Ex Parte Jaeger

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 22, 2011

10953053 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 22, 2011)

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.
10/953,053 09/28/2004 Denny Jaeger NBOR-023 3290
30139 7590 06/22/2011
WILSON & HAM
1811 Santa Rita Road
Suite 130
Pleasanton, CA 94566
EXAMINER
VAUGHN, GREGORY J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2178
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/22/2011 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DENNY JAEGER
____________

Appeal 2009-006878
Application 10/953,053
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP,
THU A. DANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-006878
Application 10/953,053

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Patent Examiner rejected claims 1, 4, and 6-24. The Appellant
appeals therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

INVENTION
The Appellant describes the invention at issue on appeal as "[a]
method for performing multimedia operations involves drawing a graphic
directional indicator to establish a signal path between at least one graphical
switch, such as a digital signal processing (DSP) or sound switch, and a
graphic control device, such as another graphical switch or a fader."
(Abstract.)

ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
1. A method for performing multimedia operations, said
method comprising:
displaying at least one graphical switch having an
associated function in a computer environment;
recognizing a drawn stroke between said at least one
graphical switch and another graphic element by a user as a
graphic directional indicator between said at least one graphical
switch and another graphic element in said computer
environment; and
activating a transaction assigned to said graphic
directional indicator; and
establishing a signal path between said at least one
graphical switch and said another graphical element.

Appeal 2009-006878
Application 10/953,053

3
REJECTION
Claims 1, 4, and 6-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over U.S. Patent (Application Pub.) No. 2003/0169289 A1
("Holt") and U.S. Patent (Application Pub.) No. 2003/0088852 A1
("Lacas").

CLAIM GROUPINGS
Based on the Appellant's arguments, we will decide the appeal of
claims 1, 4, 6-8, 13-15, and 18-24 on the basis of claim 1 alone, see 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), and the appeal of claims 9-12 collectively.

REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM 1
The issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding that
Lacas would have suggested a graphic directional indicator comprising a
drawn stroke between at least two graphic elements by a user and a
transaction assigned to the graphic directional indicator, as required by
representative claim 1.

Appeal 2009-006878
Application 10/953,053

4
FINDINGS OF FACT ("FFS")
1. Holt describes its invention as "interfaces between a user and a
device or plurality of devices, and more particularly, to software interfaces
for controlling and displaying the current status of components across a
network." (¶ 0002.)
2. Lacas describes its invention as follows.
[A] graphical control system for creating and operating
decomposable visual components ("DVCs") in a visual
networking operating system ("VNOS") is provided. The
DVCs may be related to system elements such as computing
devices, noncompeting devices and software applications or
programs that may be controlled by, observed by and/or
manipulated by the DVCs.
(¶ 0007.)

ANALYSIS
The Appellant admits that "Lacas et al. does disclose a directional
indicator in the form of an arrow, as shown in Figs. 10C-10E." (Appeal Br.
5.) He argues, however, that "Lacas et al. does not mention 'a drawn stroke
between said at least one graphical switch and another graphic element by a
user,' . . . . " (Id.)
The question of obviousness is "based on underlying factual
determinations including . . . what th[e] prior art teaches explicitly and
inherently . . . ." In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
(citations omitted). Furthermore, "'[e]very patent application and reference
relies to some extent upon knowledge of persons skilled in the art to
complement that disclosed . . . .'" In re Bode, 550 F.2d 656, 660 (CCPA
1977) (quoting In re Wiggins, 488 F.2d 538, 543 (CCPA 1973)). Those
Appeal 2009-006878
Application 10/953,053

5
persons "must be presumed to know something" about the art "apart from
what the references disclose." In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516 (CCPA
1962).
Here, Lacas explains that its "invention generally relates to . . .
graphically interacting with devices and/or applications associated with a
computing device." (¶ 0001.) More specifically, the reference describes the
creation of its DVCs (FF1) as follows. "Once instantiated these
decomposable visual components may then be configured while their
operation is displayed in a user interface. Specifically multiple DVCs may
be instantiated and connected such that a value in one DVC is
communicated to another DVC." (¶ 0007.)
We agree with the Examiner's finding that because "Lacas is directed
toward creating DVCs in a user interface, . . . the creation process is
performed by a user." (Ans. 11.) The Appellant does not contest this
finding. "Silence implies assent." Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation
Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 572 (1985). Because the reference's creation process
includes connecting DVCs displayed on a user interface and the reference
relates to graphically interacting with devices and applications, we agree
with the Examiner that Lacas would have suggested that the user draws the
connections between the DVCs. Furthermore, the Appellant admits that
Lacas embodies each connection as "a directional indicator in the form of an
arrow, as shown in Figs. 10C-10E." (Appeal Br. 5.)
The Appellant also argues that "Lacas et al. does not disclose any
transaction assigned to the arrow shown in Figs. 10C-10E." (Appeal Br. 6.)
We agree, however, with the Examiner's finding that "[i]n
paragraphs 67 to 70 of Lacas, a description of Figures 10A to 10E is
Appeal 2009-006878
Application 10/953,053

6
provided, [w]here the transactional aspect of the indicator are described."
(Ans. 12.) As a first example, the reference explains that the directional
indicator shown in Figure 10C enables "the variance in the fader 1050 [to]
directly affect[ ] the bar of the VU [i.e., volume unit ] meter 1055." (Lucas,
¶ 0068.) In other words, the transaction assigned to the directional indicator
is enabling the variance in the fader to affect the bar of the VU meter.
As a second example, the Figure 10D of the reference "shows a text
box . . . . The text box 1060 contains a numerical value and is connected to
the fader 1050. As a result [of the connection], when the fader is adjusted
the numerical value in the text box 1060 changes accordingly." (id. at ¶
0069.) In other words, the transaction assigned to the directional indicator is
enabling the numeric value in the text box to vary with the fader.
Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding that
Lacas would have suggested a graphic directional indicator comprising a
drawn stroke between at least two graphic elements by a user and a
transaction assigned to the graphic directional indicator, as required by
representative claim 1.

CLAIMS 9-12
The issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding that Holt
and Lacas would have suggested the limitations of claims 9-12.
Just as "[i]t is not the function of [the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit] to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an
appellant, looking for nonobvious distinctions over the prior art," In re
Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991), "it is not the
function of this Board to examine claims in greater detail than argued by an
Appeal 2009-006878
Application 10/953,053

7
appellant, looking for nonobvious distinctions over the prior art." Ex parte
Post, No. 2005-2042, 2006 WL 1665399 at *4 (BPAI 2006).
Here, the Examiner's Answer includes the following "specific and
detailed findings," Ex parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693, 2009 WL 2477843,
at *4 (BPAI Aug. 10, 2009) (informative), regarding claims 9-12.
Lacas discloses "drawing a second graphic directional indicator
on said graphic direction indicator, said second graphic
directional indicator being used to modify said transaction
assigned to said graphic directional indicator to a modified
transaction" (appellant's claim 9). See, for instance, figure 10 E
where second and third indicators are drawn. These additional
indicators are used to modify the transaction of the initial
indicator, so that the fader 1050 now controls both the VU
meter 1055 and the digital readout 1060.
Regarding appellant's claim 10, Holt discloses the
features as described above. Furthermore, Lacas discloses
modifying the transaction of the indicator in response to user
entered text near the indicator, in Figure 10E at reference sign
1060. The user enters text into the text box to modify the value
of the fader 1050 and the VU meter 1055). Regarding
appellant's claim 11, Lacas discloses showing the signal path in
Figures 10C to 10E. Regarding appellant's claim 12, Holt and
Lacas disclose graphical controls, where a toggle control and
sound switches are well known types of controls. As
mentioned above, Holt discloses creating a graphical
representation of the button or control and also creates a
software program function to enable that control.

(Ans. 12-13.)
The Appellant offers no reply to these findings, making no attempt to
"explain why the Examiner's explicit fact finding is in error." Belinne, at *4.
Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding that Holt
and Lacas would have suggested the limitations of claims 9-12.

Appeal 2009-006878
Application 10/953,053

8
DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 1 and 9-12 and that of claims 4, 6-8,
and 13-24, which fall therewith.
No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

tkl