Ex Parte LindseyDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 4, 201713757161 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation