Ex Parte Higgins et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 3, 201714122282 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 3, 2017) 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. 14/122,282 11/26/2013 Stewart Anderson Higgins 2011P00553WOUS 3942 24737 7590 07/06/2017 PTTTT TPS TNTFT T FfTTTAT PROPFRTY fr STANDARDS EXAMINER 465 Columbus Avenue WANG, JIN CHENG Suite 340 Valhalla, NY 10595 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2618 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/06/2017 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): marianne. fox @ philips, com debbie.henn @philips .com patti. demichele @ Philips, com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STEWART ANDERSON HIGGINS, ALEXANDER ADRIANUS MARTINUS VERBEEK, and ERIC CHRISTIAAN SLUITERS Appeal 2017-003 0051 Application 14/122,282 Technology Center 2600 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1—8, 10, and 13—20. Claims 9, 11, and 12 have been canceled. Final Act. 1—2; App. Br. 21.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Koninklijke Philips Electronics, N.V. App. Br. 1. 2 We refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”), filed Nov. 26, 2013 (claiming benefit of PCT/IB2012/052548 filed May 22, 2012, andEPO 11168450.2 filed June 1, 2011); Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed Jan. 5, 2016; and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed Dec. 15, 2016. We also refer to Appeal 2017-003005 Application 14/122,282 We affirm. Appellants ’ Invention The invention generally concerns data visualization systems (i.e., graphical user interfaces (GUIs)) for displaying data in timelines, and more specifically, systems and methods for interacting with timelines utilizing a computer. The system includes a unit for displaying a first timeline and a second timeline, such that the first timeline and the second timeline are displayed in the same time scale. The system further includes an interaction unit enabling a user to indicate a change to the displayed time segments (timelines) and a time segment updater that determines an updated first time segment and an updated second time segment based on the indicated change, keeping the time scale of the first timeline equal to the time scale of the second timeline, and keeping a temporal offset between the first time segment and the second time segment constant. Spec. pp. 1—5; Abstract. Representative Claim Independent claim 1, reproduced below with key disputed limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention: 1. A system for interacting with timelines, comprising a computer configured to include: a first timeline unit for displaying a first timeline showing a first plurality of events within a first time segment bounded by a first begin time and a first end time; a second timeline unit for displaying a second timeline showing a second plurality of events within a second time segment bounded by a second begin time and a second end time, the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed Oct. 21, 2016, and Final Office Action (Final Rejection) (“Final Act.”) mailed Aug. 12, 2015. 2 Appeal 2017-003005 Application 14/122,282 wherein the first timeline and the second timeline are displayed in the same time scale; an interaction unit for enabling a user to indicate a change to the displayed time segments; a time segment updater for determining an updated first time segment and an updated second time segment based on the indicated change, keeping the time scale of the first timeline equal to the time scale of the second timeline, and keeping a temporal offset between the first time segment and the second time segment constant; and wherein the timeline units are configured to update their respective displays according to the updated time segments. Rejection on Appeal The Examiner rejects claims 1—8, 10, and 13—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mathew et al. (US 2008/0235277 Al, published Sept. 25, 2008) (“Mathew”), Hanrahan et al. (US 2006/0206512 Al, published Sept. 14, 2006) (“Hanrahan”), Hao et al. (US 2011/0298804 Al, published Dec. 8, 2011 (filed June 7, 2010)) (“Hao”), Khafizova (US 8,928,606 Bl, issued Jan. 6, 2015 (filed Apr. 24, 2012 claiming benefit of US 13/033,798 filed Feb. 24, 2011)), Hafey et al. (US 7,890,498 Bl, issued Feb. 15, 2011 (filed Nov. 25, 2002)), Poon et al. (US 8,391,161 Bl, issued Mar. 5, 2013 (filed May 7, 2009)), and John (US 2008/0288023 Al, published Nov. 20, 2008). ISSUES Based upon our review of the record, Appellants’ contentions, and the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the issues before us follow: 3 Appeal 2017-003005 Application 14/122,282 Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Mathew, Hanrahan, Hao, Khafizova, Hafey, Poon, and John collectively would have taught or suggested that: the first timeline and the second timeline are displayed in the same time scale; [and] a time segment updater for determining an updated first time segment and an updated second time segment based on the indicated change, keeping the time scale of the first timeline equal to the time scale of the second timeline, and keeping a temporal offset between the first time segment and the second time segment constant as recited in Appellants’ claim 1? 2. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Mathew, Hanrahan, Hao, Khafizova, Hafey, Poon, and John collectively would have taught or suggested: a time point input unit for enabling the user to indicate a first time point on the first timeline and a second time point on the second timeline, and wherein the first timeline unit and the second timeline unit are arranged for aligning the first time point on the first timeline with the second time point on the second timeline, and for keeping the time points aligned when the user makes a change to the time segments such that a temporal offset between the first time point and the second time point is kept constant as recited in Appellants’ claim 2? 3. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Mathew, Hanrahan, Hao, Khafizova, Hafey, Poon, and John collectively would have taught or suggested: independently moving the first time segment along the first timeline and the second time segment independently adjusting the first time scale and the second time scale; 4 Appeal 2017-003005 Application 14/122,282 receiving a selection of a first time point on the first timeline . . . receiving a selection of a second time point on the second timeline from the user input device in response to an input to enter a linked mode; displaying the first and second timelines and time axes of the first and second timelines parallel to each other with the first and second time points aligned such that the first and second time points define a line perpendicular to the time axes; and adjusting at least one of the first and second time scales such that the first timeline and the second timeline are displayed with a common time scale; within the meaning of Appellants’ claim 14 and the commensurate limitations of claim 16? ANALYSIS The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 1 and 4—7 Appellants argue claims 1 and 4—7 together and do not separately argue dependent claims 4—7. App. Br. 9—11. The Examiner rejects claim 1 as being obvious in view of Mathew, Hanrahan, Hao, Khafizova, Hafey, Poon, and John. See Final Act. 2—3. Appellants contend that Mathew, Hanrahan, Hao, Khafizova, Hafey, Poon, and John do not teach the disputed features of representative claim 1. See App. Br. 9-11; Reply Br. 2—5. Specifically, Appellants contend that “the Examiner has failed to show where the motivation in each of the six teaching references is found to modify the base reference, Mathew. Nor does the Examiner explain in the rejection of claim 1, just how Mathew is modified by each of the six teaching references.” App. Br. 9. Appellants further contend that “even if 5 Appeal 2017-003005 Application 14/122,282 one were, by hindsight, to pick and choose and various pieces of the seven references applied by the Examiner, the various pieces and parts would still not combine to disclose” the disputed limitations of claim 1. App. Br. 10. Also, Appellants make numerous arguments for the first time in the Reply Brief with respect to Mathew, Poon, and Khafizova. Reply Br. 2—5. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2—10) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 2— 31) in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the findings and conclusions reached by the Examiner, and we provide the following for emphasis. Initially we note that Appellants make new arguments in their Reply Brief. See Reply Br. 2—5; compare App. Br. 9—10. For example, in their Reply Brief, for the first time, Appellants provide detailed arguments with respect to the primary reference, Mathew. See Reply Br. 2—3. In particular, Appellants contend that the “Examiner is reading into Mathew many limitations, such as dates, how time segments are selected, temporal alignment, temporal offsets, and other things which Mathew does not address.” Reply Br 3. The Examiner explained how Mathew describes displaying multiple timelines having the same time scale, selecting and adjusting time periods (time segments), maintaining a temporal offset, and updating time segments. Final Act. 3^4. Appellants, as discussed infra, do not address these findings in their Appeal Brief. Further, Appellants do not provide a compelling explanation for why these arguments were not previously presented. Therefore, these arguments are waived. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1473—74 (BPAI 2010) (informative opinion) 6 Appeal 2017-003005 Application 14/122,282 (absent a showing of good cause, the Board is not required to address an argument newly presented in the reply brief that could have been presented in the principal brief on appeal); 37 C.F.R. §41.41(b)(2) (same). We will not consider or address Appellants new arguments in their Reply Brief. Turning to Appellants’ Appeal Brief, Appellants make generalized arguments concerning the Examiner’s rationale for combining the seven cited prior art references, contend the Examiner has not presented a prima facie obviousness rejection because the Examiner has not provided a detailed explanation and/or mapping with respect to Mathew and the other six references, contend that the references have materially different purposes, and contend that the combination of references does not teach the disputed features of claim 1. See App. Br. 9-10. Appellants’ generalized arguments and contentions do not directly dispute the Examiner’s rationale for combining Mathew, Hanrahan, Hao, Khafizova, Hafey, Poon, and John. Nor, do they directly dispute (or persuasively rebut) the Examiner’s findings with respect to Mathew or the other cited references (Hanrahan, Hao, Khafizova, Hafey, Poon, and John). Appellants provide no persuasive evidence in their Appeal Brief to rebut the Examiner’s findings or reasoning, let alone demonstrate error in the Examiner’s findings. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs, 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant.”). It is Appellants’ burden to address at-issue claim features and corresponding arguments with meaningful particularity. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (affirming because Appellants “merely argued that the claims differed from [the prior art], and chose not to proffer a serious explanation of this 7 Appeal 2017-003005 Application 14/122,282 difference.”). Indeed, Appellants provide mere unsupported attorney argument contending that, for a number of reasons, the Examiner has erred {supra). Such attorney argument and conclusory statements, unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen- Probe, Inc., 424 F.3d 1276, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Attorney argument is no substitute for evidence.”). We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by the Appellants and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d at 1365 (“it has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identity the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections”)). After considering the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellants’ arguments, we are not persuaded that Appellants identify reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 2 and 3 Appellants argue claims 2 and 3 together and provide nominal separate arguments with respect to dependent claim 3. App. Br. 11—12. The Examiner rejects claims 2 and 3 as being obvious in view of Mathew, Hanrahan, Hao, Khafizova, Hafey, Poon, and John. See Final Act. 10-12. Appellants contend that Mathew, Hanrahan, Hao, Khafizova, Hafey, Poon, and John do not teach the disputed features of representative claim 2. See App. Br. 11—12; Reply Br. 6—7. Specifically, Appellants contend claim 2 recites: 8 Appeal 2017-003005 Application 14/122,282 a first time input unit for enabling a user to indicate a first time point on the first timeline and a second time point on the second timeline, and wherein the first timeline unit and the second timeline unit are arranged for aligning the first time point with a second time point and keeping the time points aligned when the user makes a change to the time segments such that the temporal offset between the first and second time point is kept constant App. Br. 11. Appellants further contend that Mathew describes selecting different time periods, “but does not teach or fairly suggest the selection of time points on first and second timelines.” Id. Appellants also contend that Hanrahan, cited by the Examiner as teaching a specific time point and aligning the time points (see Final Act. 10-11), “is not analogous to Mathew. Rather, Hanrahan relates to drilling down on data from progressively more detail, e.g., years, to quarters, to months, etc. Moreover, Hanrahan relates to bar graphs, not timelines.” Id. Further still, Appellants contend that Khafizova, cited by the Examiner as teaching selecting specific timeline time periods or events and linking or synchronizing two timelines (see Final Act. 11), “also does not call for selecting a time point on the first time line and a second time point on the second timeline. . . . and keeping these time points temporally fixed when a user makes a change to the time segments.” We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 10—12) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 31—37) in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the findings and conclusions reached by the Examiner, and we provide the following for emphasis. 9 Appeal 2017-003005 Application 14/122,282 The Examiner finds that Mathew describes displaying and manipulating timelines, as well as linking and synchronizing selected time periods in the timelines. See Ans. 31—37. Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s findings with respect to Mathew. See App. Br. 11. Instead, Appellants contend Mathew does not teach “the selection of time points on first and second timelines.” App. Br. 11. Mathew describes selecting and displaying specific events (see Fig. 4a-4d) that correspond to specific points in time. Mathew 129; see, e.g., 123 (calendar events). Notwithstanding Mathew’s teachings, the Examiner cited Hanrahan as teaching selecting and aligning specific time points. See Final Act. 10-11 (citing Hanrahan Fig. 17—21). Hanrahan at least suggests multiple simultaneously displayed timelines (see Figs. 18 and 22, showing timelines for 1998 sales and 1999 sales) and selecting specific time points (see Figs. 18 and 22, showing months and quarters in 1998 and 1999 timelines). Hanrahan describes selecting specific time points, such as months and quarters in yearly timelines. Months and/or quarters are specific points in time. Appellant claims do not recite any particular limit in the amount of time that may constitute a time period, time segment, or a specific point in time. Appellants contend Hanrahan is not analogous art. We disagree. Hanrahan describes computer systems for displaying data (GUIs) in a multitude of dimensions including, for example, time. See Hanrahan Abstract; || 19 (Fig. 3), 33 (Fig. 17). The Examiner further cites Khafizova as teaching selecting specific timeline time periods or events and linking or synchronizing multiple timelines. See Final Act. 11. Khafizova describes displaying multiple 10 Appeal 2017-003005 Application 14/122,282 (related) events (medical diagnosis from medical records) in multiple timelines, displaying time intervals between events, and aligning, events, time intervals, and timelines. See Fig. 6; col. 10,11. 1—9; col. 11,11. 2—5, 8— 16, and 37—59. Appellants contend Khafizova “does not call for selecting a time point on the first timeline and a second time point on the second timeline. . . . and keeping these time points temporally fixed when a user makes a change to the time segments.” App. Br. 11. But, Khafizova describes points (diagnosis or disorder identification dates) on multiple timelines derived from records having specific dates (see Fig. 6B; col. 10,11. 7—9). See Fig. 6. The events are selected and placed into respective timelines so that the events and intervals between related events/points on the timelines are linked, synchronized (aligned), and displayed to aid in diagnosis. See Fig. 6; col. 10,11. 1—9; col. 11,11. 2—5, 8—16, and 37—59. We find, therefore, that Khafizova at least suggests keeping points in different timelines temporally fixed (i.e., keeping a temporal offset constant) when changes are made to the timeline (such as adding additional related events). For example, in Khafizova’s Fig. 6, the dates of diagnosis for various disorders for various patients (in different timelines) do not change when other patients and disorders are added. We agree with the Examiner and find a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the combination of Mathew, Hanrahan, Hao, Khafizova, Hafey, Poon, and John and, in particular, Mathew, Hanrahan, and Khafizova would have taught or at least suggested the disputed features of Appellants’ claim 2. Appellants do not rebut the Examiner’s findings with respect to the references and improperly attack the references individually instead of addressing the combination as a whole. The cited references must be read, 11 Appeal 2017-003005 Application 14/122,282 not in isolation, but for what each fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references). Appellant’s arguments do not take into account what the combination of Mathew, Hanrahan, and Khafizova would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art — The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference;. .. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted). Additionally, we agree with the Examiner and find that it would have been well within the skill of one skilled in the art to combine such known techniques manipulating timeline points/events as taught by Mathew, Hanrahan, and Khafizova, keeping the temporal offset between points/events constant as taught by Mathew, Hanrahan, and Khafizova. See KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill”). We are not persuaded that combining the respective familiar elements of the cited references in the manner proffered by the Examiner would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” at the time of Appellant’s invention. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). 12 Appeal 2017-003005 Application 14/122,282 With respect to claim 3, Appellants merely state that Hanrahan and Khafizova do not teach vertical alignment of two timeline points. See App. Br. 12. Appellants do not directly address or rebut the Examiner’s findings with respect to Hanrahan (which describes vertical alignment with respect to different time points (months and/or quarters in different years)) and Khafizova (which describes aligning timeline points). See Final Act. 12. For the same reasons as claims 1 and 2 {supra), we also find Appellants arguments with respect to claim 3 unavailing of Examiner error. Thus, Appellant does not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of representative dependent claims 2 and 3 and, accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2 and 3. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 8, 10, and 13—20 Appellants provide separate arguments with respect to independent claims 14 and 16, but do not separately argue dependent claims 8, 10, 13, 15, and 17—20. App. Br. 12—17. The Examiner rejects claims 14 and 16 as being obvious in view of Mathew, Hanrahan, Hao, Khafizova, Hafey, Poon, and John. See Final Act. 16—25, 27. We will address claims 14 and 16 together because the Examiner uses the same reasoning and Appellants’ arguments substantially overlap. Appellants contend that Mathew, Hanrahan, Hao, Khafizova, Hafey, Poon, and John do not teach the disputed features of representative claims 14 and 16. See App. Br. 12—17; Reply Br. 7—11. Specifically, Appellants contend claim 14 recites: an unlimited mode in which a user causes a first timeline with a plurality of events within a first time segment to be displayed and a second timeline with a plurality of events in a second time segment to be displayed. In the unlimited mode, the first and 13 Appeal 2017-003005 Application 14/122,282 second time segments are moved independently along the timelines and the time scales of the first and second timelines are independently adjusted. This enables the user to move the segments independently along the time axes to find two points of interest. The user then selects first and second time points on the first and second timelines respectively to enter a linked mode, in which the first and second time points are displayed such that they define a line perpendicular to the time axes and the time scales of the first and second timelines are adjusted to a common time scale App. Br. 12—13. Appellants further contend that none of Mathew, Hanrahan, Hao, Khafizova, Hafey, Poon, and John teach the recited unlimited mode or changing to a linked mode. Id. With respect to Mathew, Appellants contend Mathew does not describe the unlimited mode features (independently moving time segments along timelines and independently adjusting time scales), but rather “Mathew merely suggests selecting events such as current events and past events.” App. Br. 13. We disagree. As explained with respect to claim 2 {supra), Mathew describes displaying and manipulating timelines and, in particular, selecting and displaying specific events corresponding to specific points in time. We agree with the Examiner {see Final Act. 17—18; Ans. 39) that Mathew also describes independently manipulating time segments and adjusting time scales in distinct timelines. We also agree with the Examiner that Hanrahan at least suggests selecting and aligning time points {see Final Act. 19-22) and Khafizova at least suggests selecting timeline time periods or events and linking multiple timelines {see Final Act. 22—23). See discussion of claim 2 {supra). It follows that we find Appellants’ arguments {see App. Br. 13) concerning Hanrahan and Khafizova unpersuasive. 14 Appeal 2017-003005 Application 14/122,282 With respect to Poon, John, and Hafey, Appellants merely assert that these references do not teach the various features of claim 14. See App. Br. 13—14. Appellants, however, make generalized arguments (id.) concerning the references (Poon, John, and Hafey) and do not directly address or dispute the Examiner’s findings (see Final Act. 23—25) with respect to Poon, John, and Hafey. We adopt the Examiner’s findings and reasoning with respect to Poon, John, and Hafey. See Final Act. 23—25; Ans. 42 46. It follows that we find Appellants’ arguments concerning Poon, John, and Hafey unpersuasive for the same reasons as claims 1 and 2 (supra). Appellants’ generalized attorney argument has little persuasive value. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d at 1365 and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d at 1470. And, Appellants fail to address what the combination of Poon, John, and Hafey (with Mathew, Hanrahan, and Khafizova) would have suggested. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d at 1097. With respect to Appellants’ arguments concerning claim 16 and Mathew, Hanrahan, Khafizova, Hafey, Poon, and John (see App. Br. 15—16) we find Appellants arguments unpersuasive for the same reasons as claim 14. Further, we find Appellants’ arguments concerning Hao (see App. Br. 15) equally unpersuasive. The Examiner cited Hao as teaching synchronizing timelines. Final Act 22. Appellants concede Hao describes “a common timeline or scale onto which all of the data or events are fit.” App. Br. 15. The Examiner did not cite Hao as teaching independent time segment and timeline manipulation. Thus, Appellants do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 14 and 16 or dependent claims 8, 10, 13, 15, and 17—20, not separately argued with particularity (supra). 15 Appeal 2017-003005 Application 14/122,282 Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 8, 10, and 13—20. CONCLUSION Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-8, 10, and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—8, 10, and 13—20. 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 16 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation