Ex parte Rabenhorst

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 11, 2001

07854921 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 11, 2001)

Application for patent filed March 20, 19921
1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication and is not
binding precedent of the Board
Paper No. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte DAVID A. RABENHORST

_____________
Appeal No. 96-3706
Application 07/854,9211
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before FLEMING, DIXON and GROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final
rejection of claims 1-14, 17-25 and 31-35, all of the pending
claims in the present application. Claims 15, 16 and 26-30
Appeal No. 1996-3706
Application 07/854,921
2
have been canceled.
The invention relates generally to interactive
graphic displays to explore relationships among variables in a
multi-dimensional database (specification, page 1, lines 6-7).
More specifically, an interactive main display presentation
(Figure 2, numeral 200) can access a plurality of other
mutually coupled presentations (specification, page 5, lines
17-18). The main display comprises an array of smaller
pictorial presentations (Figure 2, numeral 205), each of which
displays a relationship between two or more variables in the
data base (specification, page 5, lines 18-20). The main
display may also have presentations of the variables
themselves and/or some function
of the variables (specification, page 5, lines 20-22).
The main display presentation provides a global view
of the entire database and the current set of transformations
and imposed conditions, while subsidiary presentations (Figure
3, numeral 310) provide more detailed and specialized
Appeal No. 1996-3706
Application 07/854,921
3
perspectives of the database (specification, page 6, lines 1-
4). Access is provided between presentations (Figure 4) so
that subsidiary presentations can be derived from a first
subsidiary presentation progeny, or presentation ancestry from
which the accessing subsidiary presentation was derived
(specification, page 6, lines 10-14).
Mutual coupling (Figure 4, numeral 400) is provided
among the variables in the same or different presentations,
and occurs if a relationship exists between the displayed
variables, points, or other information, either within the
same presentation, or in different presentations
(specification, page 6, lines 23-25). If two variables are
related, a change in the first will cause a change in the
second, according to a relationship between them
(specification, page 5, lines 26-29).
In an embodiment of the invention, color can be used
to visualize the effects of application of logical
mathematical operations to displayed data (specification, page
6, lines 30-34) and perform logical color operations
Appeal No. 1996-3706
Application 07/854,921
4
(specification, page 10, lines 5-23; Figure 9).
Independent claims 1 and 18 are reproduced as
follows:
1. An apparatus for visually showing a relationship
among a plurality of variables on a computer display, each
variable comprising a set or vector of observations, the
apparatus comprising:
a computer, including the computer display, the computer
having a memory containing one or more of the variables and
having the capability of displaying visual representations of
the variables on the computer display;
a visual array presentation of small presentations on the
computer display, each array small presentation visually
representing the relationship among a subset of the variables;
a mutual coupling between the array small presentations, some
array small presentations having one or more dependent
variables related to an independent variable so that a change
to the independent variable will visually change all array
presentations having dependent variables in accordance with
the relationship among the independent and dependent
variables; and
one or more mutually coupled subsidiary presentations, each
presenting a subset of variables,
whereby a user changes one or more independent variables to
view the visual changes to the array presentation in order to
determine the relationship among the variables.
Appeal No. 1996-3706
Application 07/854,921
5
18. A method of accessing a second presentation from
a first presentation on a computer display by using color
comprising the steps of:
a. brushing a first subset of data points chosen by a first
selection criteria with a first color in the first
presentation;
b. brushing a second subset of data points chosen by a second
selection criteria with a second color in the first
presentation;
c. performing a logical operation between the first and
second subset of data points;
d. identifying the results of the logical operation with an
identifying color, the identifying color being any one of the
following colors: the first color, the second color, the first
and second color combined, and another third color;
e. accessing a second presentation, mutually coupled to the
first presentation, using a set of results of the logical
operation identified by the identifying color,
whereby a user accesses the second presentation using the
results identified by the identifying color.
Appeal No. 1996-3706
Application 07/854,921
In the Advisory Action mailed August 18, 1995, the2
Examiner withdrew the final rejection of claims 1-14 under 35
U.S.C. § 101. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is
therefore no longer at issue.
The Brief was received December 11, 1995. No Reply3
Brief has been filed.
The Examiner's Answer was mailed on January 24, 1996.4
The Supplemental Examiner's Answer was mailed on May 15,5
2001. Appellant has not replied to the Supplemental
Examiner's Answer.
6

The Examiner relies on the following reference:
Conrad et al. (Conrad) 4,845,653 July 4,
1989
Claims 1-14, 17-25 and 31-35 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Conrad .2
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and
the Examiner, reference is made to the Brief , Examiner's3
Answer , and Supplemental Examiner's Answer for the respective4 5
details thereof.
OPINION
After careful review of the evidence before us, we
will sustain the rejection of claims 18-22 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as anticipated by Conrad, and will not sustain the
Appeal No. 1996-3706
Application 07/854,921
Brief, pages 7-86
7
rejection of claims 1-14, 17, 23-25 and 31-35 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Conrad.
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under
35 U.S.C. § 102 can be found only if the prior art reference
discloses every element of the claim. See In re King, 801
F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and
Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick
Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
"Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under principles of
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention."
RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440,
1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. dismissed, 468
U.S. 1228 (1984), citing Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713
F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
First, Appellant submits that Conrad does not6
disclose subsidiary displays, independent and dependent
variables or relationships between the variables, or
mutuality. As regards subsidiary displays, Appellant asserts
Appeal No. 1996-3706
Application 07/854,921
Brief, page 77
Brief, pages 8-98
8
that Conrad discloses "linking" multiple screens for the
simultaneous display of large amounts of data, and there are
no second displays accessed or displayed by access criteria
applied to the first display. This linking is asserted to be
merely visual differentiation of a set
of data events in other data fields corresponding to data
events in a created region. Appellant equates this "linking"
to his "brushing" process.
Second, Appellant argues that the "linking" of7
Conrad involves a direct correspondence of data events, i.e.,
data events correspond when the identical data event appears
in two or more fields. Therefore, Appellant avers that there
is no suggestion or recognition by Conrad of independent and
dependent variables or relationships between the variables.
Third, Appellant argues that while Conrad does8
disclose a visual differentiation on the other data fields by
creating a "created region", it does not disclose a mutual
Appeal No. 1996-3706
Application 07/854,921
Brief, pages 9-109
Brief, page 1110
9
coupling of variables, a mutual relationship between the
variables, or a mutual relationship of the visible
differentiation of the displays.
Addressing limitations present in claims other than
claim 1, Appellant asserts that Conrad does not disclose the9
concept of accessing one or more displays that are not
currently displayed, or the use of accessing criteria, e.g., a
user
selected presentation format, points and observations. In
addition, Appellant asserts that Conrad teaches away from
accessing new displays, since the purpose of Conrad is to
visualize different displays on the same screen
simultaneously.
Specifically addressing claim 17 Appellant asserts10
that Conrad does not disclose the limitation of the accessing
criteria being a user selected format of the second
presentation. In regard to claims 18-22, Appellant asserts
Appeal No. 1996-3706
Application 07/854,921
Column 5, line 63 through column 6, line 711
Supplemental Examiner's Answer, page 212
10
that while Conrad uses combinations of colors, the use of
colors to perform logical operations, and using the result of
the logical operation to access the second presentation, is
not disclosed or suggested by this reference.
Finally, in regard to claims 23-25 Appellant argues
that the use of a first presentation to create a new parameter
value is not disclosed by Conrad.
The Examiner, in response to Appellant's assertion
that Conrad fails to disclose subsidiary displays, points to
Conrad which states "in this display of multiple data fields11
... the present invention is not limited to viewing data on a
single screen, since there are instances when all the desired
data may not fit on a single screen ...," and multiple screens
may be used or linked for the simultaneous display of large
amounts of data...." In addition, the Examiner points to12
Conrad at Figure 3, elements 0-5, for the disclosure of the
screen being updated or changed in response to the data
elements.
Appeal No. 1996-3706
Application 07/854,921
Column 5, lines 48-5413
Page 214
Column 7, lines 6-5215
11
As to Appellant's assertion that there is no
disclosure of independent and dependent variables or
relationships between variables, the Examiner points to
Conrad as showing data being displayed in many different13
forms, such as graphs and charts. The Examiner then alleges
that graphs and charts are commonly known to display
relationships between independent and dependent variables. In
addition, in the Supplemental Examiner's Answer the Examiner14
points to Conrad and generally notes that "data events15
touched by a cursor are visualized in different formats at the
same time in multiple displays of the screen" and "the user
positions cursor 40 over a region of dots on data field 122 to
change data elements."
Appeal No. 1996-3706
Application 07/854,921
Brief, page 516
Column 5, line 63 through column 6, line 517
Page 218
Column 7, lines 6-5219
Column 5, lines 65-6720
12
In response to Appellant's argument that Conrad does
not disclose any mutuality the Examiner points to Conrad16 17
which discusses post-display (single or multiple screens) cell
property analysis by the user, by pattern recognition, cluster
analysis, or heuristic or mathematical techniques. In
addition, in the Supplemental Examiner's Answer , the Examiner18
also points to Conrad and generally notes that "data events19
touched by a cursor are visualized in different formats at the
same time in multiple displays of the screen" and "the user
positions cursor 40 over a region of dots on data field 122 to
change data elements."
In response to Appellant's argument that Conrad does
not disclose performing logical operations the Examiner points
to Conrad's teaching of using "mathematical techniques," and20
alleges that since logical operations are a subset of
Appeal No. 1996-3706
Application 07/854,921
Page 521
Column 7, line 522
See, inter alia, column 2, lines 62-6823
13
mathematical techniques, logical operations are therefore
disclosed. In addition, in the Supplemental Examiner's
Answer the Examiner generally notes that linked lists21
inherently use logical operators.
Finally, in response to Appellant's assertion that
the use of a first presentation to create a new parameter
value is not disclosed by Conrad, the Examiner points to
Conrad and alleges that this section of Conrad teaches the22
creation of a new parameter value as the result of a
mathematical operation whenever Conrad provides display of
events which fall outside of measured or calculated
parameters.
Turning first to claim 1, we agree with the Examiner
that the separate plural displays (22, 24, 26, 28, 30 and 32)
on the CRT screen of Conrad are subsidiary presentations as
set forth on line 14 of claim 1. Conrad specifically
discloses that the cursor is applied to any chosen two-23
Appeal No. 1996-3706
Application 07/854,921
14
parameter data field and a region is created on that data
field. The created region is linked to all data events within
that region, and corresponding data events are then
delineated, identified or found on all other two-parameter
data fields on the screen. Thus, the presentations on the
secondary plural displays serve to
supplement the presentation on the first display operated upon
by the cursor, and are therefore subsidiary presentations.
We also agree with the Examiner in that Conrad
discloses the subsidiary presentations to be mutually coupled
as set forth on line 14 of claim 1. As stated in the
preceding paragraph, Conrad discloses that the cursor is
applied to any chosen two-parameter data field and a region is
created on that data field. The created region is linked to
all data events within that region, and corresponding data
events are then delineated, identified or found on all other
two-parameter data fields on the screen. Thus, the plural
displays of Conrad are joined and linked together, with
delineations of data fields on any screen appearing on all
Appeal No. 1996-3706
Application 07/854,921
15
other screens containing such data, and are thus "mutually
coupled."
However, we agree with Appellant that there is no
suggestion or recognition by Conrad of independent and
dependent variables or relationships between the variables as
recited in the last two subparagraphs of claim 1. Even if the
Examiner's allegation that it was common knowledge that graphs
and charts display relationships between independent and
dependent variables is accepted as fact, this does not provide
a disclosure of the claimed requisite visual changes of all
array presentations or the user changes to determine the
relationship among variables.
Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 1-14
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Conrad.
As regards claim 17, we agree with Appellant that
Conrad does not disclose the limitation of the accessing
criteria being a user selected format of the second
presentation. We do not agree with the Examiner that this is
taught as being a feature of the linked list. The disclosure
of Conrad is devoid of any disclosure that accessing criteria
Appeal No. 1996-3706
Application 07/854,921
Brief, page 1124
Brief, pages 10 and 1125
16
include a user selected format of the second presentation.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claim 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Conrad.
As regards claims 18-22, we note that Appellant has
indicated on page 6, section VII, of the brief that claims 18-
22 are grouped together. We further note that Appellant has
argued all the claims in this group together and based upon24
the same arguments. In accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7),25
it will be presumed that the rejected claims stand or fall
together unless there is a statement otherwise, and in the
appropriate part or parts of the arguments Appellant presents
specific reasons as to why Appellant considers the rejected
claims to be separately
patentable. We will, thereby, consider claims 18-22 as
standing or falling together.
