Ex Parte Heer et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 31, 201911844833 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 11/844,833 08/24/2007 Jeffrey Heer 46321 7590 06/04/2019 Shutts & Bowen LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG 525 Okeechobee Blvd # 1100 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 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. CAM920070100US1 (192) 7594 EXAMINER BRAHMACHARI, MANDRITA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2176 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/04/2019 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): docketing@crgolaw.com sgreenberg@shutts.com aschneider@shutts.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) 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 MARTINM. WATTENBERG Appeal2017-009498 Application 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 REQUEST FOR REHEARING Appellants request a rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(l) of the Board's decision entered January 28, 2019 ("Decision"), wherein the rejection of the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combination of Kakii 1 and Wolff2 or the combination of Kakii, Wolff, and Seibel3 was affirmed. The request for rehearing is denied. Appellants contend that we misapprehended or overlooked certain arguments presented by Appellants in the Appeal Brief of February 21, 2017 1 Kakii et al., US 7,352,385 B2, issued Apr. 1, 2008 ("Kakii"). 2 Wolff et al., US 2006/0010095 Al, published Jan. 12, 2006 ("Wolff'). 3 Seibel et al., US 7,315,861 B2, issued Jan. 1, 2008 ("Seibel"). Appeal2017-009498 Application 11/844,833 and the Reply Brief of June 26, 2017. Req. Reh' g 2. Appellants contend that the limitation "computing a hash value for visible data in the rendered data visualization," an element present in claim 1, is not found in Wolff. Id. at 3-8. We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive, because we already addressed the "visible data" and "rendered data visualization" contention in our Decision. See Decision 9-10. In the Decision, we found "no error with Examiner's interpretation that anything displayed on the screen reasonably reads on 'visible data' as claimed." Decision 10; see Final Act. 8 ("any item displayed is rendered data visualization"). We agreed with Examiner that any item we see on a graphical user interface (i.e. a monitor) is "in the rendered data visualization" (see generally Decision 9-10 ("We find no error with Examiner's interpretation that anything displayed on the screen reasonably reads on 'visible data' as claimed")). In other words, anything we see with our eyes on the display has underlying data associated; data that we do not see but that instructs the processor how to place things on the screen, and once placed on the screen that underlying data becomes visible data. This interpretation is consistent with the Specification that explains, "filter parameters and view parameters can be distinguished from one another. Specifically, filter parameters can determine which data elements are visible in the display." Spec. ,r 23. Thus, the process of placing information onto the graphical user interface using the instruction provided by the filter parameters is "rendered data visualization" while the information that is perceived by the eye is the "visible data." For example, numbers (i.e. data) can be organized into rows and columns in a table and this information can be displayed in a variety of 2 Appeal2017-009498 Application 11/844,833 ways. The table of the raw data can be displayed; on the other hand, the information in the table can be displayed as a graph or pie chart as well. Here, information (i.e. data) that is not visible can provide the instructions of how to place things onto the monitor so the eye can perceive them and thereby that information becomes visible data. Therefore, we find no error with the Examiner's interpretation that "displayed data is rendered data visualization, and any data that is displayed is visible and therefore reads on 'visible data'. The teachings of the prior art reads on 'visible data in a rendered data visualization' since displayed data is also visible to the user and therefore is visible data." Ans. 4; see Decision 9--10. We are also not persuaded by Appellants' arguments attacking the teachings of Wolff alone (see, e.g., Req. Reh'g 7 ("The question is whether or not the teaching in Wolff of the hashing of a URL is equivalent to the claimed 'computing a hash value for visible data that is IN a rendered data visualization"')), because this does not account for the combination of Wolff with Kakii or Kakii and Seibel as relied on by Examiner in formulating the rejection. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,426 (CCPA 1981). To reiterate, Examiner found that Kakii teaches all elements of the claim but for the use of hash values for storage and retrieval, for this Examiner relies on Wolff. See Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 4 ("Kakii teaches selecting comments displayed on user interface and retrieving associated information based on the selection. [Wolff] teaches using hash values to retrieve related content"). Having found no deficiency in Kakii and Wolff, we are not persuaded by Appellants contention regarding Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) relying on the combination of Kakii and Wolff, or Kakii, Wolff, and Seibel. Req. Reh'g ,r 9; see Decision 5---6. 3 Appeal2017-009498 Application 11/844,833 In conclusion, Appellants failed to identify an issue of fact or law that was overlooked or misunderstood. Therefore, the request for rehearing is denied. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). REHEARING DENIED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation