Ex Parte Hadley et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2018

13414987 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/414,987 03/08/2012
128836 7590 09/04/2018
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) 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.
B86918 1350US.l (0009.2) 1029
EXAMINER
GARMON, BRIAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/04/2018 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):
patentadmin@Boeing.com
ipdocketing@wbd-us.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,
JOSEPH F. FLOYD and STEPHEN P. MILLER
Appeal2018-002253
Application 13/414,987 1
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DAVID M. KOHUT, and LYNNE E. PETTIGREW,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 25-57. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is The Boeing Company. App.
Br. 1.
2 Claims 1-24 were cancelled previously. App. Br. 9, Claims App'x.
Appeal2018-002253
Application 13/414,987
INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to panoptic visualization of images. Spec.
1:17-19; 3:2-19.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 25, 34, and 43 are independent. Claim 25 is representative and is
reproduced below.
25. An apparatus for implementation of a panoptic visualization
document layout system, the apparatus comprising a processor
and a memory storing executable instructions that in response
to execution by the processor cause the apparatus to at least:
identify a first document component of a plurality of
document components that are groupings of media
content of an electronic document between basic
breaking points, each document component being
disassembled from the electronic document and including
respective media content, and having associated metadata
providing structured information about the document
component;
interpret the associated metadata for the first document
component to select a layout model from a plurality of
layout models, and identify one or more second
document components of the plurality of document
components, according thereto, the structured
information provided by the associated metadata for the
first document component further identifying a link
between the first document component and one or more
second document components; and
generate a layout of panoptically-arranged images of
document components including the first and one or
more second document components according to the
associated metadata therefor, and according to the
2
Appeal2018-002253
Application 13/414,987
selected layout model, the images of document
components including images of the respective media
content thereof.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner rejected claims 25-29, 32-38, 41--47, and 50-57 under 35
U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Horvitz (U.S. 2004/0267701 Al; published
Dec. 30, 2004) and Boose (U.S. 7,246,328 B2; issued July 17, 2007). 3
The Examiner rejected claims 30, 31, 39, 40, 48, and 49 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Horvitz, Boose, and Gerhard (U.S. 2009/0317020
Al; published Dec. 24, 2009).
ISSUES
Appellants' arguments present us with the following issues:
1. Did the Examiner err in finding Boose teaches or suggests a layout of
panoptically-arranged images of document components, as required in
claim 25 (similarly required in independent claims 34 and 43)?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding that it would have been obvious to
combine Horvitz, Boose, and Gerhard, as required in claim 30?
3 The Examiner listed claims 25-29, 32-38, 41--47, and 50-54 as unpatentable
over Horvitz and Boose on pages 2-22 of the Final Action and included rejections
to claims 55-57 on pages 23-24, without a heading. As the rejection of claims 55-
57 relies on Horvitz and Boose, we agree with Appellants that claims 55-57 are
included in the obviousness rejection over Horvitz and Boose. See App. Br. 4.
This is harmless error.
3
Appeal2018-002253
Application 13/414,987
Issue 1
ANALYSIS
Claim 25 recites "a layout of panoptically-arranged images of document
components."
The Examiner finds that Horvitz teaches decomposing a document into
document components linked using metadata. Final Act. 3 ( citing to Horvitz ,r,r 21,
25, 28, 31 ). The Examiner finds the document components can be displayed as
images arranged in various visualizations using the metadata. Final Act. 3--4. The
Examiner cites to paragraphs 28 and 31 of Horvitz, which teaches that the
display/layout can be configured in different ways to facilitate display of the
document components, and the exploded view of the document components can be
based on the type of items at focus. Final Act. 3--4; Horvitz ,r,r 28, 31. Figure 2 of
Horvitz also teaches that the exploded view preview displays document
components panoptically-arranged in a stack. Horvitz ,r,r 29-30. However, the
Examiner finds Horvitz does not explicitly teach a panoptically-arranged layout
including links between the document components. Final Act. 4.
The Examiner relies on Boose as teaching linking document components
( drawing sheets) using metadata (hotspots) and generating a panoptically-arranged
layout including all components (graphic explorer display system). Final Act. 5;
Ans. 25-26 ( citing Boose Figs. 2 and 4). Boose Figure 4, as relied upon by the
Examiner, teaches displaying a document component in the main window of the
graphic explorer display system, with other windows (table of contents, search,
etc.) including all metafiles embedded with the images of the linked document
components displayed for the user in an overview. Final Act. 4--5 (citing Boose
13:50-60); Ans. 25-27 (citing Boose Figs. 2 and 4). Thus, the Examiner finds
Boose's graphic explorer display system having a multiple window, overview
4
Appeal2018-002253
Application 13/414,987
layout with linked document components is a panoptically-arranged layout. See
Final Act. 5; Ans. 25-26 (citing Boose Figs. 2 and 4). Additionally, Boose teaches
that the graphic explorer display system may be configured in any form. Boose
13:50-51.
