Ex Parte Kolesnikov et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 23, 2017

13672495 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2017)

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.
13/672,495 11/08/2012 Vladimir Kolesnikov 079894.0684 3015
91230 7590
Baker Botts L.L.P.
2001 Ross Avenue. 6th Floor
Dallas, TX 75201
01/25/2017 EXAMINER
BARRETT, RYAN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2145
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/25/2017 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):
ptomaill @bakerbotts.com
ptomail2 @ bakerbotts .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VLADIMIR KOLESNIKOV and ANDREW CHIEN
Appeal 2016-000190
Application 13/672,495
Technology Center 2100
Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOVAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’
final rejection of claims 1—11, 16—19, and 21—25, which constitute the only
pending claims.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.2
1 Claims 12—15 and 20 have been canceled.
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed Nov. 8, 2012, the
Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed Jan. 8, 2015, the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.”) filed May 13, 2015, the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed
July 31, 2015, and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed Sept. 25, 2015.
Appeal 2016-000190
Application 13/672,495
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to rendering content objects by estimating the
number that will fit in a display area based on assumed object dimensions.
Adjustments are made to the assumed dimensions according to the
differences between the assumed and actual object dimensions in order to
improve object rendering. (Spec. Abstract.)
Claim 1, reproduced below with argued limitation shown in emphasis,
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
by a computing device, identifying a first number of
content objects to render for display along an axis within an area
of a graphical user interface (GUI) of the computing device, the
area having a maximum dimension along the axis, the first
number being based on:
one or more assumed dimensions of one or more
content objects along the axis;
and
the maximum dimension of the area along the axis,
wherein identifying the first number of content
objects comprises determining the first number of content objects
by using the one or more assumed dimensions of the one or more
content objects to estimate a maximum number of content objects
that will fit into the maximum dimension;
by the computing device, rendering the first number of
content objects for display along the axis within the area, each
content object when rendered having an actual dimension along
the axis;
by the computing device, determining one or more
differences between one or more of the assumed dimensions and
the actual dimensions;
by the computing device, adjusting one or more of the
assumed dimensions based at least in part on the differences;
by the computing device, identifying a second number of
content objects to render for display along the axis within the
area, the second number being based on:
2
Appeal 2016-000190
Application 13/672,495
the assumed dimensions as adjusted; and
the maximum dimension of the area along the axis;
and
by the computing device, rendering the second number of
content objects for display along the axis within the area.
REJECTIONS
(1) Claims 1—4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 16, 17, 21, and 25 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Schorr (US 2008/0282147 Al, published Nov.
13, 2008) and Carter et al. (US 2009/0307586 Al, published Dec. 10, 2009).
(Final Act. 2—19.)
(2) Claims 5 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
on Schorr, Carter, and Omni (“Messaging Products,” 17 Oct. 2010,
https://web.archive.Org/web/20101017232236/http://www.omnits.
conVcrm-integratiorFscreenshots.html). (Final Act. 19—21.)
(3) Claims 8, 9, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Schorr, Carter, and Zhu et al. (US 2012/0260157 Al, published
Oct. 11, 2012). (Final Act. 21-24.)
(4) Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Schorr, Carter, and Violet et al. (US 8,489,984, published July 16, 2013).
(Final Act. 24—25.)
(5) Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Schorr, Carter, and Jacobs (US 2006/0031760 Al, published Feb. 9, 2006.)
(Final Act. 25—27.)
3
Appeal 2016-000190
Application 13/672,495
ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 11
New Arguments presented in Reply Brief
At the outset, we note Appellants’ Appeal Brief arguments were made
under the assumption that the Examiner’s rejections map the claimed “area”
to Schorr’s “canvas.” (App. Br. 10.) However, the Examiner’s Answer
indicated the mapping of the claimed ‘area’ is to Schorr’s “page”, not to
Schorr’s “canvas.” (Ans. 3.) Appellants contend that the Examiner’s
Answer interprets Schorr differently than did the Final Office Action.
(Reply Br. 3.) Appellants assert this change in mapping represents a new
ground of rejection necessitating the arguments presented in the Reply Brief.
(Id.)
During our review of the Final Office Action, we find there was
reason for Appellants to interpret the Examiner’s mapping of the claimed
“area” to Schorr’s “canvas” rather than to Schorr’s “page.” Specifically, the
Final Office action cites Schorr to refer to lay out of content objects on a
“canvas.” (Final Act. 3.) There is no mention of “pages” as corresponding
to any of the elements of claims 1 and 11, and “pages” are not mentioned
until the end of the rejection with regard to the motivation to combine the
cited references. (Id. at 7.) The nature of the Examiner’s mapping was
important because Appellants’ Appeal Brief arguments contend Schorr’s
canvas can accept any number of content objects according to Schorr’s
teachings (see, e.g., Schorr 135), whereas in the claimed limitation, the
display area has a limited dimension into which to fit content objects. (App.
Br. 10.)
4
Appeal 2016-000190
Application 13/672,495
Under these circumstances, we find it appropriate to consider
Appellants’ arguments presented in the Reply Brief. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(b)(2).
Appellant’s Arguments presented in Reply Brief
Appellants contend Schorr fails to teach or suggest the claim
limitation of “determining the first number of content objects by using the
one or more assumed dimensions of the one or more content objects to
estimate a maximum number of content objects that will fit into the
maximum dimension,” as recited in claims 1 and 11. (Reply Br. 4.)
Specifically, Appellants argue Schorr does not “estimate a maximum
number of content objects,” but merely determines whether the page has
room for more content objects after multiple have already been placed on the
page. {Id. citing Schorr 141.) Appellants also argue Schorr does not use
“one or more assumed dimensions,” but instead merely looks at the actual
content objects on the page to determine whether more content objects can
fit on the page. {Id.) According to Appellants, Schorr does not describe
how this determination is made, nor does Schorr use assumed dimensions to
make an estimation. {Id.) Appellants further argue Schorr does not estimate
a maximum number of content objects that will fit into the maximum
dimension, but merely considers content objects that are already on the page,
resulting in no estimation of a future maximum number of content objects,
as the claims require. {Id.)
We agree with Appellants that the cited portions of Schorr do not
mention estimating the maximum number of content objects that will fit into
the maximum dimension of a display area using assumed dimensions of the
content objects, as recited in claims 1 and 11. Instead, Schorr fills up a page
5
Appeal 2016-000190
Application 13/672,495
with content objects, and when there is no longer room on the page, places
the overflow of content objects onto an additional page. (See Schorr || 35,
36, 41, 42, Figs. 2A, 3, 5.) Specifically, Schorr states “[wjhen content can
no longer be fitted to the content objects 202A-202G on the page 201A
without overflowing, the [desktop publishing] application 122 utilizes the
rules to determine how one or more additional pages should be added.” (Id.
at 141.) Thus, Schorr teaches that content objects causing overflow are
placed on additional pages of the canvas, and there is no estimate of the
maximum number of content objects that will fit before actually
encountering the overflow necessitating additional pages.
We also note that Schorr teaches that “constraints” determine the
initial locations and sizes of the content objects on a canvas, which the
Examiner appears to view as an estimate of the maximum number of objects
that will fit into the maximum dimension of a page. (Final Act. 3 citing
Schorr 136). Although the initial sizes of the content objects arguably
correspond to the claimed “assumed dimensions,” we nonetheless find no
mention in the cited parts of Schorr of estimating the maximum number of
content objects that will fit into the maximum dimension of a display area.
In the absence of a teaching or suggestion of this feature, we do not sustain
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 11 and their respective
dependent claims 2—10, 16—19, and 21—25.
6
Appeal 2016-000190
Application 13/672,495
DECISION
We reverse the rejections of claims 1—11, 16—19, and 21—25 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
7