Ex Parte Gantt

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 22, 2004

09464557 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 22, 2004)

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was not written for publication and is not binding precedent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. 15
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte BRIAN D. GANTT
__________
Appeal No. 2004-0508
Application 09/464,557
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before RUGGIERO, LEVY and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent
Judges.
RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on the appeal from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 4, 14, and 22. Claims 7-9, 17-19, and 25-27
have been allowed. Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 10-13, 15, 16, 20, 21, 23,
and 24 have been canceled. The amendment filed September 30,
2002 after final rejection has been approved for entry by the
Examiner.
Appeal No. 2004-0508
Application No. 09/464,557
2
The disclosed invention relates to a computer-implemented
graphics system which provides visual clues for navigating a
three-dimensional space. A cursor is moved through a two-
dimensional viewport of the three-dimensional space which is
displayed on a monitor. The graphics system determines the
position of the cursor and generates a visual representation of
the cursor using human recognizable metaphors to indicate the
cursor position within the three-dimensional space relative to
the two-dimensional viewport.
Claim 4 is illustrative of the invention and reads as
follows:
4. A computer-implemented method for providing visual clues
for navigating a three-dimensional space represented in a
computer-implemented graphics system, comprising:
(a) displaying a two-dimensional viewport of the three-
dimensional pace on a monitor attached to the computer;
(b) moving a cursor through the two-dimensional viewport of
the three-dimensional space according to a position of an input
device attached to the computer;
(c) determining a position of the cursor within the three-
dimensional space relative to the two-dimensional viewport; and
(d) generating a visual representation of the cursor to
indicate the position of the cursor within the three-dimensional
space relative to the two-dimensional viewport, wherein the
generating step comprises varying a reflectivity of the cursor to
indicate the position of the cursor within the three-dimensional
space relative to the two-dimensional viewport.
Appeal No. 2004-0508
Application No. 09/464,557
1 The Appeal Brief was filed December 30, 2002 (Paper No. 10). In
response to the Examiner’s Answer mailed March 26, 2003 (Paper No. 11), a
Reply Brief was filed May 23, 2003 (Paper No. 12), which was acknowledged and
entered by the Examiner in the communication dated July 29, 2003 (Paper No.
13).
3
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Lumelsky et al. (Lumelsky) 5,162,779 Nov. 10, 1992
Frasier et al. (Frasier) 5,268,677 Dec. 07, 1993
Takeda 6,166,718 Dec. 26, 2000
(filed Jun. 10, 1997)
Claims 4, 14, and 22, all of the appealed claims, stand
finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Takeda in view of Frasier and Lumelsky.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs1 and the Answer for the
respective details.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejection advanced by the Examiner and the evidence of
obviousness relied upon by the Examiner as support for the
rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellant’s arguments
set forth in the Briefs along with the Examiner’s rationale in
support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal set forth in
the Examiner’s Answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
Appeal No. 2004-0508
Application No. 09/464,557
4
particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art the obviousness of the invention as recited in claims
4, 14, and 22. Accordingly, we reverse.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is
incumbent upon the Examiner to establish a factual basis to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine, 837
F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so
doing, the Examiner is expected to make the factual
determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,
17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966), and to provide a reason why one
having ordinary skill in the pertinent art would have been led to
modify the prior art or to combine prior art references to arrive
at the claimed invention. Such reason must stem from some
teaching, suggestion or implication in the prior art as a whole
or knowledge generally available to one having ordinary skill in
the art. Uniroyal Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044,
1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825
(1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc.,
776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert.
denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986); ACS Hospital Systems, Inc. v.
Montefiore Hospital, 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed.
Cir. 1984). These showings by the Examiner are an essential part
of complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie case of
Appeal No. 2004-0508
Application No. 09/464,557
5
obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
With respect to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of appealed claims 4, 14, and 22, Appellant asserts that the
Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness since all of the claimed limitations are not taught
or suggested by any of the applied prior art references. In
particular, Appellant contends (Brief, pages 7 and 8; Reply
Brief, pages 2 and 3) that none of the applied prior art
references teaches or suggests indicating the position of a
cursor within a three-dimensional space relative to a two-
dimensional viewport by “varying a reflectivity of the cursor,” a
feature appearing in each of the appealed claims. Appellant
concludes that, with this asserted deficiency in the applied
references, the references even if combined would not result in
the invention as claimed.
After reviewing the arguments of record from Appellant and
the Examiner, we are in general agreement with Appellant’s
position as stated in the Briefs. We find nothing in any of the
applied prior art references which discloses the varying of the
reflectivity characteristic of a cursor to indicate the position
of a cursor in displayed space. While the Examiner has
apparently asserted correspondence between Lumelsky’s disclosure
Appeal No. 2004-0508
Application No. 09/464,557
6
(column 2, lines 34-37) of enhancing the depth perception of a
cursor by varying the cursor’s “color, size, transparency, and/or
pattern,” we find no indication from the Examiner as to how the
varying of any of these cursor characteristics would satisfy the
claimed limitation which specifies a reflectivity characteristic.
The Examiner must not only make requisite findings, based on the
evidence of record, but must also explain the reasoning by which
the findings are deemed to support the asserted conclusion. See
In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1343, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1433-34 (Fed.
Cir. 2002).
In summary, since all of the claim limitations are not
taught or suggested by the applied prior art, it is our opinion
that the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to the claims on appeal. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
Appeal No. 2004-0508
Application No. 09/464,557
7
appealed claims 4, 14, and 22. Therefore, the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 4, 14, and 22 is reversed.
REVERSED

JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
STUART S. LEVY ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JFR/dal
Appeal No. 2004-0508
Application No. 09/464,557
8
GATES & COOPER LLP
HOWARD HUGHES CENTER
6701 CENTER DRIVE WEST, SUITE 1050
LOS ANGELES CA 90045