The Examiner finds it would have been obvious to modify Horvitz's linked
document components with Boose's panoptically-arranged layout including linked
document components to provide an enriched electronic display and navigation
among the document components. Final Act. 5.
Appellants argue Boose teaches linking document components in a
document, where a user can only view one component at a time versus
simultaneously viewing the components, App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 3. Accordingly,
Appellants argue Boose does not teach the claimed panoptically-arranged layout.
App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 3. Appellants also argue that the Examiner's finding that
Boose teaches a panoptically-arranged layout is not supported by evidence. App.
Br. 6; Reply Br. 3. Appellants further argue that Boose's layout merges
information about the document components, i.e., the metadata, not the
components themselves. Reply Br. 4.
Appellants' arguments regarding Boose are not persuasive because they do
not address the rejection based on the combination of Horvitz and Boose.
Appellants do not address the Examiner's findings that displaying the exploded
view of the linked document components of Horvitz in the multiple window,
overview layout of the graphic explorer display system of Boose would teach or
suggest panoptically-arranged images of document components, as required in
claim 25. As such, Appellants do not particularly show error in the Examiner's
findings. Moreover, we note that Horvitz Figure 2, as relied upon by the
5
Appeal2018-002253
Application 13/414,987
Examiner, shows a layout of panoptically-arranged document components.
Horvitz Fig. 2; see also Horvitz ,r,r 29, 31; Figs. 6-9, 15-21.
For all of the reasons stated above, we are not persuaded of error and sustain
the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 25. Independent claims 34 and 43
recite similar limitations as claim 25, and Appellants present the same arguments
for them. See App. Br. 6-7. Claims 26-29, 32, 33, 52, and 55 depend from claim
25; claims 35-38, 41, 42, 53, and 56 depend from claim 34; and claims 44--47, 50,
51, 54, and 57 depend from claim 43. App. Br. 9-17, Claims App'x. Appellants
do not present separate arguments for claims 26-29, 32, 33, 35-38, 41, 42, 44--47,
50-57. App. Br. 7. Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 26-29,
32-38, 41--47, and 50-57 for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 25.
Issue 2
Claim 30, in relevant part, recites "wherein for each document component of
at least some of the document components of the layout, a plurality of copies of the
image of the document component are stored at respective resolutions."
In the Final Action, the Examiner relies on Gerhard to teach displaying
images at different resolutions and finds it would have been "obvious to try to
display the objects of Horvitz and Boose in a layered design." Final Act. 22.
Appellants present arguments that Gerhard does not remedy the deficiencies
of Horvitz and Boose. App. Br. 7.
As we find no deficiencies in the Examiner's rejection of independent claims
25, 34, and 43 as unpatentable over Horvitz and Boose for the reasons discussed
6
Appeal2018-002253
Application 13/414,987
above, we likewise find no deficiencies in the Examiner's rejection of claim 30 as
unpatentable over Horvitz, Boose, and Gerhard.
Further, Appellants argue the Examiner fails to provide reasoning for the
"obvious to try" rationale as motivation to combine Horvitz, Boose, and Gerhard.
App. Br. 7-8. Appellants' arguments are not persuasive.
Rejections based on obviousness must be supported by "some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness." KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007) (citing In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
In the Answer, the Examiner presents further findings that there are a finite
number of resolutions possible and there would be a reasonable expectation of
success, since displays are capable of displaying different resolutions. Ans. 28.
Additionally, the Examiner finds it would have been obvious to use variable
resolutions with the combination of teachings in Horvitz and Boose, because it
would have an impact on size and display quality of the images. Ans. 28.
Appellants have not addressed the Examiner's reasoning and underpinning to
combine the references and, as such, have not demonstrated Examiner error.
For the reasons stated above, we are not persuaded of error and sustain the
Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 30. Appellants present the same
arguments for dependent claims 31, 39, 40, 48, and 49. See App. Br. 8. Thus, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 31, 39, 40, 48, and 49 for the same
reasons as set forth above for claim 30.
7
Appeal2018-002253
Application 13/414,987
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 25-57 are affirmed.
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)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8