Ex Parte Harper et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 28, 201310826762 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JOHN HARPER, RALPH BRUNNER, PETER GRAFFAGNINO, and MARK ZIMMER ____________ Appeal 2009-013019 Application 10/826,762 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, THU ANN DANG, and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-013019 Application 10/826,762 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-85. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. THE INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to producing images including an application program interface (API). Abstract. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method of editing an initial image, comprising the steps of: a first process requesting a filter from a second process; said first process defining a relationship between said filter and said initial image, said related filter and initial image comprising a program, said second process compiling said program, yielding a compiled program; running at least a portion of said compiled program to apply a function of said filter to said image, yielding an pixel-image result. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claim 84 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.1 The Examiner rejected claims 28, 29, 38, 39, 43, 44, 53, 54, and 74 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Grantham (US 6,215,495 B1; Apr. 10, 2001). 1 The Final Office Action rejected claims 79-85 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Examiner’s Answer withdrew the rejection of claims 79-83 and 85 (Ans. 26). Appeal 2009-013019 Application 10/826,762 3 The Examiner rejected claims 75 and 78 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Boudier (US 6,995,765 B2; Feb. 7, 2006; filed July 12, 2001). The Examiner rejected claims 79-84 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by McCrossin (US 6,600,840 B2; July 29, 2003). The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 8, 11, 12, 14-20, 36, 37, 40, 41, 51, 52, 55, 56, 58, 61-63, 66-73, and 85 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grantham and McCrossin. The Examiner rejected claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grantham, McCrossin, and Levy (US 2002/0033844 A1; Mar. 21, 2002). The Examiner rejected claims 4-6 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grantham, McCrossin, and Boudier. The Examiner rejected claims 7, 9, 60, and 65 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grantham, McCrossin, and Parikh (US 6,411,301 B1; June 25, 2002). The Examiner rejected claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grantham, McCrossin, Parikh, and Doyle (US 6,867,779 B1; Mar. 15, 2005). The Examiner rejected claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grantham, McCrossin, and Nelson (US 6,801,202 B2; Oct. 5, 2004). The Examiner rejected claims 22, 23, and 25-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grantham, McCrossin, and Hoppe (US 6,919,906 B2; July 19, 2005). Appeal 2009-013019 Application 10/826,762 4 The Examiner rejected claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grantham, McCrossin, Hoppe, and Sturges (US 5,854,637; Dec. 29, 1998). The Examiner rejected claims 30-32 and 45-47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grantham and Boudier. The Examiner rejected claims 33 and 48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grantham, Boudier, and Levy. The Examiner rejected claims 34, 35, 49, and 50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grantham and Levy. The Examiner rejected claims 42 and 57 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grantham and Stokes (US 6,977,661 B1; Dec. 20, 2005). The Examiner rejected claims 59 and 64 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grantham, McCrossin, and Doyle. The Examiner rejected claims 76 and 77 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Boudier and Levy. ISSUES The issues are whether the Examiner erred in finding that: 1. Claim 84 is non-statutory; 2. Grantham teaches a “compil[ation]” as recited in claim 28; 3. Grantham teaches the limitation of “requesting the creation of an image” as recited in claim 74; 4. Boudier teaches a graph’s global domain as recited in claim 75; Appeal 2009-013019 Application 10/826,762 5 5. McCrossin teaches APIs to filter an object, APIs to image objects, APIs to context objects, and APIs to vector objects as required by claim 79; 6. McCrossin teaches a new filter object as recited in claim 84; and 7. McCrossin teaches a data structure comprising a relationship between an image and a filter as recited in claim 1. ANALYSIS Claim 84 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 Appellants argue that claim 84 is directed to statutory subject matter (Br. 10). We do not agree. We find no error with the Examiner’s claim interpretation that API is a set of declarations of functions (Ans. 26). The Examiner provided the definition of “data structure” as being “physical or logical relationship among data elements, designed to support specific data manipulation functions” (Ans. 3). We also agree with the Examiner that the claimed API does not define any structural and functional inter relationships between the API and a computer which would permit the API’s functionality to be realized (see MPEP § 2106.01.I) (Ans. 4). That is, claim 84 merely recites an abstract idea with the intended purpose “for facilitating image processing.” A claim that recites no more than an abstraction does not fall within any statutory category. In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Significantly, we find claim 84 to be merely “an idea without physical embodiment.” Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449 (2007). Appeal 2009-013019 Application 10/826,762 6 Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the claimed API is directed to nonstatutory subject matter (Ans. 3-4). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 84. Claims 28, 29, 38, 39, 43, 44, 53, and 54 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 Appellants first argue, with respect to claim 28 that the “CompileAction” of Grantham is not “compilation” in its normal defined sense or as used by assignee, because Grantham’s “CompileAction” does not yield executables (Br. 12). We do not agree. The Examiner points out that the customary definition of compiler is a computer program that translates text written in computer language into another computer language (Ans. 27). Grantham teaches that interpreter 111 modifies the scene graph to suit specific graphics subsystem hardware 109 (col. 5, ll. 5-7). Grantham further teaches that the interpreter 111 enables the Virtual Reality Meta Language (VRML) file to be adapted to run on virtually any type of machine (col. 5, ll. 8-10). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the interpreter 111 translates the VRML file to another computer language that is able to be run on a graphic subsystem hardware 109, and so the interpreter 111 is considered to perform compiling. Appellants further argue, with respect to claim 28, that the local processor (i.e., first process) of Grantham does not “indicate parameters associated with creation of result image” (Br. 14). Appellants assert that the local processor is merely making an internet request of a web server and the web server provides the appropriate VRML file (id.). According to Appellants, the cited “first process” in Grantham merely asks for the VMRL file without any reference to or cognizance of the claimed “creation of Appeal 2009-013019 Application 10/826,762 7 context,” “creation of result image,” or “parameters associated with result image” (id.). We do not agree with Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner points out that Grantham teaches a VRML file that is requested and instructs API 112 (col. 4, l. 63–col. 5, l. 23). The API is structured as a collection of class hierarchies (col. 4, l. 63–col. 5, l. 23), including Graphics State classes that include Context, Appearance, Material, Texture, and TexTransform classes (col. 28, ll. 14-16). The context class maintains the graphics state for a particular graphics context (col. 3, ll. 2-4). The other Graphics State classes define how the resulting image is to be created (col. 8, ll. 38-46). Thus, the Graphics State classes indicate parameters associated with the creation of the resulting image. The DrawAction class is used to draw a scene (col. 7, ll. 31-33). Accordingly, the VRML file that is requested includes information about Context class, Graphics State classes, and Draw Action class. Since the first process requests the VRML file, we find that the Examiner has reasonably interpreted that the first process is considered as requesting creation of context, creation of the resulting image, and indicating parameters associated with creation of the resulting image. Thus, we affirm the rejection of claim 28. Appellants repeat the same arguments as those presented for claim 28 (Br. 15). Thus, for the same reasons we affirm the rejection of claim 43. We also affirm the rejection of claims 29, 38, 39, 44, 53, and 54, which were not separately argued. Appeal 2009-013019 Application 10/826,762 8 Claim 74 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 Appellants argue that the first process of Grantham is a web browser and is not “requesting creation of an image” (Br. 16). According to Appellants, the web browser is “initiating a request which is routed by input/output (I/O) device 107 through the internet 106 to server 101” (id.). Appellants assert that a web browser requesting information from a server is not the same as “a first process running on a CPU requesting creation of an image” (id.). According to Appellants, neither the web browser nor Grantham’s server has “a graphics services resource, responding to said request” (id.). We do not agree with Appellants’ arguments. Grantham teaches a “processor 108 of computer system 116 initiating a request which is routed by input/output (I/O) device 107 through the Internet 106 to server 101” (col. 4, ll. 63-66). Thus, the first process is running on CPU 116 and requesting creation of an image. Grantham further teaches that the request results in a VRML file being transmitted to computer system 116, and VRML file instructs API 112, which is structured as a collection of class hierarchies (col. 4, l. 63–col. 5, l. 23). The class hierarchies include a CompileAction class 403 that compiles a specified sub graph into data structure which is more efficient for traversals (col. 7, ll. 50-57). Thus, API 112 responds to a request by running a first routine on CPU 116 to optimize a graph representing an image (col. 4, l. 63–col. 5, l. 23; col. 7, ll. 50-57), and thus, API 112 is considered to be a graphics services resource. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 74. Appeal 2009-013019 Application 10/826,762 9 Claims 75 and 78 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 Appellants argue that the graph’s global domain of definition (DOD) is not anticipated by Boudier’s input scene graph (Br. 17). Appellants point to their Specification which states that a “practical way to think about domain of definition is a representation of all places in an image that are explicitly defined and not transparent” (id.). Appellants also assert that the scene graph of Boudier is a model with the nodes representing features of a scene and edges representing associations between the connected components (id.). Appellants then argue that the global region of interest (ROI) is not equivalent to the bounding box of Boudier (id.). Appellants point us to their Specification describing a ROI as “the portion of the input image that is necessary to compute the given DOD” (id. (emphasis omitted)). Appellants argue that because Boudier does not disclose either a DOD or ROI as defined in their Specification, it is impossible for Boudier to anticipate the claim limitation of “determining an intersection of the first graph’s global domain of definition and global region of interest” (Br. 18). We do not agree with Appellants’ arguments as they are not commensurate in scope with the claim language. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the Specification, limitations from the Specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). We agree with the Examiner that claim 75 does not recite the DOD being a representation of all places in an image that are explicitly defined and not transparent and the ROI being a portion of an input image that is necessary to compute a given DOD (Ans. 30). Appeal 2009-013019 Application 10/826,762 10 Therefore, the Examiner broadly and reasonably construed the input scene graph of Boudier as the DOD and the bounding box of Boudier as the ROI. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 75. We also affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 78 which was not separately argued. Claims 79-83 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 Appellants argue that the API discussed by McCrossin does not disclose image processing API but rather, McCrossin’s only APIs are “read” and “write” APIs(Br. 19). According to Appellants, McCrossin does not teach APIs to filter an object, APIs to image objects, APIs to context objects, and APIs to vector objects (id.). We do not agree. The Examiner points out that McCrossin describes that “[a]n . . . application calls the transformation object using a procedure call or API call” (col. 7, ll. 33-34), and “[t]ransform object 103 determines an actual image vector 139 . . . . [i]mage request vector 127 . . . is compared to actual image vector 139 to determine what filters are needed” (col. 6, ll. 51-56). We agree with the Examiner that McCrossin does teach APIs to filter objects, image objects, and vector objects (Ans. 31). We are also not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments regarding McCrossin not teaching image objects and context objects (Br. 20). We agree with the Examiner that Appellants’ disclosure describes context as being “space such as a defined place in memory in which the result of a filtering operation resides” (Spec. ¶ [0045]). We find that McCrossin teaches a buffer 107 in which the result of the filtering operation resides (col. 5, ll. 59-60; col. 6, ll. 51-56), and thus teaches context creation. Appeal 2009-013019 Application 10/826,762 11 Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 79. We also affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 80-83, which were not separately argued. Claim 84 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 Appellants argue that McCrossin does not create a new filter object but creates a “new file object” and filters are only pushed and popped from a filter stack (Br. 22). We do not agree. Claim 84 recites “create filter objects.” We agree with the Examiner that McCrossin teaches creating a new file object for a filter stack (Ans. 32; col. 8, ll. 25-37), which is considered the same as creating a filter object. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 84. Claims 1-27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Appellants argue that the VRML file of Grantham is not a graphics item and is a much higher level collection of information than a graphics filter (Br. 24). Appellants assert that because the VRML file is a high level file and can be interpreted into something applicable to any type of machine, there is no reason to even infer that the VRML file will contain the claimed graphics processing filter (id.). We do not agree. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Grantham teaches that graphics stages are assembled into cohesive scene graphics (col. 5, ll. 18-23). Graphics Stage classes include Texture class 504 that defines how image is filtered (col. 28, ll. 10-16; col. 11, ll. 22-25). Thus, a filter is part of a scene graph (col. 5, ll. 18-23; col. 28, ll. 10-16; col. 11, ll. 22-25). Appeal 2009-013019 Application 10/826,762 12 Appellants further argue that McCrossin does not teach multiple processes (Br. 24). The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Grantham is used to teach multiple processes and specific division of work between multiple processes (Ans. 32). As the Examiner points out, McCrossin is merely used to teach a first process which defines a relationship between a filter and an initial image (id.). “[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where . . . the rejections are based on combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Appellants also argue, with respect to claim 1, that Grantham does not disclose a defined relationship (Br. 24). Appellants argue with respect to claim 22 that McCrossin’s transform object 103 does not teach a data structure comprising a relationship between an image and a filter (Br. 27). The Examiner finds, and we agree, that McCrossin’s Figure 6 shows transform object 103 (data structure) comprising an image request vector 127 that is compared to an actual image vector to determine what filters are needed (col. 6, l. 46–col. 7, l. 9). We agree with the Examiner’s reasoning that the transform object 103 compares an actual image vector to determine what filters are needed, which means that transform object 103 determines from the image what filters are needed, thus, transform object 103 (data structure) comprises a relationship between the image and the filter (Ans. 32-33). Thus we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 and 22. We also affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2-21 and 23-27, which were not separately argued. Appeal 2009-013019 Application 10/826,762 13 Claims 30-37, 40-42, 45-52, 55-73, 76, 77, and 85 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) We pro forma affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 30-37, 40- 42, 45-52, 55-73, 76, 77, and 85 because Appellants did not present any arguments with respect to these claims. CONCLUSIONS The Examiner did not err in finding that: 1. Claim 84 is non-statutory; 2. Grantham teaches a “compil[ation]” as recited in claim 28; 3. Grantham teaches the limitation of “requesting the creation of an image” as recited in claim 74; 4. Boudier teaches a graph’s global domain as recited in claim 75; 5. McCrossin teaches APIs to filter an object, APIs to image objects, APIs to context objects, and APIs to vector objects as required by claim 79; 6. McCrossin teaches a new filter object as recited in claim 84; and 7. McCrossin teaches a data structure comprising a relationship between an image and a filter as recited in claim 1. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-85 is affirmed. AFFIRMED babc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation