Ex Parte Hebert et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 31, 201813918101 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2018) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/918,101 06/14/2013 Cedric Hebert 13913-0698001 1748 32864 7590 02/02/2018 FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. (SAP) PO BOX 1022 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022 EXAMINER YANG, YI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2617 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/02/2018 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): PATDOCTC@fr.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CEDRIC HEBERT, WIHEM ARSAC, GILLES MONTAGNON, JAKUB SENDOR, and ELTON MATHIAS Appeal 2017-008139 Application 13/918,101 Technology Center 2600 Before DENISE M. POTHIER, MATTHEW J. McNEILL, and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20. App. Br. 6.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 The real party in interest is listed as SAP SE. App. Br. 4. 2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Action (Final Act.) mailed November 25, 2016, (2) the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed December 23, 2016, (3) the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed April 6, 2017, and (4) the Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed May 9, 2017. Appeal 2017-008139 Application 13/918,101 Invention Appellants’ invention concerns visualizing system architecture. See Spec. ^ 32. This technique may include the increase in visual detail of a component appears in parallel with a decrease in visual detail of other components, while conserving the semantics of the system architecture. In some implementations, the increase in visual detail of a component appears in parallel with a decrease in the number of displayed components. For example, the visualization of the system architecture can proportionally decrease the number of displayed components, until the increase component is displayed on the entire screen. Id.', see also id., Figs. 2A-B, 4A-B. Claim 1 is reproduced below with emphasis: 1. A computer-implemented method performed by one or more processors for managing a display of a system architecture, the method comprising: displaying a first visual representation of the system architecture, the first visual representation comprising respective virtual representations of at least two components of the system architecture at a first level of detail; displaying a first virtual representation of a semantically relevant connector that extends between the at least two components of the system architecture at the first level of detail, the semantically relevant connector defining a functional interaction between the at least two components of the system architecture; receiving a request from a user to display a second visual representation of the system architecture; and generating a second visual representation of the system architecture for display on a graphical user interface, the second visual representation of the system architecture comprising an increase in a first virtual representation of a first component of the at least two components that appears in parallel with a decrease in a second virtual representation of a second 2 Appeal 2017-008139 Application 13/918,101 component of the at least two components such that respective virtual representations of the at least two components of the system architecture at a second level of detail are above a readable threshold and are different than the first level of detail, and a second virtual representation of the semantically relevant connector that extends between the at least two components of the system architecture at the second level of detail, the second virtual representation of the semantically relevant connector comprising one or more of merged and separated connections to components adjacent to the at least two components of the system architecture, such that the one or more of merged and separated connections to components indicate connection types and component types. The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability: Fassero US 2008/0143709 A1 June 19, 2008 Cagno US 2011/0113279 A1 May 12, 2011 Miyashita US 2012/0127107 A1 May 24, 2012 Martick US 2012/0167015 A1 June 28, 2012 Pittappilly US 2013/0067398 A1 Mar. 14, 2013 Hoffman US 2013/0304604 A1 Nov. 14, 2013 Wey US 8,855,983 B2 Oct. 7, 2014 The Rejections Claims 1—4, 6-10, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-AIA) or § 103 as unpatentable over Martick, Hoffman, and Miyashita. Final Act. 2-11; see also Ans. 3-6. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-AIA) or § 103 as unpatentable over Martick, Hoffman, Miyashita, and Cagno. Final Act. 11-12. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-AIA) or § 103 as unpatentable over Martick, Hoffman, Miyashita, and Pittappilly. Final Act. 12-13. 3 Appeal 2017-008139 Application 13/918,101 Claims 13, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre- AIA) or § 103 as unpatentable over Martick, Hoffman, Miyashita, Pittappilly, and Fassero. Final Act. 14-16. Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (pre-AIA) or § 103 as unpatentable over Martick, Hoffman, Miyashita, Pittappilly, and Wey. Final Act. 16-18. OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER MARTICK, HOFFMAN, AND MIYASHITA Appellants present three central arguments for this rejection. We select claim 1 as representative.3 See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). First, Appellants argue Martick’s zooming in on systems and subsystems to make them visible is different from the recited “connections to components [that] indicate . . . component types” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 14 (discussing Martick, Fig. 7A). Second, Appellants assert Martick is silent as to and different from “a readable threshold” as recited. Id. Third, Appellants contend Miyashita teaches increasing/decreasing the display level detail of an operating object based on the area where the object is positioned, which differs from the recited “increase in a first virtual representation of a first component. . . that appears in parallel with a decrease in a second virtual representation of a second component” as recited in claim 1. Id. at 15 (emphasis omitted). 