Ex Parte Good et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 21, 2012

10369624 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 21, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte LANCE E. GOOD, MARK J. STEFIK, and ALEXANDER B.
BRAWER
____________________

Appeal 2010-002185
Application 10/369,624
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-8,
10-12, 14, 16-19, 21, 23, 26-29, and 32-34. Claims 2, 4, 9, 13, 15, 20, 22,
24, 25, 30, 31, and 35-39 have been canceled. (App. Br. 38-42.) We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Appeal 2010-002185
Application 10/369,624

2
Representative Claim
1. A method for interactive classification of objects,
comprising:
receiving an instruction to place a new object in a
workspace containing organized existing objects;
determining a degree of similarity of the new object to
existing clusters of one or more existing objects or categorized
groups of existing objects in the workspace using a similarity
metric;
providing a visual indication of a basis of similarity of
the new object to the clusters or groups by visually indicating in
similar clusters or groups one or more specific similarity terms
or similarity elements that are the basis of similarity, and
wherein the degree of similarity is used to influence
space allocation and altering of the display of the workspace by
one or more of panning, scrolling or resizing of objects to
automatically bring into view clusters or groups of the most
similar objects without modifying the organization of the
existing objects in the workspace.

Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14, 16, 18, 19,
21, 23, 26-29, and 32-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over U.S. Patent No. 7,278,115 B1, issued Oct. 2, 2007 (filed Jun. 18, 1999)
(“Conway”) and Woodruff et. al., Using Thumbnails to Search the Web, CHI
2001 Conference, Assoc. for Computing Machinery, 198-205 (2001)
(“Woodruff”).
Appeal 2010-002185
Application 10/369,624

3
2. The Examiner rejects claims 6 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Conway, Woodruff, and U.S. Patent No.
5,867,799, issued Feb. 2, 1999 (“Lang”).

ISSUE
Does the Examiner err in concluding that Conway and Woodruff
collectively would have taught or suggested “automatically bring into view
clusters or groups of the most similar objects without modifying the
organization of the existing objects in the workspace” as recited in
Appellants’ claim 1 and commensurate limitations of Appellants’ claim 12?

ANALYSIS
We agree with Appellants that Conway and Woodruff would not have
taught or suggested determining a degree of similarity of a new object to
groups of existing objects and automatically displaying (bringing into view)
the groups containing the new object and the most similar existing objects
without modifying the organization of the existing objects in the workspace
as required by claim 1. (App. Br. 29-32; Reply Br. 4-8.) In particular, we
agree with Appellants that according to the “Examiner’s own admission
(Fact 38), the alleged ‘resizing effect’ in Conway results in a change in
depth of existing objects in the workspace” (App. Br. 29) because the
Examiner states that “the function only affects the depth of objects, the
horizontal and vertical organization of the objects would remain the same
while the depth would change” (App. Br. 30 (emphasis omitted) (quoting
Advisory Action mailed February 12, 2009, p. 2, ll. 6-7); see Ans. 12-13).
Appeal 2010-002185
Application 10/369,624

4
Appellants’ claim recites “altering of the display of the workspace by
one or more of panning, scrolling or resizing of objects to automatically
bring into view clusters or groups of the most similar objects without
modifying the organization of the existing objects in the workspace” (claim
1). Based on the Examiner’s rejection and responses, we are unsure whether
Conway teaches resizing objects to bring into view objects that more closely
match a particular similarity function as urged by the Examiner (Ans. 12-
13.) Even assuming, arguendo, Conway teaches altering the “depth” of
objects in a three-dimensional workspace to display similar groups of
objects (id.), altering the position of objects in a z (depth) direction in a
three-dimensional workspace modifies the organization of the existing
objects in the workspace.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to conclude
that Conway (in combination with Woodruff) would not have taught or
suggested the disputed limitations of Appellants’ claim 1, and the rejection
of claim 1 fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Appellants’
independent claim 12 includes limitations of commensurate scope.
Appellants’ dependent claims 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 29, and 32-34 (dependent on
claim 1) and 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23, and 26-28 (dependent on claim 12) stand
with their respective base claims.
The Lang reference does not cure the deficiencies of Conway (and
Woodruff). Therefore, claim 6 (dependent on claim 1) and claim 17
(dependent on claim 12) also stand with their respective base claims.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1,
3, 5-8, 10-12, 14, 16-19, 21, 23, 26-29, and 32-34.

Appeal 2010-002185
Application 10/369,624

5
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1,
3, 5-8, 10-12, 14, 16-19, 21, 23, 26-29, and 32-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-12, 14,
16-19, 21, 23, 26-29, and 32-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

REVERSED

peb