Ex Parte Nee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 1, 2016

13729884 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2016)

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.
13/729,884 12/28/2012 Albert Temho Nee G-603-01 2826
919 7590 12/05/2016
PITNEY BOWES INC.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & PROCUREMENT LAW DEPT.
37 EXECUTIVE DRIVE
MSC 01-152
DANBURY, CT 06810
EXAMINER
PHAM, KHANH B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2166
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/05/2016 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):
iptl@pb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALBERT TEMHO NEE, DEBORAH LYNN PURCELL, and
PITNEY BOWES, INC.
Appeal 2015-008022
Application 13/729,884
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, CATHERINE SHIANG, and KAMRAN JIVANI,
Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 4—15, and 17—19. Claims 2, 3, 9, 16, 19, and 20 have been
canceled. Therefore, only the rejection of claims 1, 4—8, 10-15, 17, and 18
is before us on appeal. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse the § 102(b) rejection of claims 15, 17, and 18, and affirm
the § 102(b) rejection of claims 1, 4—8, and 10—14.
Exemplary Claims
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
independent claims 1 and 15, which are reproduced below with bracketed
Appeal 2010-003268022
Application 13/729,884
lettering and emphases added:
1. A computer implemented method for displaying query
results graphically comprising:
determining, using a computer, a results value indicating a
number of items returned by a query of a dataset;
obtaining a threshold value indicating a number of records
permitted in a first display mode;
if the results value is equal or below the threshold value,
then displaying the query results in a first graphical display
mode; and
if the results value is above the threshold value, then
displaying the query results in a second graphical display mode;
and
[A] wherein, the first graphical display mode displays
interactive query result display elements and the second
graphical display mode displays non-interactive query result
display elements',
the items returned by a query are obtained from a remote
server, if the results value is equal or below the threshold value,
then the items returned are received in a record format, and
if the results value is above the threshold value, then the
items returned are provided in a remotely rendered image.
15. A computer implemented method for sending query
results of a query received from a client computer comprising:
obtaining a threshold value indicating a number of records
permitted in a first display mode;
2
Appeal 2010-003268022
Application 13/729,884
determining, using a computer, if the query will return a
number of records from a dataset that exceeds the threshold
value;
if the results value is equal or below the threshold value,
then providing the query results in a first mode; and
if the results value is above the threshold value, then
providing the query results in a second mode; and
[B] wherein the first mode comprises providing requested
fields from each of the returned records, and the second mode
comprises providing a rendered image including results data,
the threshold value is set at least partially by determining
a type of rendering engine utilized by the client computer.
The Examiner’s Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4—8, 10-15, 17, and 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Kimchi (US 2008/0201302 Al;
published Aug. 21, 2008). Final Act. 2—7.
Appellants ’ Contentions
Appellants contend Kimchi fails to disclose:
(1) where the image processing work is done, i.e., whether
images are received in record format, or as a remotely rendered image
(Br. 5);
(2) varying a display mode processed on a rendering engine of a
computer (Br. 5);
(3) varying processing/display modes based on the type of
rendering engine as recited in claim 15;
(4) interactive query result display elements as recited in
3
Appeal 2010-003268022
Application 13/729,884
limitation [A] of claim 1 (Br. 6);
(5) a mode that provides requested fields from returned records
as recited in limitation [B] of claim 15 (Br. 6);
(6) limitation [A] of claim 1 (Br. 6); and/or
(7) limitation [B] of claim 15 (Br. 6).
Reply Brief
Although our rules provide Appellants an opportunity to reply to the
Examiner’s Answer, Appellants chose not to reply thereto. Therefore,
Appellants have not disputed the Examiner’s articulated reasoning and
findings found at pages 2—6 of the Answer, where the Examiner (i) compares
Kimchi’s Figure 9 to Appellants’ Figure 2, and Kimchi’s Figure 10 to
Appellants’ Figure 3 (Ans. 3); and (ii) cites new portions of Kimchi as
disclosing (a) rendering query results at a server 210 (i.e., a remotely
rendered image) (see Ans. 3 (citing Kimchi’s 54 and Fig. 2)), and (b)
providing requested fields such as an exact location, and distinguishing
between two different display modes similar to Appellants’ recited first and
second modes (see Ans. 5 (citing Kimchi’s 55)).
Issues on Appeal
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (Br. 3—7), the
following two issues are presented on appeal:1 * * 4
1 Appellants present separate arguments only as to independent claims 1 and
15, and rely on these arguments as to the patentability of their respective
dependent claims (see, generally, Br. 3—7). Based on Appellants’ arguments
in the Appeal Brief, and the fact that claims 4—8 and 10—14 all ultimately
depend from claim 1, we select claim 1 as representative of the group of
claims consisting of claims 1, 4—8, and 10-14. Because claims 17 and 18
4
Appeal 2010-003268022
Application 13/729,884
Anticipation Rejection of Claims 15, 17, and 18
(1) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 15, 17, and 18 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) because Kimchi fails to disclose “determining a type of
rendering engine” as recited in independent claim 15, and as similarly
recited in claims 17 and 18 by way of dependency on claim 15?
