Ex Parte McArdle et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 27, 2015

11471058 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PAUL JOSEPH MCARDLE AND LANG SHENG YUN
____________

Appeal 2012-007889
Application 11/471,0581
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ERIC B. GRIMES, ULRIKE W. JENKS, and
AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges.

WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims directed
to automatically generating supporting structures using a graphical drawing
computer program. The Examiner rejected the claims as obvious. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Autodesk, Inc. (App.
Br. 3).
Appeal 2012-007889
Application 11/471,058

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

“The present invention generally relates to computer-aided design
and, more particularly, to a method for generating regular elements in a
computer-aided design drawing.” (Spec. ¶ 1).
Claims 27–47 are pending and on appeal. Independent claim 27 is
representative and reads as follows:
27. A computerized method for automatically generating
supporting structures for architectures using a graphical
drawing computer program, comprising the steps of:
displaying a graphical representation of a data object
associated with an architecture that requires structural support
by supporting structures;
receiving a selection from a user of one of a plurality of
supporting structure types;
generating a layout for the architecture that comprises a
plurality of the selected supporting structure type arranged in a
formation that is based upon both a position of an input device
of the user within the graphical representation of the data object
and a plurality of configurable properties relating to the selected
supporting structure type;
automatically overlaying a graphical preview of the
generated layout on the graphical representation of the data
object, wherein the graphical preview indicates which of the
configurable properties included in the plurality of configurable
properties are selected, and wherein the graphical preview does
not occlude the graphical representation of the data object;
receiving an update from the user indicating which
properties included in the plurality of configurable properties
are selected while the graphical representation of the data object
and the graphical preview that is overlaid on the graphical
representation of the data object are displayed; and
updating the graphical representation of the data object
and graphical preview that is overlaid on the graphical
representation of the data object based upon both a position of
the input device of the user within the graphical representation
of the data object and the update received from the user.
Appeal 2012-007889
Application 11/471,058

3
(App. Br. 20 (emphasis added)).
Independent claim 35 is directed to a computer readable
medium and independent claim 43 is directed to a computer system
(id. at 22, 24–25). Both contain limitations similar to those
emphasized in claim 27 (id.).
The claims stand rejected as follows:
Claims 27–47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Harrington2 and CDMP3 (Ans. 5–12).

THE ISSUE

The Examiner rejects claims 27–47 as obvious over Harrington and
CDMP (Ans. 6–12). The Examiner finds that Harrington discloses a
method, computer readable medium, and computer system for automatically
generating structures (e.g., an arrangement of tables and chairs) using a
graphical drawing computer program (AutoCAD), comprising the steps of,
inter alia, displaying a graphical representation of a data object associated
with an architecture, receiving a user selection, generating a layout that
comprises a plurality of objects, and automatically overlaying a graphical
preview of the layout on the graphical representation of the data object,

2 Harrington et al., Inside AutoCAD® 2002,
http://proquest.safaribooksonline.coml0735711488 (last visited Aug. 17,
2009).
3 Drawings to Accompany the Building Guidelines, Organization of
American States, Unit of Sustainable Development and Environment for the
USAID Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance and the Caribbean Regional
Program, Caribbean Disaster Mitigation Project,
http://www.oas.org/CDMP/documenticodedraw/intro.htm (last visited Aug.
17, 2009).
Appeal 2012-007889
Application 11/471,058

4
wherein the preview does not occlude the graphical representation of the
data object (id. at 6, 12).
The Examiner acknowledges that Harrington fails to expressly teach
that the architecture, user selection, and plurality of objects relate to
supporting structures, and relies on CDMP for its teaching of using
AutoCAD in projects related to supporting structures (e.g., beams and
rafters) (id. at 7–8). The Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to modify Harrington to “include the particular genre of drawings as
exemplified by CDMP for the purpose of utilizing a common software
application for rendering structural diagrams” (id. at 8).
Appellants contend, inter alia, that Harrington does not disclose the
claimed “graphical preview [that] does not occlude the graphical
representation of the data object,” because Harrington teaches a dialog box
that occludes any underlying user interface elements (App. Br. 17–18).
The issue is: Does the evidence of record support the Examiner’s
conclusion that Harrington and CDMP render obvious a graphical preview
that “does not occlude the graphical representation of the data object”?

