Ex Parte Heer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 30, 2014

11844833 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2014)

MOD PTOL-90A (Rev.06/08)

APPLICATION NO./
CONTROL NO.
FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR /
PATENT IN REEXAMINATION
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
11/844,833 08/24/2007 Jeffrey Heer et al.

EXAMINER
CRGO LAW
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, FL 33434
HUR, ECE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2172
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE

05/02/2014 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.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Address : COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________________________________________________________________________________

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JEFFREY HEER, JESSE H. KRISS,
FRANCISCUS J. J. VAN HAM, FERNANDA B. VIEGAS, and
MARTIN M. WATTENBERG
____________

Appeal 2012-002051
Application1 11/844,833
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, and
ULRIKE W. JENKS, Administrative Patent Judges.

JENKS, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims directed to
rendering visual data in a user interface. The Examiner has rejected the
claims as anticipated and obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We affirm.

1 Appellants identify International Business Machines Corporation as the
Real Party in Interest (App. Br. 2).
Appeal 2012-002051
Application 11/844,833

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1-17 are on appeal, and can be found in the Claims Appendix
of the Appeal Brief. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal, and
reads as follows:
1. A method for doubly-linked data visualization, the
method comprising:
rendering a data visualization in a data visualization
service user interface, the data visualization displaying
information about data stored in a database along different
dimensions;
identifying comments corresponding to the rendered data
visualization;
concurrently displaying the identified comments in the
user interface;
selecting a comment in the user interface; and,
replacing the rendered data visualization in the user
interface with a different data visualization corresponding to the
selected comment.

Cited References
Wolff et al. US 2006/0010095 A1 Jan. 12, 2006
Seibel et al. US 7,315,861 B2 Jan. 1, 2008
Kakii et al. US 7,352,385 B2 Apr. 1, 2008
(filed Aug. 29, 2003)
Grounds of Rejection
The Examiner has rejected the claims as follows:
I. claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Kakii;
II. claims 3, 6, 9, 10, 13, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kakii in view of Seibel; and
Appeal 2012-002051
Application 11/844,833

3
III. claims 5 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Kakii in view of Wolfe.
The Issue
The Examiner finds that Kakii disclosed the claimed method of data
visualization. (Ans. 5-6.)
Appellants contend that the Examiner has “not locate[d] within Kakil
[sic] the notion of the rendering of a data visualization that displays
information about data stored in a database along different dimensions.”
(Reply Br. 2; see also App. Br. 6, 7.)
The issue with respect to this rejection is whether the evidence
supports finding that Kakii’s method of video editing includes displaying
information about data stored in a database along different dimensions.
Findings of Fact
FF 1. The Specification states that
Data visualization is a technique that allows a user of a
database system to view information about data stored in the
database along different dimensions. The data visualizations
that are created to display the information can take on various
forms. One typical form is that of a table layout, with each row
representing a record in the database and each column
representing a field from the record. The table usually lists a
subset of the database records and a subset of the available
fields in the database records. Furthermore, the table can be
ordered as an aid to navigation.
(Spec. 2: ¶ 0004 (emphasis added).)
FF 2. Kakii is directed to a video editing system
[T]he recording/reproducing method of visual information
according to the present invention comprises a storage step of
managing visual information and comment information in
correlation with each other in a database . . . . In the storage
step, the visual information that can be displayed in a window
App
App

(Kak
below
comm
eal 2012-0
lication 11
on the
plurality
informat
sections
database
moving
informat
informat
characte
etc. or a
and so o
ii, col. 4, l
FF 3. K
, showin
ent datab
FIG. 18A
informat
02051
/844,833
monitor s
of inform
ion indiv
among t
. . . .
picture in
ion, text i
ion includ
rs, graphic
uditory inf
n.
l. 21-49; s
akii disclo
g the struc
ase.
shows th
ion) store
creen is
ation sect
idually lin
he inform
The foreg
formation
nformation
es at leas
s, still im
ormation
ee also An
sed table d
ture of the
e logical s
d in the im
4
stored in
ions in the
ked to o
ation sec
oing visu
, still ima
, etc., and
t either vi
ages, non
such as au
s. 6.)
iagrams F
data store
tructure o
age D/B
a segmen
database
ne or mo
tions is
al inform
ge inform
the foreg
sual inform
-verbal m
dio, music
ig. 18 A a
d in an im
f image da
110. Eac
ted state
, and com
re inform
stored in
ation incl
ation, gra
oing com
ation suc
oving pict
, sound e
nd B, repr
age databa

ta 1100 (v
h of the im
in a
ment
ation
the
udes
phic
ment
h as
ures,
ffect,
oduced
se and in
isual
age
a
Appeal 2012-002051
Application 11/844,833

5
data 1100 is stored as an information section provided with a
timestamp indicating a reproduction time thereof, in the image
D/B 110. On the other hand, FIG. 18B shows the logical
structure of comment data 1200 (comment information) stored
in the comment D/B 120. This comment data 1200 is stored in
the comment D/B 120 in a state in which individually linked
information is added in units of the information sections stored
in the image D/B 110. The comment data 1200 is provided
with reproduction time zone information designated by a
display start time and a display end time, as link information to
the image data 1100 stored in the image D/B 110. Namely, an
image data group 1100 provided with timestamps included in a
reproduction time zone is correlated with comment data
provided with the reproduction time zone as link information,
whereby it becomes feasible to display a moving picture by
continuously reproducing the image data group 1100.
(Kakii, col. 16, l. 54-col. 17, l. 5; see also Ans. 6.)
Analysis
We begin with claim interpretation, since before a claim is properly
interpreted, its scope cannot be compared to the prior art. Medichem, S.A. v.
Rolabo, S.L., 353 F.3d 928, 933 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The disputed limitation is
the phrase “data visualization displaying information about data stored in a
database along different dimensions.”
During prosecution, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation as they would be understood by persons of ordinary skill in the
art in the light of the Specification. The Specification teaches that
Data visualization is a technique that allows a user of a
database system to view information about data stored in the
database along different dimensions. . . . One typical form is
that of a table layout, with each row representing a record in the
database and each column representing a field from the record.
(Spec. 1 ¶ 0004; FF 1.)
Appeal 2012-002051
Application 11/844,833

6
Where, as here, Appellants have specifically defined a term in the
Specification, that definition controls claim interpretation. See Phillips v.
AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[O]ur cases recognize
that the specification may reveal a special definition given to a claim term by
the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess. In
such cases, the inventor’s lexicography governs.”)
We therefore interpret the phrase “data visualization displaying
information about data stored in a database along different dimensions” as
encompassing a data visualization technique using a table layout with each
column representing a field from the record (FF 1). We note that the
Examiner applies this same interpretation (see Ans. 13-14).
Specifically, the Examiner finds that Kakii
[In] FIG. 18A shows the structure of image data 1100 (visual
information) stored in the image D/B 110, FIG. 18B shows the
structure of comment data 1200 (comment information) stored
in the comment D/B 120. Both structures illustrate different
dimension because they have column field and row representing
a record in the database.
(Ans. 14; see also FFs 2-3.)
Appellants contend that the Examiner has failed to point out where in
Kakii to find the disclosure for “the rendering of a data visualization that
displays information about data stored in a database along different
dimensions.” (Reply Br. 2.) We have considered Appellants contention in
light of the Examiner’s response (Ans. 13-14), but agree with the
Examiner’s finding that Kakii discloses this limitation as it is defined by the
Specification (Ans. 5-6 and 13-14; see also FFs 1-3).
We conclude that the preponderance of the evidence of record
supports the Examiner’s finding that Kakii anticipates the method of doubly-
Appeal 2012-002051
Application 11/844,833

7
linked data visualization. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated. As claims 2, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, and
17 have not been argued separately, they fall with claim 1 as acknowledged
by the Appellants (App. Br. 5).
As Appellants have waived additional arguments directed to claims 3,
5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 15, and 16 (App. Br. 9), we also affirm the rejection of
claims 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious.

SUMMARY
We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, and 17 under
35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being anticipated by Kakii.
We affirm the rejection of claims 3, 6, 9, 10, 13, and 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kakii in view of Seibel.
We affirm the rejection of claims 5 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Kakii in view of Wolfe.

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

cdc