Ex Parte Hadley et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 16, 2016

13414964 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/414,964 03/08/2012
128836 7590 09/20/2016
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.
5013899.002US2 4694
EXAMINER
GARMON, BRIAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/20/2016 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, PA TRICK J. EAMES,
MICHAEL K. RODGERS, JOSEPH F. FLOYD, and
STEPHEN P. MILLER
Appeal2015-006816
Application 13/414,964
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 Non-Final
Rejection of claims 1-21, which constitute all of the claims pending in this
application. Although the action appealed from is a Non-Final Rejection,
because the application has been twice rejected we have jurisdiction
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 6 and 134. Ex parte Lemoine, 46 USPQ2d 1420,
1423 (BPAI 1994) (precedential).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify The Boeing Company as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal2015-006816
Application 13/414,964
THE INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a panoptic
visualization document navigation.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An apparatus for implementation of a panoptic
visualization document navigation system, 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 navigation engine configured to receive a layout of
document components of a panoptic visualization document
collection having a plurality of document components each of
which includes respective media content and has associated
metadata providing information about the respective document
component, the layout including a panoptic arrangement of
visual representations of the document components of the layout
according to the associated metadata of the respective document
components,
\'I/herein the navigation engine is configured to select one
or more navigation options from a plurality of navigation options
for navigating a visual presentation of the layout, the navigation
options being selected according to the associated metadata for
the document components of the layout, and
wherein the navigation engine is configured to
communicate the selected navigation options to a graphical user
interface for presentation to a user along with the visual
presentation of the layout, the selected navigation options
thereby being selectable by the user to request an adjustment of
the visual presentation of the layout; and
a request interface coupled to the navigation engine and
configured to receive a request according to one or more of the
selected navigation options presented by the graphical user
interface, the request interface also being configured to
communicate the request to the navigation engine,
2
Appeal2015-006816
Application 13/414,964
wherein the navigation engine is further configured to
effect an adjustment of the visual presentation of the layout in
response to the request and according to the request, and
wherein the navigation engine is configured to
communicate the adjustment to the graphical user interface for
presentation to the user.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Gallo US 2006/0161863 Al July 20, 2006
Aguera y Areas et al. US 2009/0295791 Al Dec. 3, 2009
REJECTIONS2
Claims 1---6, 8-13, and 15-20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Aguera y Areas. Non-Final Act. 6-19.
Claims 7, 14, and 21 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Aguera y Areas in view of Gallo. Non-Final Act.
19-22.
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 1-21.
2 In the Answer, the Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 1-14 under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant
regards as the invention. See Ans. 16.
3
Appeal2015-006816
Application 13/414,964
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Aguera y Areas
discloses a "navigation engine is configured to select one or more navigation
options from a plurality of navigation options for navigating a visual
presentation of the layout, the navigation options being selected according to
the associated metadata for the document components of the layout," as
recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 2-3. Although Aguera y
Areas discloses a display engine that allows the user to pan or zoom,
Appellants argue the display engine does not select navigation options
according to the associated metadata. Id.
The Examiner finds Aguera y Areas "discloses enabling navigation
functions such as pan and zoom based on the data" and maps this to the
disputed limitation. Non-Final Act. 7 (citing Aguera y Areas i-f 42). The
Examiner further finds Aguera y Areas "discloses merging 'metadata' with
content such as video content" and that data is used "to select navigation
options in that the system selects display navigation options such as 'pan
and/or zoom."' Ans. 17 (citing Aguera y Areas i-fi-137, 42).
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments as the Examiner has not
identified sufficient evidence or provided sufficient explanation as to how
Aguera y Areas teaches "navigation engine is configured to select one or
more navigation options from a plurality of navigation options for
navigating a visual presentation of the layout, the navigation options being
selected according to the associated metadata for the document components
of the layout," as recited in claim 1. Although the paragraphs cited by the
Examiner disclose metadata and a display engine that allows panning and/or
zooming, there is nothing in the cited sections that discloses navigation
4
Appeal2015-006816
Application 13/414,964
options that are "selected according to the associated metadata for the
document components of the layout," as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we are constrained on this record to reverse the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1, along with the rejections of claims 8 and
15, which recite limitations commensurate in scope to the disputed
limitations discussed above, and dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-21.
Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced by
Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants' other arguments.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's decisions rejecting
claims 1-21.
REVERSED
5