Ex Parte Kudrolli et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 27, 2011

10020909 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 27, 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.
10/020,909 12/19/2001 Abdus Samad Kudrolli KSIPL-2 1482
7590 01/27/2011
Jay P. Kesan
2420 Nottingham
Champaign, IL 61821
EXAMINER
RUTLEDGE, AMELIA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/27/2011 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)
The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ABDUS SAMAD KUDROLLI, FEROZ KUDROLLI, and
PARVEZ KUDROLLI
____________

Appeal 2009-004523
Application 10/020,909
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before, MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING and
JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judges.

FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-004523
Application 10/020,909

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
(2002).

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We Affirm-In- Part.

THE INVENTION
Appellants claim a system and method for accommodating elements
of an information array within the physical constraints of a predetermined
two dimensional display space. (Specification 1:10-12)
Claims 1 and 17, reproduced below, are representative of the subject
matter on appeal.

1. A computer executable method for displaying elements of an
information array within a predetermined two dimensional display
space, wherein the predetermined two dimensional display space is
divided into cells formed at intersections of columns and rows, the
elements of the information array have corresponding cells for
display, and at least two of said elements include text, said method
comprising the steps of:
(a) determining display space requirement (DSR) for displaying the
elements;
(b) moderating the DSR value of at least one element to determine its
moderated display space requirement (ModDSR) value, wherein said
moderating step comprises:
(i) selecting an element whose DSR value is larger than the DSR
value of at least one element in the column or row to which said
Appeal 2009-004523
Application 10/020,909

3
element corresponds; and
(ii) reducing the DSR value of the selected element such that the
amount of reduction depends on the difference between the DSR
value of said element and a value representative of the DSR values of
the elements corresponding to the column or row to which said
element corresponds;
(c) allocating column widths and row heights, based on the ModDSR
values or on values obtained by using the ModDSR values, such that
the total width of all the columns and the total height of all the rows
do not exceed the width and height, respectively, of the predetermined
two dimensional display space; and
(d) displaying the elements in the space allocated to the corresponding
cells.

17. A computer executable method for displaying elements of an
information array within a predetermined two dimensional display
space, wherein the predetermined two dimensional display space is
divided into cells formed at intersections of columns and rows, the
elements of the information array have corresponding cells for
display, and at least two of said elements include text, said method
comprising the steps of:
(a) determining display space requirement (DSR) for displaying the
elements;
(b) determining moderated display space requirement (ModDSR)
values for elements corresponding to each column or to each row;
(c) measuring the lopsidedness of distribution of larger elements
across columns and across rows;
(d) depending upon whether the lopsidedness is greater across
columns or across rows, allocating column widths or row heights,
respectively, as a first allocation based on ModDSR values or on
values obtained by using the ModDSR values and thereafter in a
second allocation allocating row heights or column widths,
respectively, such that the total width of all the columns and the total
height of all the rows do not exceed the width and height,
respectively, of the predetermined two dimensional display space; and
Appeal 2009-004523
Application 10/020,909

4
(e) displaying the elements in the space allocated to the corresponding
cells.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Shin US 5,808,914 Sep. 15, 1998
Harada US 6,246,442 Jun. 12, 2001

The following rejections are before us for review.
The Examiner rejected claims 17-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Harada.
The Examiner rejected claims 1-16 and 25-28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Harada in view of Shin.
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-16 and 25-28 on appeal as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Harada in view of Shin on
the grounds that a person with ordinary skill in the art would understand that
Shin discloses or makes obvious part (b)(i)-(ii) of claims 1 and 25?
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 17-24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Harada on the grounds that Harada
discloses the allocation of column widths or row heights based on space
required by content and thus meets the claim requirements?

Appeal 2009-004523
Application 10/020,909

5
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence:
1. We adopt the Examiner’s findings with respect to the rejection made
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as our own.
2. The Specification describes lopsidedness in the context of; “[i]f the
larger elements are largely concentrated in one or a few columns, then the
distribution is said to be lopsided across columns. If the larger elements are
largely concentrated in one or a few rows, then the distribution is said to be
lopsided across rows.” (Spec. 57 ll. 33-37).
3. The Specification states that “the measurement of lopsidedness is
used as a basis for deciding whether column first allocation or row first
allocation will be done….” (Spec. 60 ll. 60)

ANALYSIS
We affirm the rejection of claims 17-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (e) as
anticipated by Harada, and reverse the rejection of claims 1-16 and 25-28
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Harada in view of Shin.
Claims 17-24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Harada.
Appellants argue that Harada “does not teach measuring the
lopsidedness of distribution of larger elements across columns and across
rows, and it does not teach the conditional allocation of column widths or
row heights as a first allocation….” (Appeal Br. 25).

Appeal 2009-004523
Application 10/020,909

6
Claim 17.
Preliminarily we address the scope of claim 17. Claim 17 recites in
pertinent part: (d) depending upon whether the lopsidedness is greater
across columns or across rows, allocating column widths or row heights,
respectively, as a first allocation based on ModDSR values or on values
obtained by using the ModDSR values and thereafter in a second allocation
allocating row heights or column widths, respectively,….
The Specification describes “lopsidedness” in the context of; “[i]f the
larger elements are largely concentrated in one or a few columns, then the
distribution is said to be lopsided across columns. If the larger elements are
largely concentrated in one or a few rows, then the distribution is said to be
lopsided across rows.” (FF 2). The Specification goes on to describe that
“the measurement of lopsidedness is used as a basis for deciding whether
column first allocation or row first allocation will be done….” (FF 3).
However, Appellants’ claim language does not cover what the
Specification describes. Instead it recites if “lopsidedness is greater across
columns or across rows, allocating column widths or row heights,
respectively, as a first allocation”. This language does not cover using the
measurement of lopsidedness as a basis for deciding whether column first
allocation or row first allocation will be done because the “if” condition is
written to cover both, columns or rows, in the alternative, and thus is an
indistinguishable condition.
Based on this analysis, we interpret claim 17 not to require a
conditional allocation of column widths or row heights as a first allocation,
Appeal 2009-004523
Application 10/020,909

7
but rather interpret claim 17 to only require measuring lopsidedness across
columns and rows and allocating column widths and row heights to any
lopsidedness in columns and rows based on ModDSR values or on values
obtained by using the ModDSR values. Therefore, we find Appellants’
argument not to be persuasive because the Examiner found, and we agree,
that Harada meets this limitation by disclosing “the conditional allocation of
column widths or row heights based on space required by content, i.e.,
lopsidedness; at Col. 61, l. 32-Co1.62, l. 64.” (Answer 17).
Appellants further argue that “Harada does not disclose an "X or Y
axis restrictive condition" (Appeal Br. 25)
The Examiner however maintains that Harada in another embodiment
discloses ‘“a restrictive condition such that the number of display units along
one display axis is set as large as possible is selected as one particular cell
layout restrictive condition...’ (see Harada at col. 61, l. 41-45).” (Answer 8).
Our review of Harada at this section reveals that Harada discloses a
restrictive condition in that “the number of display units along one display
axis is set as large as possible….” We thus find Appellants’ argument not
persuasive because we interpret the disclosed “one display axis” in Harada
to mean one of the X or Y axes.
We thus affirm the rejection of claim 17.
Claim 22.
The Examiner found with respect to step b of claim 22 that:
Harada teaches checking whether the
predetermined two dimensional display space is
adequate for displaying the information array
Appeal 2009-004523
Application 10/020,909

8
elements in a matrix format, since Harada teaches
determining the optimum size of a cell related to a
display area and adjusting the size of adjacent cells
(Fig. 56; Col. 56, I. 46-Col. 57, I. 29) as well as
reducing the font size of text elements to an
optimum size (Col. 27, I. 35-Col. 28, I. 48).
Similarly, Harada teaches displaying the elements
in the space allocated to the corresponding cells.
(Answer 19-20).
In reply, Appellants only argue that Harada does not disclose this
limitation. (Reply Brief 4). A statement which merely points out what a
claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of
the claim. See, 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(vii) (2004) We therefore will
sustain the rejection of claim 22 based on the findings made by the
Examiner.
We also affirm the rejections of dependent claims 18-21, 23 and 24
since Appellants have not challenged such with any reasonable specificity
(see In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
Claims 1 and 25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) using
Harada in view of Shin
Claims 1 and 25 recite in pertinent part:
(b) moderating the DSR value of at least one
element to determine its moderated display space
requirement (ModDSR) value, wherein said
moderating step comprises:
(i) selecting an element whose DSR value is larger
than the DSR value of at least one element in the
column or row to which said element corresponds;
and
(ii) reducing the DSR value of the selected element
Appeal 2009-004523
Application 10/020,909

9
such that the amount of reduction depends on the
difference between the DSR value of said element
and a value representative of the DSR values of the
elements corresponding to the column or row to
which said element corresponds;….
The Examiner found that Harada does not disclose this feature, but
found that it is disclosed by Shin (Answer 9). In so doing, the Examiner
cites to Shin at “(col. 19, l. 45-col. 23, l. 40; col. 26, l. 6-22; col. 38, l. 37-54;
col. 45, l. 30- 50; claims 1 and 10)” as disclosing this feature (Answer 9).
We have reviewed each of the portions of Shin cited by the Examiner
above, and do not find where the required elements of part (b)(i)-(ii) of
claims 1 and 25 is disclosed or made obvious by Shin. Specifically, Shin at
col. 19, l. 45-col. 23, l. 40, col. 26, ll. 6-22, col. 45, l. 30-50, and in claims 1
and 10, discloses a simplex table used in conjunction with linear
programming which ultimately results in a list whereby an optimum
parameter corresponding to a minimum value of an objective function is
acquired, but is not based on any difference between the DSR value and a
value representative of the DSR values of the elements corresponding to the
column or row to which an element corresponds. Likewise, in col. 38, ll.
37-54, Shin discloses maximum or minimum of register objective functions
are searched, rather than determining the difference between the DSR value
and a value representative of the DSR values of the elements corresponding
to the column or row to which an element corresponds.
Accordingly we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 25.
Since claims 2-16, 26, 27, and 28, depend from claims 1 and 26, and since
Appeal 2009-004523
Application 10/020,909

10
we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 26, the rejection of claims 2-
16 and 26-28 likewise cannot be sustained.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 17-24
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Harada.
We conclude that the Examiner did err in rejecting claims 1-16 and
25-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Harada in view
of Shin.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 17-24 is AFFIRMED.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-16 and 25-28 is
REVERSED.
AFFIRMED-IN-PART.

MP

Jay P. Kesan
2420 Nottingham
Champaign, IL 61821