FINDINGS OF FACT

FF1. The Specification states:
FIG. 2A is a schematic representation of a sample GUI 110
that may be used to generate regular elements in accordance
with the embodiments of the present invention. As shown,
GUI interface 110 includes a tool palette 210, various
selectable items 215 within the tool palette 210, a properties
palette 220, and a layout section 230. The layout section 230
represents the area of CAD drawing 120 in which regular
elements will be generated and includes a layout object with
Appeal 2012-007889
Application 11/471,058

5
respect to which the regular elements will be generated. The
layout object shown in FIG. 2A is a column grid 235.
(Spec. ¶ 18).
FF2. Appellants’ Figure 2A is reproduced below:

Fig. 2A is a “schematic representation[] of graphical user interface[] that
illustrate[s] a method according to an embodiment of the present invention”
(Id. ¶ 11).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW

“In proceedings before the Patent and Trademark Office, the
Examiner bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness
based upon the prior art.” In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1265 (Fed. Cir.
1992).

ANALYSIS

We begin with claim interpretation, because Appellants’ argument
turns on the proper construction of “data object.” During prosecution,
claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the
Appeal 2012-007889
Application 11/471,058

6
specification, and as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
the art. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
We recognize that Appellants’ Specification does not utilize or
specifically define the phrase “data object.” The Specification, however,
includes the following discussion, which appears relevant to the claimed
“data object:”
FIG. 2A is a schematic representation of a sample GUI 110 that
may be used to generate regular elements in accordance with
the embodiments of the present invention. As shown, GUI
interface 110 includes . . . [other elements and] a layout section
230. The layout section 230 represents the area of CAD
drawing 120 in which regular elements will be generated and
includes a layout object with respect to which the regular
elements will be generated. The layout object shown in FIG.
2A is a column grid 235.
(FF1).
Based on the Specification, including Figure 2A, we understand the
claimed “data object” to be the area of the graphical drawing computer
program on which supporting structures are generated, which is displayed in
a portion of the graphical user interface (see FF1–2).
In the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner puts forth two different
constructions of “data object.” First, the Examiner construes “data object”
as “the entire graphical representation of the CAD project” (Ans. 13). This
construction is generally consistent with our understanding of the claim
language, because the “CAD project” is the area of the graphical drawing
computer program (e.g., AutoCAD) on which supporting structures are
generated, which is displayed in a portion of the graphical user interface.4

4 We note that claim 27 includes “a graphical representation,” rendering
superfluous that portion of the Examiner’s construction (cl. 27, l. 4).
Appeal 2012-007889
Application 11/471,058

7
The Examiner, however, appears to abandon this construction and
provides a second construction of “data object” as “the entire AutoCAD
GUI” (Ans. 14).5 The Examiner relies upon this second construction in
applying prior art to claim 27, especially with respect to a “graphical
preview” that “does not occlude the graphical representation of the data
object” (id. at 15). Specifically, the Examiner states that “the claimed ‘data
object’ is actually taught by Harrington as the entire AutoCAD GUI.
Furthermore, the dialog box of Harrington is a part of the AutoCAD GUI,
and does not ‘occlude’ itself” (id.).
It is our opinion that the Examiner’s second construction of “data
object” as “the entire AutoCAD GUI” is inconsistent with the Specification.
Specifically, the Specification shows that the layout section and layout
object, which corresponds to the claimed “data object,” constitute part of the
graphical user interface, not “the entire AutoCAD GUI” (see FF1–2).
We conclude, therefore, that the Examiner has not carried the burden
of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness because the Examiner
relies on a construction of the term “data object” that is inconsistent with the
Specification in treating claim 27 (Ans. 6–7, 13–15). We are constrained,
therefore, to reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 27–47 over
Harrington and CDMP.

SUMMARY

In summary, we reverse the rejection of claims 27–47 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Harrington and CDMP.

5 Appellants criticize the Examiner’s second construction, but do not provide
an alternate construction of the claim language (Reply Br. 5).
Appeal 2012-007889
Application 11/471,058

8

REVERSED

lv