Anticipation Rejection of Claims 1, 4—8, and 10—14
(2) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 4—8, and 10—14 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because Kimchi fails to disclose the disputed limitations
recited in representative independent claim 1?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
contention in the Appeal Brief (Br. 3—7) that the Examiner has erred, as well
as the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments (Ans. 2—6). We agree
with Appellants’ conclusions as to the anticipation rejection of claims 15,
17, and 18 with regard to Kimchi as applied by the Examiner (see Ans. 4, 6—
8, and 10). However, with regard to the anticipation rejection of
representative claim 1 with regard to Kimchi, we agree with the Examiner’s
conclusion that Kimchi discloses limitation [A], a remote server, receiving
returned items in record format, and providing returned items in a remotely
rendered image as recited in representative independent claim 1 (Ans. 2—6).
contain, by way of dependency, the same limitation as claim 15
(“determining a type of rendering engine utilized by the client computer”),
the outcome of claims 17 and 18 will stand/fall with the outcome for claim
15.
5
Appeal 2010-003268022
Application 13/729,884
Anticipation Rejection of Claim 15, 17, and 18 Applying Kimchi
With regard to claim 15, we agree with Appellants’ argument that
Kimchi fails to disclose determining a type of rendering engine and/or
performing processing differently based upon such a determination (Br. 5—
6). The Examiner’s reliance (see Final Act. 6—7; Ans. 4—5) upon Kimchi’s
paragraphs 42 and 43 as disclosing determining a type of rendering engine,
as set forth in claim 15 is in error. Although paragraphs 42 and 43 describe
allocating storage capacity based on storage considerations and/or a
maximum number of visual indicators that can be displayed, Kimchi is silent
as to determining a type of rendering engine and/or performing processing
differently based upon such a determination, as set forth in claims 15, 17,
and 18. Furthermore, the Examiner’s explanation found at pages 4—6 of the
Answer does not satisfactorily explain how Kimchi’s paragraphs 42 and 43
meet the limitation, either inherently or expressly, of determining a type of
rendering engine.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection
of claims 15, 17, and 18 based on Kimchi.
Anticipation Rejection of Claims 1, 4 8, and 10—14 Applying Kimchi
With regard to representative claim 1, we disagree with Appellants’
arguments. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Final Office Action from which this appeal is taken
(Final Act. 2-4), as well as the Advisory Action, mailed January 26, 2015
(p. 2), and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s
Answer (Ans. 2^4 and 5—6) in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We
concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner regarding the
6
Appeal 2010-003268022
Application 13/729,884
obviousness of the method for displaying query results graphically set forth
in representative claim 1.
Notably, Appellants cite Figures 2 and 3 of the Drawings as support
for the inventions recited in claims 1 and 15 on appeal (see Br. 2—3).
Although in the argument section of the Appeal Brief, Appellants cite
paragraphs 16—21 as describing the claimed invention (Br. 3—5), we do not
find that these paragraphs support the claims as well as Figures 1—3 and 5
and corresponding paragraphs 22—29, 33—38, and 40-47 (cited by Appellants
as supporting the claimed subject matter (see Br. 2—3, Summary of Claimed
Subject Matter). We agree with the Examiner’s cogent articulation that
Kimchi’s Figure 9 is equivalent to Appellants’ Figure 2, and Kimchi’s
Figure 10 is equivalent to Appellants’ Figure 3 (Ans. 3). Appellants have
not filed a Reply Brief or otherwise rebutted the Examiner’s findings and
explanation regarding the comparison of Kimchi’s Figures 9 and 10 with
Appellants’ Figures 2 and 3.
In light of the Examiner’s new citations to Kimchi as disclosing (a)
rendering query results at a server 210 (i.e., a remotely rendered image) (see
Ans. 3 (citing Kimchi’s 54 and Fig. 2)), and (b) providing requested fields
such as an exact location, and distinguishing between two different display
modes similar to Appellants’ recited first and second modes (see Ans. 5
(citing Kimchi’s 55)), we do not find Appellants’ arguments to the
contrary (Br. 5—7) to be persuasive.
We agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 2-4; Ans. 2—A) that Kimchi
discloses limitation [A] as recited in representative independent claim 1.
Appellants have not rebutted the Examiner’s new citation to paragraphs 54
7
Appeal 2010-003268022
Application 13/729,884
(Ans. 3) and 55 (Ans. 5), or otherwise shown the Examiner’s findings at
pages 2—6 of the Answer (that Kimchi discloses the first and second
graphical display modes, and returning items from a remote server or
remotely rendering an image based on a threshold comparison of returned
query items) to be in error.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
representative claim 1, as well as claims 4—8 and 10-14 grouped therewith.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 15, 17, and 18 as being
anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Kimchi because Kimchi fails to
disclose the disputed limitation of “determining a type of rendering engine
utilized by the client computer” recited in independent claim 15.
(2) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 4—8, and 10—14 as
being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Kimchi because Kimchi
discloses limitation [A], a remote server, receiving returned items in record
format, and providing returned items in a remotely rendered image as recited
in representative independent claim 1.
8
Appeal 2010-003268022
Application 13/729,884
DECISION
The Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 15, 17, and 18 is
reversed, and the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 4—8, and 10-14 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9