13116198 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2017)

Ex Parte Rosman LaFever et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 28, 2017

13116198 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 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. 13/116,198 05/26/2011 Monica C. Rosman LaFever 11-0401-US-NP 4960 63759 7590 03/02/2017 DTTKFW YFF EXAMINER YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. SHIAU, SHEN C P.O. BOX 802333 DALLAS, TX 75380 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2174 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/02/2017 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): ptonotifs @yeeiplaw.com mgamez @ yeeiplaw. com patentadmin @ boeing. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MONICA C. ROSMAN LAFEVER, PATRICK J. EAMES, and BRENT LOUIS HADLEY Appeal 2016-001263 Application 13/116,19s1 Technology Center 2100 Before JASON V. MORGAN, KEVIN C. TROCK, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Introduction This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 4—11, 15—18, and 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellants identify The Boeing Company as the real party in interest. Br. 2. Appeal 2016-001263 Application 13/116,198 Invention Appellants disclose displaying wiring information as logical components in a first view and as physical components in a second view. Abstract. Representative Claim Claim 1, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized, is representative: 1. A method for displaying wiring information, the method comprising: displaying in a graphical user interface a first view of a wiring system in which logical components of the wiring system are displayed in the first view in two dimensions, the wiring system including at least the logical components with a wiring harness with multiple wires individually displayed; displaying in the graphical user interface a second view of the wiring system in which physical components of the wiring system are displayed in the second view in three dimensions, the first view and the second view displayed together, the logical components of the first view corresponding to the physical components of the second view, the second view of the wiring system including the wiring harness; and responsive to a user input to the graphical user interface for a display of the wiring system in one view from the first view and the second view, displaying a first graphical indicator in the one view and displaying a reaction in another view other than 2 Appeal 2016-001263 Application 13/116,198 the one view based on the user input to the display of the wiring system, the reaction including a second graphical indicator in the another view, the first graphical indicator in the one view associated with a component corresponding to the second graphical indicator in the another view, a selection of a portion of the physical components in the one view filters the logical components of the wiring system such that only a portion of the logical components is displayed in the another view. Rejection The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4—11, 15—18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Baum et al. (US 2007/0236504 Al; Oct. 11, 2007), Okano et al. (US 2005/0091626 Al; Apr. 28, 2005), and Nakamura et al. (US 2009/0326874 Al; Dec. 31, 2009). Final Act. 5—13. ANALYSIS Issue'. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Baum, Okano, and Nakamura teaches or suggests “a selection of a portion of the physical components in the one view filters the logical components of the wiring system such that only a portion of the logical components is displayed in the another view,” as recited in claim 1? Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Okano discloses selecting a component in 3D layout viewer 63, highlighting that component in 3D layout viewer 63, and giving information about which component is selected and highlighted to circuit-diagram viewer 61. However, Okano does not 3 Appeal 2016-001263 Application 13/116,198 disclose that only the selected highlighted component is displayed in circuit-diagram viewer 61. Okano [also] discloses when a component in circuit diagram viewer 61 is selected, only the highlighted component is displayed in 3D layout diagram 63. However, Okano does not disclose when a component in 3D layout diagram 63 is selected, only the highlighted component is displayed in circuit diagram viewer 61. Br. 10 (emphases added). Appellants further argue that the Examiner’s conclusions of obviousness cannot be sustained because the Examiner “has not properly determined the scope and content of the cited art and has not properly ascertained the differences between the claimed subject matter and the combined art.” Br. 11. We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. As the Examiner correctly finds, Okano teaches or suggests synchronizing CAD data among multiple viewers, including a circuit- diagram viewer (i.e., a display of logical components) as well as a layout- diagram viewer and a 3D layout viewer (i.e., displays of corresponding physical components). Final Act. 6—7 (citing Okano ^fl[ 10-11, 34, 47, 68— 69). Okano further teaches or suggests highlighting components in the 3D layout-diagram viewer that correspond to selected components in the circuit- diagram viewer, and vice versa. Final Act. 6—7; Okano ^fl[ 68—69. Thus, Okano teaches or suggests selection of a portion of the physical components in a first view (e.g., a 3D layout viewer) filters the logical components such that only a portion of the logical components is highlighted in another view (e.g., a circuit-diagram viewer). 4 Appeal 2016-001263 Application 13/116,198 Okano further teaches when a component or wiring of the circuit diagram is selected in the circuit-diagram viewer 61, the corresponding component or wiring of the layout diagram is highlighted in the layout- diagram viewer 62 such that only fthel highlighted portion is displayed in the 3D layout viewer so that user can visually readily grasp the foregoing-state wiring. Ans. 3 (citing Okano 1 69). In other words, the Examiner’s findings show that Okano teaches or suggests selection of a portion of the logical components in a first view (e.g., a circuit-diagram viewer) filters the physical components such that only a portion of the physical components is displayed in another view (e.g., a 3D layout viewer). The Examiner acknowledges that Okano does not explicitly disclose a filtering in reverse such that “when a component in 3D layout diagram 63 is selected, only the highlighted component is displayed in circuit diagram viewer 61.” Ans. 2 (emphases added). However, the Examiner persuasively reasons that it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to apply such filtering as a way of highlighting only the logical components corresponding to selected physical components to make it possible to readily grasp rendered wiring visually. Ans. 3 (citing Okano 1 69). We agree with, and adopt as our own, the Examiner’s findings and reasoning, which are supported by Okano’s teachings and suggestions directed to highlighting of a component on a circuit-diagram viewer (i.e., a logical component) that corresponds to a highlighted component on a layout- diagram viewer (i.e., a physical component), as well as by Okano’s teachings and suggestions directed to displaying only a highlighted portion of a component as a particular way of highlighting that component. See 5 Appeal 2016-001263 Application 13/116,198 Okano 44, 68—69 (cited by Ans. 3). We further agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s conclusion that applying the highlighting technique of displaying only a highlighted portion of a component to filter logical components corresponding to selected physical components would have been obvious for the reasons articulated by the Examiner (e.g., so the “user can visually readily grasp the . . . wiring” described in Okano). See Ans. 3. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Baum, Okano, and Nakamura teaches or suggests “a selection of a portion of the physical components in the one view filters the logical components of the wiring system such that only a portion of the logical components is displayed in the another view,” as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, and claims 4—11, 15—18, and 20, which Appellants do not argue separately. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4—11, 15—18, and 20. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED 6