In regard to claims 18-22, Appellant asserts that
while Conrad uses combinations of colors, using colors to
Appeal No. 1996-3706
Application 07/854,921
Column 9, lines 45-64; Figure 526
Column 9, lines 2-1627
17
perform logical operations and using the result of the logical
operation to access the second presentation are not disclosed
or suggested by the reference. We do not agree. Conrad
discloses the use of plural colors (red, green and blue) to26
designate data fields in a display, and specifically discloses
that different color regions may overlap so that one or more
data events may have a combination of colors. Dual color
combinations are disclosed to provide yellow, cyan and violet,
and if all colors are associated with data events, the
combined color is white. In addition, Conrad discloses that27
access to these corresponding data events in the other fields
carries with it the color coding of the identified data events
within the region of the data field and all corresponding data
events in remaining data fields 24, 26, 28, 30 and 32 appear
on the screen in the same color. Thus, the combination of the
base colors performs a logical "AND" operation between the
first and second subset of data points, and the
Appeal No. 1996-3706
Application 07/854,921
18
resultant combination color identifies the results of the
logical operation, and is used by the observer to carry out
data analysis.
We note that Appellant has not argued that Conrad
failed to teach any of the other limitations of these claims.
Appellant has chosen not to argue any other specific
limitations of the claims as a basis for patentability. We
are not required to raise and/or consider such issues. As
stated by our reviewing court in In re Baxter Travenol Labs.,
952 F.2d 388, 391, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 1991),
"[i]t is not the function of this court to examine the claims
in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for
nonobvious distinctions over the prior art." 37 CFR §
1.192(a) as amended at 58 CFR § 545 Oct. 22, 1993, which was
controlling at the time of Appellant’s filing the brief,
states as follows:
The brief ... must set forth the authorities and
arguments on which the appellant will rely to
maintain the appeal. Any arguments or authorities
not included in the brief may be refused
consideration by the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences, unless good cause is shown.
Also, 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(8)(iii) stated:
Appeal No. 1996-3706
Application 07/854,921
Brief, page 1028
Supplemental Examiner's Answer, page 729
19
For each rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102, the argument
shall specify the errors in the rejection and why the
rejected claims are patentable under 35 U.S.C. 102,
including any specific limitations in the rejected
claims which are not described in the prior art
relied upon in the rejection.
Thus, 37 CFR § 1.192 provides that just as the Court is not
under any burden to raise and/or consider such issues this
Board is not under any greater burden.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the
Examiner rejecting claims 18-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
affirmed.
As regards claim 23, we agree with Appellant that28
accessing of the database as claimed is not disclosed by
Conrad. The Examiner's general statement that this an29
operating feature of multiple parameter analysis fails to
pointout where the specific features of the claim language are
disclosed by Conrad, and we find no such disclosure in Conrad.
In regard to claim 31 we note that section c. of
this claim requires "accessing and displaying a first visual
Appeal No. 1996-3706
Application 07/854,921
20
subsidiary presentation of data, defined by ... a user
selected subsidiary presentation format ..." (emphasis added).
We agree with Appellant that Conrad does not disclose the
limitation of the accessing criteria being a user selected
subsidiary presentation format. We do not agree with the
Examiner that this is taught as being a feature of the linked
list, or by events in other data fields being coded. The
disclosure of Conrad is
devoid of any disclosure that accessing criteria include a
user selected subsidiary presentation format.
In regard to claim 34, we note that section d. of
this claim requires a relationship of dependent variables to
independent variables as claimed. We again agree with
Appellant that there is no suggestion or recognition by Conrad
of independent and dependent variables or relationships
between the variables as recited in this claim. Even if the
Examiner's allegation that it was common knowledge that graphs
and charts display relationships between independent and
dependent variables is accepted as fact, this does not provide
a disclosure of the claimed requisite means for mutually
Appeal No. 1996-3706
Application 07/854,921
21
coupling variables due to one or more dependent variables
related to an independent variable to provide the requisite
change.
In our consideration of the function of the claimed
"means for mutually coupling" in claim 34, we find that the
function is not the same as that disclosed by Conrad.
Therefore, although the pending claim contains means-plus-
function language that requires analysis of the claim under 35
U.S.C.
§ 112, sixth paragraph, no further analysis is required once
it has been determined that the claimed function is not the
same as that disclosed by the applied reference. See Micro
Chem., Inc. v. Great Plains Chem. Co., 194 F.3d 1250, 1258, 52
USPQ2d 1258, 1263 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 23,
31 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Conrad.
CONCLUSION
We have sustained the rejection of claims 18-22
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Conrad, and have
reversed the rejection of claims 1-14, 17 and 31-35 under 35
Appeal No. 1996-3706
Application 07/854,921
22
U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Conrad.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF
PATENT
JOSEPH L. DIXON ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge )
INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
MRF/cam
Louis J. Percello
Intellectual Property Law Dept.
IBM Corporation
P. O. Box 218
Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
Appeal No. 1996-3706
Application 07/854,921
23