Ex Parte Hadley et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 26, 2016

13428607 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/428,607 03/23/2012
128836 7590 08/30/2016
Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice LLP
Attn: IP Docketing
P.O. Box 7037
Atlanta, GA 30357-0037
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Brent L. Hadley
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.
5013899.004US 1 3037
EXAMINER
GARMON, BRIAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/30/2016 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):
ipdocketing@wcsr.com
patentadmin@Boeing.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRENT L. HADLEY, STEPHEN P. MILLER,
JOSEPH F. FLOYD, PATRICK J. EAMES, and MICHAEL K. RODGERS
Appeal2015-003230
Application 13/428,607
Technology Center 2100
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, SCOTT B. HOW ARD, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOW ARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-24, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify The Boeing Company as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal2015-003230
Application 13/428,607
THE INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a panoptic
visualization of a plurality of pages of an illustrated parts catalog in a
manner that reflects the relationship between the content and the part
information. Abstract, Spec. 1: 17-20.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An apparatus for implementation of a system for panoptic
visualization of an illustrated parts catalog (IPC), the apparatus
comprising a processor and a memory storing executable
instructions that in response to execution by the processor cause
the apparatus to implement at least:
a layout engine configured to generate a layout of a
plurality of pages of an IPC for a complex system, each page of
the plurality of pages being an electronic page that depicts one or
more elements of the complex system,
wherein each page of the plurality of pages also has
associated metadata that provides information about the
page, and that includes information identifying a lirik
between the page and one or more other pages of the
plurality of pages, the link establishing a logical
relationship between the page and one or more other pages
according to a structural relationship between one or more
elements of the complex system depicted thereby, and
wherein the layout engine being configured to
generate the layout includes being configured to
panoptically arrange the plurality of pages according to the
associated metadata for the plurality of pages; and
a navigation engine coupled to the layout engine and
configured to select one or more navigation options from a
plurality of navigation options for navigating a visual
presentation of the layout,
wherein the layout and navigation engines are configured
to communicate the layout and selected navigation options.
2
Appeal2015-003230
Application 13/428,607
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Shema et al. US 6,766,331 B2 July 20, 2004
Hendricks et al. US 8,095,949 B 1 Jan. 10,2012
REJECTIONS
Claims 1--4, 6-12, 14--20 and 22-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Shema. Final Act. 3-11.
Claims 5, 13, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shema in view of Hendricks. Final Act. 11-13.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants.
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments regarding claims 1-24.
Appellants argue Shema does not disclose a layout engine that
"generate[ s] a layout of a plurality of pages" and "panoptically arrange[ s]
the plurality of pages," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 2-3.
Appellants argue that Shema instead displays "a graphical representation of
an article on a single sheet of a drawing set." App Br. 6. Although Shema
discloses jumping to different pages "based on link between reference
designations on the sheets," it does not generate a layout of a plurality of
sheets and panoptically display them. Id.
3
Appeal2015-003230
Application 13/428,607
The Examiner finds Shema discloses a layout of a plurality of pages
that are panoptically displayed. Final Act. 3--4 (citing Shema 7:6-39,
12: 21--4 7). More specifically, the Examiner finds:
Shema discloses "transform[ing] graphics into a format that
allows enriched electronic display of the graphic ... " (Shema,
col. 6, 1. 30-32). The user can navigate among parts depicted in
a graphic. Furthermore, Shema discloses transforming a "parts
catalog." In other words, Shema discloses generating a layout of
a plurality of pages, the parts catalog.
Final Act. 14; see also Ans. 13.
"To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose every
limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently." In re
Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The absence of a single
limitation---even if that limitation would be obvious from the cited
reference-negates anticipation. Id.
During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation while reading claim language in light of the specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Absent an express
intent to impart a novel meaning to a claim term, the words take on the
ordinary and customary meanings attributed to them by those of ordinary
skill in the art. Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d
1294, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument as the Examiner has not
identified sufficient evidence or provided sufficient explanation as to how
Shema discloses a layout "being configured to panoptically arrange the
plurality of pages," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 11 (Claims App'x)
4
Appeal2015-003230
Application 13/428,607
(emphasis added). The ordinary meaning of panoptic is "including in one
view everything within sight." Panoptic, Webster's New World College
Dictionary (2010), http://www.yourdictionary.com/panoptic (last visited
Aug. 10, 2016). Although the claim requires panoptically arranging a
plurality of pages at the same time, nothing in the cited sections of Shema
disclose such a display. Using a navigation tool to go from one page to
another is insufficient to anticipate the claim.
Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments
advanced by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants' other
arguments.
Accordingly, we are constrained on this record to reverse the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1, along with the rejections of claims 9 and
17, which recite limitations commensurate in scope to the disputed
limitations discussed above, and dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-24.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's decisions rejecting
claims 1--4, 6-12, 14--20, and 22-24 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's decisions rejecting
claims 5, 13, and 21 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
5