Ex Parte Smith

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 1, 2008

10156169 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 1, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte RANDALL B. SMITH
____________

Appeal 2007-3478
Application 10/156,169
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: April 1, 2008
____________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, MARC S. HOFF,
and KARL D. EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judges.

EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
all remaining claims 24-26 and 28-43 pending in this application as claims
1-23 and 27 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
Appeal 2007-3478
Application 10/156,169

2
Appellant discloses a system for controlling the level of detail of data
to be displayed. Appellant employs user-adjustable filters operating on the
data to determine at least one information control value, and uses the value
to select a predetermined rendering plan. Different rendering plans differ in
the level of detail to be displayed. (Spec. 2-4).
Claim 24 is representative of the claims on appeal, and reads as
follows:
24. A method comprising:

(a) applying one or more user-adjustable filters to a data record
corresponding to an object in a collection of objects, wherein the one
or more filters operate on one or more data fields of the data record to
determine one or more information control values;

(b) generating an output packet for the object according to a particular
rendering plan, wherein the one or more information control values
are used to select the particular rendering plan from a set of
predetermined rendering plans, and wherein the rendering plans differ
in the level of detail to be displayed; and

(c) displaying a visual representation of the object based on the output
packet.

The prior art cited in rejecting the claims on appeal is:
Katayama US 5,075,618 Dec. 24, 1991
Lipkin US 5,999,944 Dec. 7, 1999
Peng US 6,128,011 Oct. 3, 2000
Becker US 6,301,579 Oct. 9, 2001

Claims 24-26, 28-37, 39-41, and 43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Lipkin and Becker.
Claim 38 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the
teachings of Lipkin, Becker and Peng.
Appeal 2007-3478
Application 10/156,169

3
Claim 42 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the
teachings of Lipkin, Becker, and Katayama.
Rather than reiterate the opposing arguments, we refer to the Briefs
and the Answer for the respective positions of Appellant and the Examiner.
Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have been considered in
this decision. Arguments which Appellant could have made but did not
make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c) (1) (vii).
We affirm.

ISSUE
The issue is whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The issue specifically turns
on whether Becker discloses that “one or more information control values
are used to select the particular rendering plan from a set of predetermined
rendering plans, and wherein the rendering plans differ in the level of detail
to be displayed.” (Br. 6) (emphasis original).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
To reach a conclusion of obviousness under section 103, the Examiner
bears the burden of producing factual basis supported by teaching in a prior
art reference or shown to be common knowledge of unquestionable
demonstration. Our reviewing court requires this evidence in order to
establish a prima facie case. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72 (Fed.
Cir. 1984).
Appeal 2007-3478
Application 10/156,169

4
Furthermore, the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art.
See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), In re Young, 927
F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981).
“Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains.’” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727,
1734 (2007).

FINDINGS of FACT (FF)
1. Appellant defines filtering as follows:
In one set of embodiments, a computer system may be
configured to dynamically control the visual display of information
presented on a display device based on one or more user-adjustable
filters (also referred to herein as evaluation criteria or evaluation
functions).
(Spec. 2: 3-6) (emphasis supplied).
“The filters cut down the total amount of information rendered
onscreen, and thus, the amount of rendering effort.” (Spec 3: 17-18). “More
generally, a filter may have any desired functional form or execute any
desired computational algorithm.” (Spec. 28: 9-10).

Appeal 2007-3478
Application 10/156,169

5
2. Appellant states that information control values may be determined
by filters:
The processor may apply the filters to each data record (in the
collection of data records) to determine a corresponding information
control value. The information control value indicates an extent to
which the data record (or the corresponding object) satisfies one or
more user-adjustable criteria as represented by the filters. For
example, the processor may apply the one or more filters to the data
fields of each data record. The resultant values from the one or more
filters may be combined (i.e. mixed) in a linear or nonlinear fashion to
determine the information control value.
(Spec. 2: 23-30).
3. Defining rendering plans, Appellant states that the “levels of
information detail are also referred to herein as rendering plans.” (Spec. 13:
19-20). “The present invention contemplates a vast multitude of ways of
defining successions of rendering plans ordered by information content (or
information density or level of information detail).” (Spec. 27: 25-27).
Appellant states that the information displayed may be in a wide variety of
forms, including, size, shape, movement, color, text, opacity, numeric
information, or any combination thereof. (Spec. 3: 21-23).
4. Regarding the relationship between information control values and
rendering plans, Appellant states that “[t]he amount of information presented
for an object may be a monotonic function (e.g. a monotonically increasing
function) of its information control value” (Spec.: 3:29 to 4:2). “The present
invention contemplates a wide variety of ways to define successive levels of
information detail and to map them to states of an information control
value.” (Spec. 13: 17-18). Appellant explains:
Appeal 2007-3478
Application 10/156,169

6
For example, if object A has a larger information control value
than object B, object A may be displayed with more symbolic
information, more textual information, more numerical
information, more opacity…larger size…and/or more
graphical rendering effort (e.g. …higher quality anti-aliasing
filters, more primitives) than object B.
(Spec. 3: 23-29) (emphasis supplied).
5. Appellant describes an embodiment representing various levels of
email information:
The various ways of calculating the information control
value described above naturally translate to the email filtering
application as well…The email data fields…may include fields
such as date sent, date received, message content, subject line,
From field, To field, CC field, attachments indicator, message
size and so on.
(Spec. 20: 7-16).
The data fields are sent through filters to determine if there is data in
the field of interest (Spec. 20: 7-23). As the number of data fields increase,
the level of detail displayed may increase (Spec. 19: 4-10).
6. Appellant states that “ the word ‘may’ is used throughout this
application in a permissive sense, i.e., having the potential to, being able to,)
not a mandatory sense (i.e., must).” (Spec. 5: 21-23)
7. Becker discloses a system for visualizing a multi-level data
structure in a hierarchal manner (Figs. 5-7, col. 5, ll. 51-54; col. 15, ll. 15-
29). In one example, mushrooms having various attributes, including cap-
color, bruises, spore print color, stalk size, and odor, etc., are analyzed and
displayed (Fig. 5, col. 17, ll. 59-62). At the top level of the display,
Appeal 2007-3478
Application 10/156,169

7
mushrooms are graphed to depict the relative number of edible/poisonous
mushrooms as a function of the spore print color attribute (comprising color
values buff, orange, and purple, etc.) (Fig. 5, col. 17, l. 5 to col. 18, l. 8)
versus the odor attribute (comprising odor values spicy, pungent, and foul,
etc.) in a 9x9 “cake” matrix. The z-axis height of each “cake” corresponds
to the number of mushrooms having a particular value of color or odor (col.
13, ll. 54 to 64; col. 18, ll. 64 -67; Fig. 5).
To visualize more detail, “a user drills-down to the next [lower] level”
(col. 22, ll. 5-8, see also col. 8, ll. 16-26), by, for example, using a slider to
select a cake to display on the lower level (col. 18, ll. 48-56). For example,
comparing Becker’s cake 514 (Fig. 5) to its corresponding cake 614 (Fig. 6)
after a drill-down selection reveals more visual detail in cake 614 as
compared to cake 514 (Figs. 5-7, col. 4, ll. 53-59). Figure 7 depicts a more
detailed “zoom-in” of the 6 x 7 cake matrix of cake 614 in Figure 6,
displaying two additional attributes (i.e., population versus habitat) of the
specific mushroom cake 514 selected (i.e., mushrooms having the values of
no odor and a white color) of Figure 5. (Col. 22, ll. 5-28).
8. Becker’s weight threshold slider allows a user to filter out values
that have too few data points in a given value bin (col. 14, ll. 65-67; col. 18,
ll. 63 to col. 19, ll. 10). Numbers can be assigned to non-numerical
attributes for sorting (col. 7, ll. 48-51). Attributes or values can be filtered,
binned, sorted, removed, or added by the user to simplify visualization and
aggregation of the data (col. 17, ll. 22-26, ll. 61-63; col. 28, ll. 6-19; col. 21,
l.65 - col. 22, l.4; col. 28, l.55 - col. 29, l.4; col. 30, ll. 15-27). Selected
Appeal 2007-3478
Application 10/156,169

