Ex Parte S.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 23, 2014

11776345 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 23, 2014)

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.
11/776,345 07/11/2007 Archana S. S 1 6595
74402 7590 04/23/2014
IP Legal Services
1500 East Lancaster Avenue, Suite 100
P.O. Box 1027
Paoli, PA 19301
EXAMINER
BRIER, JEFFERY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/23/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ARCHANA S.

Appeal 2011-004174
Application 11/776,345
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before CARL W.WHITEHEAD JR., ERIC S. FRAHM, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-17, and 19-25. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention is directed to a device is capable of displaying
an image.
The device includes a memory having a first memory portion
for receiving a set of image data. A display has a viewport for
displaying the set of image data in an image that fits within and
Appeal 2011-004174
Application 11/776,345

2
fills the viewport. A processor is programmed for executing
computer program instructions for receiving a zoom factor
selected by a user; applying a zoom transformation to a first
subset of the image data corresponding to points in a first
region of the image that are displayed within the viewport after
magnifying the first region based on the zoom factor; and
displaying the zoom transformed first subset of the image data
so as to fill the viewport, while a second subset of the image
data representing points outside the first region have not been
transformed.

See Spec. 13, Abstract of the Disclosure.

Claim 1 is illustrative, with key disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A method for displaying an image, comprising:

receiving, from memory, a set of image data for displaying an image
that fits within and fills a viewport of a device;

receiving a zoom factor selected by a user;

applying, by a processor, a zoom transformation to a first subset of the
image data corresponding to points in first region of the image that are
displayed within the viewport of the device after magnifying the first
region based on the zoom factor,

displaying, on the viewport, the zoom transformed first subset of the
image data so as to fill the viewport, while maintaining a second
subset of the image data representing points outside the first region
have not been transformed in a portion of the memory, the second
subset of image data corresponding to a subsequent zoom-
transformed image portion for display in the viewport,

wherein the zoom transformation is not applied to any data
representing points outside the first region until a panning signal or a
scrolling signal is received.

Appeal 2011-004174
Application 11/776,345

3
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Rasmussen et al. US 2005/0270311 A1 Dec. 8, 2005

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-17, and 19-25 under 35 U.S.C.
§102(b) as anticipated by Rasmussen. Ans. 4-12.1

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 11-12) and the Reply Brief (Reply
Br. 4-5) that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Ans. 4-12), and
(2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (Ans. 12-14). We highlight and
amplify certain teachings and suggestions of the references as follows.
With respect to the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-17,
and 19-25 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Rasmussen,
Appellant relies on the limitations of claim 1 and does not provide
substantive arguments for separate patentability for any other claim within
this group. Accordingly, we will decide the appeal of these claims on the
basis of claim 1 alone. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.67(c)(1)(vii).

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed September 18,
2010; the Examiner’s Answer mailed November 2, 2010; and, the Reply
Brief filed November 16, 2010.
Appeal 2011-004174
Application 11/776,345

4
Appellant argues that Rasmussen fails to anticipate the claimed
invention by virtue of a failure to disclose “zoom-transforming only a subset
of the data and displaying it, while a second subset of the data is not zoom-
transformed.” App. Br. 11.
The Examiner finds Appellant’s argument is not persuasive, noting
that Claim 1 merely recites that only the displayed region of data is zoom-
transformed. Ans. 13.
The Examiner further finds that Rasmussen teaches a tile grid and
zooming a first region of tiles which correspond to the portion displayed in
the viewport, while not zooming the remaining tiles. Id. at 14.
We find the Examiner’s position persuasive. The cited portion of
Rasmussen (¶ [0120]) relied upon by the Examiner recites “[s]econd, for i
between 1 and n-l: (a) the tiles needed for the final frame are scaled by a
factor of s'(n-i).” We find the positive recitation that the tiles “needed for
the final frame are scaled” clearly implies that the tiles which are not needed
for the final frame are not scaled.
“An anticipatory reference . . . need not duplicate word for word what
is in the claims. Anticipation can occur when a claimed limitation is
‘inherent’ or otherwise implicit in the relevant reference.” Standard Havens
Prods., Inc. v. Gencor Indus. Inc., 953 F.2d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1991)
(citing Tyler Refrigeration v. Kysor Indus. Corp., 777 F.2d 687, 689 (Fed.
Cir. 1985)).
Consequently, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-
7, 9-11, 13-17, and 19-25 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over
Rasmussen.
Appeal 2011-004174
Application 11/776,345

5
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-17, and 19-
25 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b).

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-17, and 19-25
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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

cdc