Ex Parte Lindsey

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 4, 2017

13757161 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 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.
13/757,161 02/01/2013 Teddy LINDSEY 053549.00070 2599
32294 7590 01/06/2017
Squire PB (NVA/DC Office)
8000 TOWERS CRESCENT DRIVE
14TH FLOOR
VIENNA, VA 22182-6212
EXAMINER
KHONG, ALEXANDER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2155
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/06/2017 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):
IPGENER ALTY C @ SQUIREpb.COM
SONIA. WHITNEY @ SQUIREpb.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TEDDY LINDSEY
Appeal 2015-008265
Application 13/757,161
Technology Center 2100
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
Opinion for the Board filed by
Administrative Patent Judge McCARTNEY,
Dissenting Opinion filed by
Administrative Patent Judge ELENI MANTIS MERCADER,
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal 2015-008265
Application 13/757,161
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present patent application concerns “computer systems that
provide one or more software applications utilized in collecting,
organization, visualizing, and sharing of data.” Spec. 12. Claim 1
illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A method, comprising:
displaying a timeline;
determining that a plurality of events to be displayed
within the timeline will not fit within the timeline;
grouping the plurality of events into a first group of events
and a second group of events;
displaying the first group of events within the timeline;
and
displaying an icon within the timeline, wherein the icon
represents one or more events of the second group of events;
wherein a first visual characteristic of the icon represents
a temporal position of the one or more events;
wherein a second visual characteristic of the icon
represents an amount of the one or more events, and
wherein the second visual characteristic of the icon is an
opacity of the icon.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over various
combinations of Chow et al. (US 2013/0086501 Al; Apr. 4, 2013), Das et al.
(US 2011/0206284 Al; Aug. 25, 2011), Classen et al. (US 8,085,269 Bl;
Dec. 27, 2011), and Fugitt et al. (US 2007/0245238 Al; Oct. 18, 2007).
2
Appeal 2015-008265
Application 13/757,161
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites in relevant part “wherein a second visual characteristic
of the icon represents an amount of the one or more events” and “wherein
the second visual characteristic of the icon is an opacity of the icon.” App.
Br. 22. Independent claims 9 and 17 recite similar limitations. Id. at 23—25.
The Examiner found Chow’s event group icons teach a “second visual
characteristic of the icon represents an amount of the one or more events”
but that Chow in combination with Das does not teach the “second visual
characteristic of the icon is an opacity of the icon.” Final Act. 2—3, 7.
However, the Examiner found Classen teaches this limitation because
Classen discloses an “icon visual aspect could be modified based on a
determined property to provide a transparent appearance according to an
opacity factor.” See id. at 3. The Examiner found one of skill in the art
would have been motivated to combine Chow’s, Das’s, and Classen’s
teachings in the claimed manner “to display distinguishable objects at
identical or similar positions] that can be accessible by the user.” Id. at 7.
Appellant argues one of ordinary skill in the art would not have
modified Chow’s event group icons in the manner proposed by the
Examiner. See App. Br. 9—14. Among other things, Appellant contends
Classen uses opacity to visually distinguish audio icons displayed near one
another, not to represent an event amount as required by the independent
claims. Id. at 10-12. According to Appellant, the cited art does not suggest
using opacity to determine an event amount represented by an icon, and the
Examiner has not provided sufficient reason to use opacity in this manner.
See Reply Br. 6; App. Br. 12—13.
3
Appeal 2015-008265
Application 13/757,161
We find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. As argued by Appellants,
the Examiner has not identified anything in Chow, Das, or Classen that
suggests using opacity to indicate an event amount, nor has the Examiner
provided sufficient reason to modify Chow’s invention to use opacity this
way. The Examiner explicitly found Chow and Das do not teach or suggest
this aspect of the claims. See Final Act. 7. And contrary to the Examiner’s
findings, the cited portions of Classen do not remedy this deficiency. The
cited portions of Classen disclose that Classen’s “system facilitates the
display of multiple objects at identical or very similar positions by giving the
corresponding icons a transparent appearance according to an opacity factor.
Therefore, objects at identical or similar positions are distinguishable and
accessible by a user.” Classen 9:63—67; see also Final Act. 7 (citing Classen
9:59-67). Although this disclosure teaches using opacity to visually
distinguish objects, the disclosure says nothing about using opacity to
represent an event amount. Similarly, Classen’s disclosure that “objects
have a property determining the opacity of the object” and “audio signal
properties includ[e] an output level, a signal stereo width, and a panorama or
balance,” Classen 3:26—29, 9:59-66, does not bridge this gap. The sole
reference to opacity cited by the Examiner makes clear that the “property”
relevant to opacity is object position, not individual audio signal properties.
Id. at 9:59-10:3.
Finally, the Examiner’s rationale for combining Chow’s and Classen’s
teachings—“to display distinguishable objects at identical or similar
positions] that can be accessible by the user”—may provide a reason to use
opacity generally, but does not explain why one of skill in the art would use
opacity to represent an event amount. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
4
Appeal 2015-008265
Application 13/757,161
Examiner’s rejections of independent claims 1, 9, and 17 and their respective
dependent claims.
DECISION
We reverse the rejections of claims 1—20.
REVERSED
5
Appeal 2015-008265
Application 13/757,161
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge, dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion reversing the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20. The test for obviousness is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to the artisan.
Accordingly, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based on a combination of references. In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner relies on Chow
for teaching a second visual characteristic of the icon representing an
amount of the one or more events (i.e., counter 330 indicating a number of
related events that the event group comprises) (Final Act. 7; para. 26). In
particular paragraph 26 recites that “FIG. 3, counter 330 is displayed as a
rectangle within event group 320, where the rectangle includes a number
(‘8’) representing the number of related events that event group 320
comprises”. The Examiner states that Chow does not explicitly teach
“wherein the second visual characteristic of the icon is an opacity of the
icon” (Final Act. 7) and relies on Classen for the teaching that opacity of an
icon can represent a corresponding property of a measurable output level
(Ans. 5; Classen col. 1,11. 25-30). Chow teaches in paragraph 26 that
“[hjowever, the timeline visualization system can display counter 330 using
any format that indicates a number of related events that comprise event
group 320” (para. 26). The Examiner is merely providing an alternative
format of presenting the number of events which is a changing opacity as a
representation of a property such as amount.
Contrary to the Majority’s conclusion stating “[ajlthough this
disclosure teaches using opacity to visually distinguish objects, the
6
Appeal 2015-008265
Application 13/757,161
disclosure says nothing about using opacity to represent an event amount”
(Opinion 4), the “event amount” was taught by Chow, Classen is simply
relied upon for the teaching that opacity can be used to indicate a change in a
property (such as change in output level). In other words, a change in
opacity as taught by Classen constitutes a different format to indicate the
changing number in Chow (i.e., a change of property). Accordingly, I would
affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Furthermore, I note that claim 1 is broader in scope than interpreted
by Examiner in that it does not recite wherein the second visual
characteristic of the icon is an opacity of the icon itself or of the entire icon.
Thus, Chow really anticipates the disputed claim 1 language in that the
rectangle 330 with the opaque number 8 displayed inside the event group
320 clearly constitutes a second visual characteristic of the icon representing
an amount of the one or more events, and wherein the second visual
characteristic of the icon is an opacity (i.e., written number 8 constitutes an
opacity) of the icon. It is well settled that “anticipation is the epitome of
obviousness.” In re McDaniel, 293 F3d. 1379, 1385 (Fed. Cir, 2002).
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion.
7