Ex Parte Purdy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2017

13750366 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 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.
13/750,366 01/25/2013 Glen L. Purdy 20120319-01 1760
126187 7590 07/05/2017
Key sight Technologies, Inc.
In care of: CPA Global
900 Second Avenue South
Suite 600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
BADAWI, ANGIE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2172
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/05/2017 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):
key sightdocketing @ cpaglobal. com
notice, legal @key sight, com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GLEN L. PURDY and JONATHAN HELFMAN
Appeal 2017-004205
Application 13/750,366
Technology Center 2100
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., ERIC B. CHEN, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-004205
Application 13/750,366
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1—12, all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to a method for operating a display in a
data processing system to provide a view of a portion of a data array on a
display screen. (Abstract.)
Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitation in italics:
1. A method for operating a display in a data processing
system to provide a view of a portion of a data array on a display
screen, said method comprising:
providing a first display window characterized by a first offset,
a first horizontal gain, and a first vertical gain;
receiving a feature input from a user indicating a selected
feature in said first display window; and
automatically providing a second display window characterized
by a second offset and a second horizontal gain and a second vertical
gain, wherein said second offset, said second horizontal gain and said
second vertical gain are chosen such that said selected feature is at a
predetermined location in said second display window and said
second horizontal gain and second vertical gain are automatically
chosen by said data processing system such that said selected feature
occupies a predetermined portion of said second display window, said
second horizontal gain being greater than said first horizontal gain,
said predetermined portion of said second display window depending
on said selected feature.
Claims 1—4, 6—10, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Alexander (US 2003/0179242 Al; Sept. 25, 2003).
2
Appeal 2017-004205
Application 13/750,366
Claims 5 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Alexander and Hiraiwa (US 2011/0283228 Al; Nov. 17,
2011)
ANALYSIS
§102 Rejection—Alexander
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 6; see also
Reply Br. 2) that Alexander does not describe the limitation “said second
horizontal gain and second vertical gain are automatically chosen by said
data processing system such that said selected feature occupies a
predetermined portion of said second display window,” as recited in
independent claim 1.
The Examiner found the magnification selection window of
Alexander, including the determinator and the rendering controller that
determines the horizontal and vertical scale of a waveform magnification
system, corresponds to the limitation “said second horizontal gain and
second vertical gain are automatically chosen by said data processing system
such that said selected feature occupies a predetermined portion of said
second display window.” (Ans. 5, 13—14.) In particular, the Examiner
found that:
the determinator 202 determines a horizontal and vertical scale
and offset for the operator controlled selection window 340 and
the associated magnified waveform display 336 wherein the
rendering controller 204 controls the rendering of graphical items
that are used to associate the magnified waveform display 336
and the selected region 328 of the main waveform display 326 to
clearly communicate the relationship between the contents of the
main and magnified view windows while retaining all of the
information contained in the main waveform display 326
3
Appeal 2017-004205
Application 13/750,366
wherein when the selection window 340 has been graphically
modified by the operator.
(Ans. 13—14 (emphasis omitted).) We agree with the Examiner’s findings.
Alexander relates to signal measurement systems, in particular,
“providing a magnified view of displayed waveforms in signal measurement
systems.” (| 2.) Alexander explains that “waveform magnification
system 118 simultaneously displays an original or main waveform display
. . . and a magnified waveform display displayed on another portion of the
display screen.” (| 52.) Alexander further explains that “the waveform
magnification system 118 is implemented in any well-known programming
language such as C or C++” and “[tjhose skilled in the relevant art will
appreciate that different implementations, including different function
names, programming languages, data structures, and/or algorithms may also
be used.” (1 54.)
Figure 3B of Alexander illustrates graphical user interface display 300
with the invocation of waveform magnification system 118 (| 58), in which
main view window 320 and magnified view window 330 are simultaneously
displayed (Tffl 58, 59). Alexander explains that operator-controlled
magnification selection window 340 is displayed over main waveform
display 326 in main view window 320 that “defines an operator-selected
region of the main waveform display 326 for which a magnified waveform
display 336 is presented simultaneously in the magnified view window 330.”
(| 64.) Alexander further explains that “determinator 202 determines a
horizontal and vertical scale and offset for the operator-controlled selection
window 340 and the associated magnified waveform display 336” (1 66) and
“rendering controller 204 also controls the rendering of graphical items that
4
Appeal 2017-004205
Application 13/750,366
are used to associate the magnified waveform display 336 and the selected
region 328 of the main waveform display region 326” (167).
Because waveform magnification system 118 of Alexander includes
magnification selection window 340, which allows the operator to select the
portion of main waveform display 326 to be displayed in magnified view
window 330, Alexander teaches the limitation “selected feature.”
Furthermore, because determinator 202 of Alexander determines a
horizontal scale, a vertical scale, and an offset for the operator-controlled
selection window 340, and rendering controller 204 controls the rendering of
the selected graphical display elements, Alexander describes the limitation
“said second horizontal gain and second vertical gain are automatically
chosen by said data processing system such that said selected feature
occupies a predetermined portion of said second display window.”
Appellants argue “the vertical gain is set by the height of window 340,
not by the vertical extent of the feature, i.e., the data array within the
window” and “[t]he horizontal gain is again set by the width of window 340,
which is set by the user, not the data processing system, and it does not
depend on the horizontal extent of the feature.” (App. Br. 6.) Similarly,
Appellants argue “[g]iven the portion of the data array in the selection
window as the feature, the claims require that the data processing system
automatically provide a second window in which the feature is displayed
with vertical and horizontal gains determined by the feature” however,
“[tjhose gains [based on the dimensions and location of window 340] are
determined by the window, not the feature.” (Reply Br. 2.) However, the
claim limitation “said second horizontal gain and second vertical gain are
automatically chosen by said data processing system such that said selected
5
Appeal 2017-004205
Application 13/750,366
feature occupies a predetermined portion of said second display window” is
broad enough to read upon determinator 202 and rendering controller 204 of
Alexander. In particular, as discussed previously, once the operator of
Alexander selects the portion of main waveform display 326 using
magnification selection window 340 (i.e., the claimed “selected feature”),
determinator 202 determines the offset, horizontal scale, and vertical scale.
Accordingly, such offset, horizontal scale, and vertical scale of Alexander
are determined by the selected portion of main waveform display 326.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Alexander describes the
limitation “said second horizontal gain and second vertical gain are
automatically chosen by said data processing system such that said selected
feature occupies a predetermined portion of said second display window.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b). Claims 2^4 and 6 depend from claim 1, and Appellants
have not presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to
these claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2-4 and 6 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for the same reasons discussed with respect to
independent claim 1.
Independent claim 7 recites limitations similar to those discussed with
respect to independent claim 1, and Appellants have not presented any
additional substantive arguments with respect to this claim. We sustain the
rejection of claim 7, as well as dependent claims 8—10 and 12 for the same
reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
6
Appeal 2017-004205
Application 13/750,366
§103 Rejection—Alexander and Hiraiwa
Although Appellants nominally argue the rejection of dependent
claims 5 and 11 separately (App. Br. 8), the arguments presented do not
point out with particularity or explain why the limitations of these dependent
claims are separately patentable. Instead, Appellants argue “Alexander does
not teach the limitations of Claims 1 and 7” and “Hiraiwa does not provide
the missing teachings.” (Id.) We are not persuaded by these arguments for
the reasons discussed with respect to claims 1 and 7, from which claims 5
and 11 depend. Accordingly, we sustain this rejection.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—12 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
7