Ex parte Herrod

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 10, 1999

08386604 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 10, 1999)

Application for patent filed February 9, 1995. Accord-1
ing to appellant, the application is a continuation of Appli-
cation 07/901,459, filed June 19, 1992, abandoned.
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 24
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte JOHN A. HERROD
_____________
Appeal No. 96-4029
Application 08/386,6041
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, JERRY SMITH and FLEMING, Administrative
Patent Judges.
Appeal No. 96-4029
Application 08/386,604
2
FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejec-
tion of claims 1 through 9, all of the claims pending in the
present application.
This invention relates to the field of graphic
display with data processing systems. More particularly, this
invention relates to graphic clipping. Graphic clipping is
the process in which each window contains graphic objects and
as the user varies the size of the window, the system deter-
mines what portion of the objects are inside the window and
displays only that portion. On page 2 of the specification,
Appellant discloses that there is a need for a way of dealing
with overlapping windows which does not rely on first drawing
and then overlaying the lower priority windows. Appellant
discloses a method of displaying overlapping windows contain-
ing graphic objects defined by graphic orders comprising the
steps of processing said graphic orders to generate modified
Appeal No. 96-4029
Application 08/386,604
3
graphic orders defining those portions of said graphic objects
not overlapped, and driving a graphic display device with said
modified graphic orders to display said portion of said
graphic objects not overlapped.
Independent claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A method of displaying, on a display terminal,
overlapping windows containing graphics objects defined by
graphics orders comprising the steps of:
obtaining a first list of graphic orders for graphic
objects in a first window of the overlapping windows and a
second list of graphic orders for graphic objects in a second
window of the overlapping windows, wherein the second window
has a higher priority than the first window;
processing the first list to identify nonoverlapping
graphic objects, wherein the nonoverlapping graphic objects
are not within an overlapping portion of the first and second
windows;
processing the second list of graphic orders and the
nonoverlapping graphic objects to generate a list of modified
graphic orders; and
driving the display terminal, with the list of
modified graphics orders to display the graphic objects of the
second window and the nonoverlapping graphic objects of the
first window.
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Holden et al. (Holden) 4,698,779 Oct. 6, 1987
Anthias et al. (Anthias) 4,890,257 Dec. 26, 1989
Appeal No. 96-4029
Application 08/386,604
4
Claims 1, 2, and 7 through 9 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Anthias. Claims 3
through 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Anthias in view of Holden.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and
the Examiner, reference is made to the brief and answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2,
and 7 through 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, nor will we sustain the
rejection of claims 3 through 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under
§ 102 can be found only if the prior art reference discloses
every element of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324,
1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann
Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d
1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appeal No. 96-4029
Application 08/386,604
5
Appellant argues on pages 5 and 6 of the brief that
Anthias fails to teach the claimed modified graphic orders.
In particular, Appellant argues that the claims recite, for
the list of modified graphic orders, a process to identify the
nonoverlapping portions of the lower priority window. Once
this has been identified, the nonoverlapping portions of the
first window are processed with graphic orders of the second
window to create, in one step, the list of modified graphic
orders without having to override any of the priority windows.
Appellant argues that Anthias is concerned with overlapping
windows without regard to the content of the windows and,
therefore, does not disclose or teach the creation of modified
graphic orders as recited in Appellant's claims.
The Examiner responds to Appellant's argument on
pages 5 and 6 of the answer. The Examiner argues that Anthias
discloses in column 3, lines 52 through 62, that an ordered
list is maintained of the active windows in priority order
thereof. The Examiner argues that Anthias therefore teaches
generating a modified graphic order list from overlapping
Appeal No. 96-4029
Application 08/386,604
6
windows so as to include only nonoverlapping portions of the
lesser priority windows.
We note that claim 1 recites the following:
obtaining a first list of graphic orders
for graphic objects in a first window of
the overlapping windows and a second list
of graphic orders for graphic objects in a
second window of the overlapping windows,
wherein the second window has a higher
priority than the first window;
processing the first list to identify
nonoverlapping graphic objects, wherein the
nonoverlapping graphic objects are not
within an overlapping portion of the first
and second windows;
processing the second list of graphic
orders and the nonoverlapping graphic
objects to generate a list of modified
graphic orders.
Furthermore, we note that claim 8 recites the following:
detection means for detecting
nonoverlapped graphics portions of the
graphics objects of the first list, wherein
the nonoverlapped graphics portions are not
overlaid by the second window;
processing means, operably coupled to
the detection means, for processing the
nonoverlapped graphics portions and the
second list of graphics orders to generate
a list of modified graphics orders.
Appeal No. 96-4029
Application 08/386,604
7
Therefore, we find that Appellant's claims recite a process or
an apparatus which creates a list of modified graphic orders
which allows for processing nonoverlapping portions of the
first window in one step without having to override any of the
lower priority windows.
Upon a closer review of Anthias, we find Anthias
teaches the process of overriding the lower priority windows.
In column 1, lines 48 through 62, Anthias teaches that the
prior art creates a composite display refresh buffer so that
the system can display multiple tasks. Anthias teaches that
the prior art maintains each task as being independent of the
other and each task occupies nonoverlapping space in the
memory. In column 4,
line 66, through column 5, line 20, Anthias teaches that their
invention relates to the maintaining of a current screen save
area, directly equivalent to the screen matrix of the prior
art referred to in Figures 1 and 2. In column 7, lines 37
through 45, Anthias points out the problem of reconstructing
Appeal No. 96-4029
Application 08/386,604
8
the screen ownership area and processing the window hierarchy.

Anthias discloses in column 7, lines 46 through 65, that their
invention overcomes this problem by maintaining an ownership
priority list. In column 8, lines 4 through 57, Anthias
discloses a multiple window display system which includes a
display device and a screen ownership area pointing to the
identity of the window which is to contribute the data for
each display area of the display device. An ordered list is
maintained of the active windows in the priority order
thereof. Anthias discloses that the lowest priority window is
first written into the display area and then each higher
priority window is then overwritten with this data. Anthias'
disclosure of the ownership priority list is not directed to
maintaining a list of modified graphic orders as claimed by
the Appellant. Anthias, on the other hand, teaches a list of
ownership priority which is only used to determine the
priority of the window, not to the objects within the window.
In view of the above, we find that Anthias fails to
teach all the limitations of Appellant's claims 1, 2, and 7
Appeal No. 96-4029
Application 08/386,604
9
through 9, and thereby the claims are not anticipated by
Anthias. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner's
rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 102.
Claims 3 through 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Anthias in view of Holden.
We note that the Examiner relies on Anthias for the teaching
of a list of modified graphic orders. Upon our review of
Anthias and Holden, we find that the references fail to
suggest or teach the list of modified graphic orders as
claimed by the Appellant. Therefore, we will not sustain the
rejection of claims 3 through 6 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
We have not sustained the rejection of claims 1
through 9. Accordingly, the Examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
Appeal No. 96-4029
Application 08/386,604
10
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF
PATENT
JERRY SMITH ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge )
INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
MRF:psb
Appeal No. 96-4029
Application 08/386,604
11
Mark S. Walker
IBM Corporation
Intellectual Property Law - 4054
11400 Burnet Road
Austin, TX 78758