3 Independent claims 1,19, and 20 are argued collectively. App. Br. 12. Claims 2^1 and 6-10 are not separately argued. Id. at 15. 4 Appeal 2017-008139 Application 13/918,101 ISSUES Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding that Martick, Hoffman, and Miyashita collectively would have taught or suggested generating a second visual representation: (I) “the second visual representation of the system architecture comprising an increase in a first virtual representation of a first component of the at least two components that appears in parallel with a decrease in a second virtual representation of a second component of the at least two components”; (II) “respective virtual representations of the at least two components of the system architecture at a second level of detail are above a readable threshold”; and (III) “the second virtual representation of the semantically relevant connector comprising one or more of merged and separated connections . . ., such that the one or more of merged and separated connections to components indicate connection types and component types”? ANALYSIS Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. I. Concerning the limitation “the second visual representation of the system architecture comprising an increase in a first virtual representation of a first component of the at least two components that appears in parallel with a decrease in a second virtual representation of a second component of the at least two components” in claim 1, the Examiner relies on both Miyashita and 5 Appeal 2017-008139 Application 13/918,101 Martick in combination. Final Act. 4-5 (citing Miyashita ^ 14); Ans. 5, 8 (citing Martick, Fig. 6A). Appellants contend Miyashita’s increase/decrease of the display’s detail level based on the operating object’s position differs from the above claim language. App. Br. 14. In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue Martick displays components that are “at least partly out of view as the display of a component increases (in response to a 'zoom' down operation) and could be brought back in view through a shift action (as suggested by partly displayed arrow connecting system A to system B),” and this differs from claim 1. Reply Br. 4. We are not persuaded. The Specification’s paragraph 32 discusses an increase in visual detail of a component appears in parallel with a decrease in visual detail of other components. Spec. ^ 32. The Specification also shows embodiments where a decrease in “a second virtual representation of a second component of’ at least two system components includes an invisible second representation of the second component. See id., Figs. 2A- B. For example, in Figure 2A, components A and B are visible, but in Figure 2B, component B has disappeared and has been replaced with components C and D. See id. In light of the Specification, the broadest, reasonable construction of “a decrease in a second virtual representation of a second component” as understood by one skilled in the art includes a component that is no longer visible or displayed. See In re Am. Acad, of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). Turning to Martick, Figures 5A and 6A are shown below. 6 Appeal 2017-008139 Application 13/918,101 500 N Figure 5A depicts a low-detail level system landscape 500. 600 Figure 6A depicts an immediate-detail level system landscape 600. 7 Appeal 2017-008139 Application 13/918,101 Martick’s Figure 6A, shown above, demonstrates how the display changes between a low-level detail (e.g., “FAR AWAY”) and an intermediate level detail. Martick 67-68, Figs. 5A, 6A. In Figure 6A, some components are enlarged or are “an increase in a first virtual representation of a first component” (e.g., System B and C). On the other hand, other components (e.g., System A) are not shown (e.g., a decrease) or are “out of sight in parallel” (Ans. 5) as noted by the Examiner. Compare Figure 5A with Spec., Fig. 6A. We find this position reasonable in light of the Specification as previously discussed.4 Thus, we disagree with Appellants that Martick’s alleged “standard display of a ‘zoom’ down operation” differs from the claim l’s language. Reply Br. 4. Moreover, the rejection also relies on Miyashita. Final Act. 4-5 (citing Miyashita ^ 14); Ans. 8. Miyashita teaches the concept that an object’s detail level can increase or decrease depending on the position of the object within a display. Miyashita ^ 14. For example, Miyashita teaches when an object is in a display’s first area, the detail level increases, and when an object is a display’s second area, the detail level decrease. Id.', see also Final Act. 4 (discussing Miyashita ^ 14 and the detail level increasing or decreasing for an object depending on its position within an area). When 4 Even assuming, without agreeing, claim 1 requires “a decrease in a second virtual representation of a second component” to be visible representation of the second component in a graphical user interface (GUI), Martick suggests this feature. That is, a user in Martick can select a level detail using the slider (e.g., 510), where each component (e.g., Systems A-C) is still shown on the GUI (e.g., shown “in parallel”) but one component’s representation decreases (e.g., System A shown partially) and another component’s representation increases (e.g., System B is enlarged and fully shown). See Martick ^ 67-68, Figs. 5A-B. 8 Appeal 2017-008139 Application 13/918,101 combining this teaching with Martick, the combination predictably yields a component (e.g., System A, System B, or System C) whose size will differ (e.g., increase or decrease) depending on the location of the component on the display or GUI (graphical user interface). For example, when applied to Martick, one component (e.g., System A) may decrease in detail/size when located in specific area of a GUI (e.g., far left of a display shown in Fig. 5A) while other components (e.g., Systems B and C) increase in detail/size when located on another area of the GUI (e.g., the middle or right side of the display shown in Fig. 5A). Appellants’ arguments do not consider the collective teachings of these references sufficiently, but rather attack Miyashita (App. Br. 15) and Martick (Reply Br. 4) individually. Such individual attacks are not persuasive in overcoming the obviousness rejection. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). II. Regarding the recitation “respective virtual representations of the at least two components of the system architecture at a second level of detail are above a readable threshold,” Appellants argue Martick is “silent as to a readable threshold” as recited and further differs from the recited “threshold.” App. Br. 14 (citing Martick]} 68, Fig. 7A); Reply Br. 2-3 (citing Martick 21, 62, 68, 72). We disagree. As the Examiner explains in both the Final Action (Final Act.3) and the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 8), Martick discloses Subsystems E 604 and F 606 are visible or recognized “above a readable threshold.” Final Act. 3 and Ans. 8 (both addressing Figure 6A). That is, once the selected zoom or detail level reaches a certain level (e.g., the recited “readable threshold”), 9 Appeal 2017-008139 Application 13/918,101 Subsystems E and F are visible on the GUI. Compare Martick, Fig. 5A with Martick, Fig. 6A. As such, although Martick does not use the word “threshold,” Martick discloses a level that does not differ from the recited “readable threshold.” Moreover, this mapping of Martick to the claimed “threshold” is consistent with the Specification, which describes components C 206 and D 208 becoming visible when they “are above the threshold size for viewing.” Spec. ^ 55, Fig. 2B. Appellants further assert Martick’s discussion in paragraph 72 concerns “visibility threshold,” (Reply Br. 3) (emphasis omitted), which differs from the recited “readable threshold.” Id. (citing Martick 62, 72). We are not persuaded. Notably, the rejection itself does not rely on paragraph 72 to teach this limitation (Final Act. 3), and the previously discussed citations from Martick teach or suggest the disputed “readable threshold.” Regardless, Martick further discusses that, during zooming, objects can transition between objects that are not visible (e.g., level zero or fully transparent color) to those that are visible (e.g., second level or fully opaque color) based on an alpha value. Martick 62-63, 72. Appellants fail to explain convincingly how this value, which affects an object’s visibility (e.g., make transparent or opaque), could not be “a readable threshold” as recited. Fastly, although not cited by the Examiner, Appellants discuss Miyashita’s paragraph 62. App. Br. 13. Miyashita discusses storing “threshold information that is used in . . . the zoom rate change process.” Miyashita ^ 62. This teaching additionally suggests one skill in the art would have known to use such stored threshold information (e.g., “a readable threshold” as recited), in combination with Martick’s technique, 10 Appeal 2017-008139 Application 13/918,101 when determining whether to increase or decrease a component’s representation during zooming. See id.; see also Martick68, Fig. 6A. III. As for the limitation “the second virtual representation of the semantically relevant connector comprising one or more of merged and separated connections . . ., such that the one or more of merged and separated connections to components indicate connection types and component types,” Appellants argue Martick’s zooming in on systems and subsystems to make them visible is different from the connections to components that indicate “component types” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 14 (discussing Martick, Fig. 7A); Reply Br. 2 (citing Martick, Fig. 6A, Fig. 7A). For this disputed limitation, the Examiner relies on Martick and Hoffman. Final Act. 3^1 (citing Martick ^ 70, Figs. 6A, 7A and Hoffman 56). Appellants do not dispute that Hoffman teaches connections to components that indicate connection types. See App. Br. 13-14. Nor do Appellants dispute that Martick’s Figure 2 shows connections types related to components B and C or components E and F. See id.; see also Reply Br. 1-2. As such, we confine our discussion to Martick and the recitation “the one or more of merged and separated connections to components indicate . . . component types.” App. Br. 19-20 (Claims App’x). The phrase, “component types” could not be located in the disclosure other than in the claims. See generally, Spec. On the other hand, Appellants map the above disputed limitation to various paragraphs in the Specification. App. Br. 8 (citing Spec. 32, 50, 54, 68, 69). Paragraph 50 describes semantics module 118 can indicate the different types of component shapes, 11 Appeal 2017-008139 Application 13/918,101 such as rectangles, merging includes at least one agent component (e.g., a rectangle). Spec. ^ 50. Further, paragraph 54 describes zooming in makes agent components C 206 and D 208 visible. Id. ^[ 54, Fig. 2B. Thus, these paragraphs demonstrate a broad, but reasonable construction of “component types” includes agent components having a particular shape. Similarly, regarding this limitation, the Examiner explains Martick’s “Subsystem E 604, Subsystem F 606, Subsystem^ I 704 and Subsystem H 706 are component types” (Final Act. 4) and “Subsystem E 604, Subsystem F 606 are component types” (Ans. 7). These components (e.g., rounded rectangles E and F in Fig. 6A or rounded rectangles I and H in Fig. 7A) are visible, as well as connector 608 and another larger arrow between System B and C, when generating a second representation. See Martick 68, Figs. 6A, 7A. We find the Examiner’s mapping of “component types” and, thus, generating the “second virtual representation of the semantically relevant connector [that] compris[es] one or more of merged and separated connections to components . . . [that] indicate . . . component types” as recited, consistent with the Specification and reasonable. For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 2—4, 6-10, and 19, and 20 not separately argued. THE REMAINING OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS As for the rejections of remaining claims 5 and 11-18, Appellants refer to “the reasons discussed in detail above” (App. Br. 16-17) and also contend the remaining cited references (e.g., Cagno, Pittappilly, Fassero, and Wey) do not cure “the deficiencies of Martick, Hoffman, and Miyashita” (id. 12 Appeal 2017-008139 Application 13/918,101 at 15-17). We are not persuaded for the above-stated reasons. We sustain the rejections of claims 5 and 11-18. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20 under § 103. 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 13 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation