Ex Parte Sekharan

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 21, 2019

14980307 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/980,307 12/28/2015
58735 7590 06/25/2019
Fountainhead Law Group P.C.
Chad R. Walsh
900 LAFAYETTE STREET
SUITE 301
SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Satishkumar Sekharan
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
000005-054300US 9632
EXAMINER
DU,HAIXIA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2611
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/25/2019 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):
docketing@fountainheadlaw.com
rbaumann@fountainheadlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SATISHKUMAR SEKHARAN
Appeal2018-006139
Application 14/980,307
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, MICHAEL M. BARRY, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-23. Claims
4, 11, and 18 have been canceled. See App. Br. 14--20 (Claims Appendix).
We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Business Objects
Software Limited. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-006139
Application 14/980,307
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's Invention
Appellant's invention generally relates to "techniques for rendering
multi-layer visual presentations." Spec. ,r 22. The Specification explains
that "different rendering engines are used to render different visual elements
of a visual presentation in different layers of the visual presentation" and
that "[ d]ifferent rendering engines are used to render the visual elements of
the visual presentation based on different factors" such as, for example,
based on the type of device on which the visual presentation is to be viewed.
Id. Claim 1, which is illustrative of the claimed invention, reads as follows:
1. A non-transitory machine-readable medium storing a
program executable by at least one processing unit of a device,
the program comprising sets of instructions for:
receiving data associated with a visual presentation
comprising a plurality of visual elements;
identifying a first set of visual elements in the plurality of
visual elements having a first type and a second set of visual
elements in the plurality of visual elements having a second type;
rendering the first set of visual elements in a first layer of
the visual presentation using a first rendering engine;
determining whether the device is a mobile computing
device;
when the device is determined to be a mobile computing
device, rendering the second set of visual elements in a second
layer of the visual presentation using a second rendering engine;
and
when the device is determined to not be a mobile
computing device, rendering the second set of visual elements in
the second layer of the visual presentation using a third rendering
engme.
2
Appeal2018-006139
Application 14/980,307
Rejections
Claims 5, 12, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as
failing to comply with the enablement requirement. Final Act. 4--5.
Claims 17, 19, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as
being indefinite. Final Act. 6-7.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Balaga et al.
(US 2005/0285876 Al; published Dec. 29, 2005) ("Balaga") and "What is
difference between HTML and HTML5? Do they build on each other or can
one simply just learn HTML5 as it becomes more frequent in web
development?" (Aug. 26, 2013) ("Quora"). Available at www.quora.com.
Final Act. 7-17.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Balaga, Quora, and Hultquist et al.
(US 2013/0321456 Al; published Dec. 5, 2013) ("Hultquist"). Final
Act. 17-22.
Claims 7 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Balaga, Quora, and Vrhel
(US 2016/0247051 Al; published Aug. 25, 2016, 2016). Final Act. 22-23.
ANALYSIS
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(a), (b)
Appellant does not present any arguments regarding the Examiner's
rejection of claims 5, 12, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or the
Examiner's rejection of claims 17, 19, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b ).
Accordingly, we summarily sustain these rejections.
3
Appeal2018-006139
Application 14/980,307
Rejections under 35 U.S. C. § 103
Appellant does not argue the claims separately with particularity but,
instead, relies upon the same arguments for each of claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-
16, and 20. See App. Br. 10-13. We select claim 1 as representative.
Accordingly, claims 2, 3, 6-10, 13-16, and 20 stand or fall with claim 1.
CLAIM 1
Appellant contends the combination of Balaga and Quora fails to
teach or suggest:
rendering the first set of visual elements in a first layer of
the visual presentation using a first rendering engine;
determining whether the device is a mobile computing
device;
when the device is determined to be a mobile computing
device, rendering the second set of visual elements in a second
layer of the visual presentation using a second rendering engine;
and
when the device is determined to not be a mobile
computing device, rendering the second set of visual elements in
the second layer of the visual presentation using a third rendering
engme,
as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 10-13; Reply Br. 2-3. Appellant
acknowledges that "the third paragraph of the answer by Michael Barber in
Quora discloses 'choosing HTML or HTML5 based on the platform and can
choose HTML5 if developing for mobile platform.'" App. Br. 10.
Appellant argues, however, "[ t ]here is nothing in the third paragraph of the
answer by Michael Barber in Quora that describes or suggests that a
'determination is made as whether the device has a mobile platform as on a
mobile computing device."' App. Br. 11. Appellant further argues:
4
Appeal2018-006139
Application 14/980,307
Independent claims 1 and 8 are claims performed by a
device while independent claim 15 is a claim performed by a
system. Therefore, in order to disclose the present limitation, the
answer by Michael Barber in Quora needs to disclose f!
device/system that determines whether the device/system is a
mobile computing device. However, the third paragraph of the
answer by Michael Barber in Quora fails to do so because it
merely describes how a person ( e.g., a web developer) would
choose to develop a website using HTML or HTML 5. A person
is not the same as a device or a system.
App. Br. 10; see also Reply Br. 2.
With respect to the teachings of Balaga, Appellant acknowledges
"Balaga describes rendering a two-dimensional raster image and a two-
dimensional vector image as a layer[] of a composite image." App. Br. 12.
Appellant argues Balaga, however, "does not disclose using different
rendering engines to render a particular image (e.g., the two-dimensional
raster image or the two-dimensional vector image) based on whether a
device/system is determined to be a mobile computing device." Id.
We do not find Appellant's arguments persuasive. One cannot show
non-obviousness by attacking references individually, where the rejections
are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F .2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425-26 (CCPA
1981 ).
Here, the Examiner finds Balaga teaches a computer readable storage
medium storing program code for causing a computer to render a first set of
visual elements in a first layer of a visual presentation using a first rendering
engine and render a second set of visual elements in a second layer of the
visual presentation using a second rendering engine. Final Act. 7, 9-10
(citing Balaga ,r,r 19, 27, 62---64). The Examiner finds Quora teaches
5
Appeal2018-006139
Application 14/980,307
"choosing HTML or HTML5 based on the platform and can choose HTML5
if developing for mobile platform" and, therefore, teaches or suggests
determining indicating determination is made as whether the device has a
mobile platform as on a mobile computing device. Final Act. 11 ( citing
Quora, p. 1, paras. 2-3). The Examiner concludes the disputed limitation
would be obvious based on the combined teachings of the references. Final
Act. 12. Appellant's arguments do not persuasively address the combined
teachings of the references and, therefore, are unpersuasive of error. See
Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1; and claims 2, 3, 6-10, 13-16, and 20, which fall with
claim 1, under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 5, 12, 21, and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 17, 19, and 23 under
35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-16, and
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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
6