Ex parte IGA

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 23, 2000

08202422 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 23, 2000)

1
Paper No. 23
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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte TOSHIO IGA
______________
Appeal No. 1998-0414
Application 08/202,422
_______________
HEARD: FEBRUARY 10, 2000
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, RUGGIERO and HECKER, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HECKER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejec-
tion of claims 1 through 7, all of the claims pending in the
application.
The invention relates to a method and apparatus for
displaying graphics on a display device. In the prior art, a
Appeal No. 1998-0414
Application 08/202,422
2
graphic management facility receives graphic element data,
including data specifying, for example, line width, etc., from
the application program and stores the graphic element data
into memory. When a draw request is input from the
application program, the stored data are retrieved, and screen
drawing is performed by sending an attribute specifying
command and a draw command to the display device. Instead of
outputting an attribute specifying command prior to a draw
command each time the command is invoked, the graphic
management facility outputs an attribute specifying command
only when the attributes of the graphic element to be output
are different from those of the previously output graphic
element. However, the prior art described graphic management
facility requires that the attribute data be compared each
time the graphic element data are retrieved from memory. When
processing a large number of line drawing data generated in a
computer aid design system, a large amount of time is required
for comparison, which is a major obstacle in speeding up the
drawing process.
The present invention solves this problem by
providing a graphic display method and an apparatus which
Appeal No. 1998-0414
Application 08/202,422
3
classifies graphic data into groups according to the
attributes of the graphic data and stores the groups into
memory. When a display request is issued, the graphic data
are output into a display device, one group at a time, thereby
reducing the amount of attribute judging and attribute
changing processing, which causes a substantial increase in
the display processing speed.
Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced as
follows:
1. A graphic display method comprising the steps
of:
generating data for graphic elements having a
plurality of attributes;
classifying the generated graphic element data into
groups according to the attributes of the graphic elements and
arranging the groups into memory according to classification;
and
outputting the graphic element data arranged in
memory onto a display device, one group at a time.
The references relied on by the Examiner are as
follows:
Shimada 4,847,788 July 11, 1989
Alexander 5,257,349 Oct. 26, 1993
(filed Dec. 18, 1990)

Claims 1 through 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
Appeal No. 1998-0414
Application 08/202,422
4
103 as being unpatentable over Alexander in view of Shimada.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the
Examiner, we make reference to the brief, reply brief and the
answer for the details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we
agree with the Examiner that claims 1 through 7 are properly
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
At the outset, we note that Appellant has indicated
on page 3 of the brief the claims stand or fall together. We
will consider claim 1 as the representative claim.
The central issue revolves around what is meant by
the claim language “graphic element data” and classifying this
data into groups according to their “attributes.” Appellant
insists that attributes of maps (Shimada) are not attributes
of graphic elements (reply brief-page 2). Appellant would
have us limit our understanding of “graphic element” to mean
Appeal No. 1998-0414
Application 08/202,422
5
such things as a “line”, with the line attribute being line
color or line width, etc. Thus, Appellant would like us to
read the specific disclosed embodiment into the claim. We
will not do this. Claims are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation during prosecution. In re Zletz,
893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In
re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969).
It is improper to narrow the scope of the claim by implicitly
reading in disclosed limitations from
the specification which have no express basis in the claims.
See Id.
The Examiner cites Alexander as displaying graphic
element data in groups related to physical attributes stored
in a memory. However, Alexander’s example of graphic element
data is data relating to, for example, one truck in a fleet of
trucks. And, the “attributes” include accordingly, present
location, total capacity of truck, percent capacity, etc.
Note column 4, lines 4-19, where Alexander states:
If, for example, the data object
is one of a fleet of trucks
Appeal No. 1998-0414
Application 08/202,422
6
belonging to a trucking company,
physical attributes stored in
memory may include present
location, total capacity of
truck, percent of capacity
represented by present load, fuel
supply, distance from next drop-
off point, distance to a proposed
new pick-up point, mechanical
status of truck, number of hours
the driver has been on the road,
highway conditions between
current location and next drop-
off point, driving conditions
between next drop-off point and
proposed new pick-up point, fuel
availability between various
drop-off and pick-up points,
replacement driver availability,
and so on. At least some of
these physical attributes may be
continually changing with time as
up-dated information is supplied
to computer memory.
Thus, the Examiner has interpreted the claim
language of “graphic element data” to be such things as
displayed truck data, and the corresponding groups of
attributes to be such things as fuel supply, truck capacity,
etc. Alexander takes an additional step by displaying the
graphic element data in the form of an icon. The icon,
treated by Alexander as a visual attribute, is linked to a
physical attribute (e.g. truck fuel), for display purposes
Appeal No. 1998-0414
Application 08/202,422
7
(note column 6, lines 38-42). We agree with the Examiner that
Alexander provides a reasonable interpretation of Appellant’s
claim language.
Assuming that Alexander does not disclose
“classifying the generated graphic element data into groups
according to the attributes of the graphic data and arranging
the groups into memory according to classification” (answer-
page 4), the Examiner relies on Shimada. Shimada processes
graphic data relating to maps, for example, instead of the
lines of Appellant or the truck data of Alexander. The
Examiner indicates that page boundaries of broken lines and
solid lines constitute the classified groups as an example in
Shimada (answer-page 4). Other examples of classified map
data groups in Shimada could be city or town boundaries, or
major buildings. Each of these attributes are classified,
stored and displayed in groups (note column 12, lines 48-58).
Since Alexander displays attribute groups, one group at a time
(via a visual attribute icon, representing, e.g. fuel), and
Shimada displays attribute groups, one group at a time
(representing, e.g. buildings), the Examiner contends it would
have been obvious to use Shimada’s classification and storing
Appeal No. 1998-0414
Application 08/202,422
8
of groups to “enhance” Alexander’s display by using “readily
organized” groups as taught by Shimada.
We agree with the Examiner that it would have been
obvious to refine one graphic display system, Alexander, with
an improvement from another graphic display system. Moreover,
we believe Shimada’s “readily organized” groups already exist
in Alexander, and Shimada could be considered a cumulative
teaching. Alexander collects information related to a data
object and builds a physical attribute object (column 6, lines
49 and 56), this could be considered as “classifying” and
placing in groups. Also, Alexander creates tagged sets of
objects (column 8, lines 30-44), this could also be considered
as “classifying” and placing in groups.
Thus, we find that the Examiner’s combination of
Alexander and Shimada reads on the claim language of claim 1,
as well as the references being cumulative to each other.
Appellant also argues that his invention shortens
processing time (brief-bottom of pages 5 and 10), whereas the
applied references do not. This argument fails at the outset
because it is not based on limitations appearing in the
Appeal No. 1998-0414
Application 08/202,422
9
claims. Thus, enhanced speed is immaterial. See In re Self,
671 F.2d 1344, 1350, 213 USPQ 1, 5 ((CCPA 1982).
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the
Examiner rejecting claims 1 through 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
Kenneth W. Hairston )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Joseph F. Ruggiero ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Stuart N. Hecker )
Administrative Patent Judge )

SNH/cam
Appeal No. 1998-0414
Application 08/202,422
10
Staas & Halsey
700 Eleventh Street, N.W.
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20001