas of an image. See Tanaka, para. [0049]. Nothing in Tanaka teaches or
suggests derivation of an opacity curve from user-selected opacity
values." App. Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 7.
We are persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding Tanaka teaches
the recited (claim 16) "deriving an opacity curve using the respective opacity
7
Appeal2015-006070
Application 12/135,948
values and the respective characteristic feature values, wherein the opacity
values are distinct from the characteristic feature values."
We agree with Appellants' argument. Tanaka (see Tanaka Figs. 8A,
8B, 9A, 9B) teaches histograms of number of data versus brightness for
various portions of the image. We do not see how, and the Examiner has not
sufficiently explained how, Tanaka discloses deriving an opacity curve using
opacity values (user adjusted) and characteristic feature values (distinct from
opacity).
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 16, or
of claims 17-19, which depend from claim 16.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF
CLAIM 20 OVER 0RIMOTO, RUBLEE, AND CYMBALSKI
The Examiner finds Orimoto, Rublee, and Cymbalski teach all
limitations of claim 20. Ans. 12-14; see also Ans. 26-32. In particular, the
Examiner finds Cymbalski teaches "increasing an opacity value of the user
interface element based on the brightness value[.]" Ans. 13-14 (emphasis
added, citing Cymbalski col. 1, 11. 6-12; col. 7, 11. 30-65).
Appellants present, among other arguments, the following principal
argument:
"[R]ecognizing that data form elements are darker or lighter than a
background has nothing to do with increasing an opacity value of the user
interface element, as recited in claim 20. In fact, Cymbalski is completely
silent regarding increasing an opacity value of the user interface element."
App. Br. 14.
8
Appeal2015-006070
Application 12/135,948
Appellants persuade us that the Examiner erred in finding Cymbalski
teaches "increasing an opacity value of the user interface element based on
the brightness value."
Cymbalski (col. 1, 11. 6-12; col. 7, 11. 30-65) discloses recognizing
dataform elements as darker or lighter than a background area. At best,
Cymbalski' s lightness discloses brightness. That said, we, again, conclude
that "brightness" is distinct from opacity. Spec. (i-f 21) discloses: "an
opacity or alpha value is used to describe the degree to which a user
interface element (or part thereof) is transparent or opaque." Figure 4
depicts brightness 410 along the x-axis and opacity 420 along the y-axis.
Thus, Cymbalski' s darker or lighter elements do not teach increasing
an opacity value.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 20.
ORDER
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5-11, and 13-15 is
affirmed.
The Examiner's decision rejection claims 4, 12, and 16-20 is
reversed.
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 ).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9