8
cakes on any level can also be “ed and then ed”; i.e., filtered,
for drill down to a lower level of display (col. 20, ll. 59 to 64).
ANALYSIS
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Lipton teaches
the first claim step: “applying one or more user adjustable filters to a data
record corresponding to an object in a collection of objects, wherein the one
or more filters operate on one or more data fields of the data record to
determine one or more information control values.” (Final Office Action 3,
mailed Mar. 6, 2006). And, while Appellant states generally that “it is
nonobvious to combine Becker and Lipkin” (Br. 8) and “there is no
suggestion in the cited art for combining Becker and Lipkin” (Br. 9), such
statements do not rise to the level of asserting an error in the Examiner’s
finding. As the Examiner noted, “Applicant…does not specifically address
the reason for combination as recited in the final Office Action.” (Ans. 7).
Consequently, we concur with the Examiner’s findings regarding the
teachings of Lipton and the reasons to combine the references (see Ans. 7,
Final Office Action: 3-4, mailed March 6, 2006).
The sole dispute on appeal is over Appellant’s contention that Becker
fails to teach “one or more information control values are used to select the
particular rendering plan from a set of predetermined rendering plans, and
wherein the rendering plans differ in the level of detail to be displayed” (Br.
6) (emphasis original). Appellant contends that “it is actions by the user that
selects a new level of detail to be displayed.” (Br. 7) (emphasis original).
The Examiner responds that “the value produced by the detail slider is an
information control value.” (Ans. 5, citing Becker, col. 18, ll. 48-56).
Appeal 2007-3478
Application 10/156,169

9
We agree with the Examiner because Appellant’s claim requires user
action: “applying one or more user-adjustable filters…to determine one or
more information control values.” Becker’s slider 530 constitutes a user-
adjustable filter that determines information control values. That is, a user
selects one or many cakes via the user-adjustable slider, with each cake
corresponding to the number of mushrooms in a particular value bin on a
particular display level, for drill-down to display different data on a more
detailed level. (Col. 18, ll. 50-56; FF 7).1 Hence, Becker’s slider evaluates
(i.e. filters – see FF 1) the selected group of cakes to determine which cakes
to display on a more detailed level, determining, according to Appellant, an
“information control value [which] indicates an extent to which the data
record (or the corresponding object) satisfies one or more user-adjustable
criteria as represented by the filters” (FF 2).
Since Becker’s slider constitutes “a user-adjustable filter” that
determines the selected cakes (i.e., “one or more information control
values”) to display on a drill-down (i.e., “the particular rendering plan”)
from a limited set of cakes (i.e., “a set of predetermined rendering plans”),
and different numbers, sizes and types of cakes, correspond to more
“symbolic” or “numerical” information, or “more graphical rendering

1Drilling down involves filtering of different attributes or values to render
different levels of information (see FF 7-8). For example, in the mushroom
example, drilling down renders the display of the additional attributes
habitat versus population (see Figs. 6-7, FF 7) of a smaller group (i.e.,
odorless/white) of mushrooms as compared to the less detailed display for
the whole group (i.e., odor versus color – see Figs. 5-6).
Appeal 2007-3478
Application 10/156,169

10
effort,” (see FF 4, 7), “the rendering plans differ in the level of detail to be
displayed.” Hence, Becker meets the claim.2
We also are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that “Becker
teaches one rendering mode” and that there “is no teaching of a set of
predetermined rendering plans.” (Br. 8). Appellant states that “levels of
information detail are also referred to herein as rendering plans” (FF 3), and
more detail may be met by “more symbolic information, more textual
information, more numerical information,…larger size…and/or more
graphical rendering effort” (FF 4).
Appellant also states, however, that “Becker instead consistently
teaches that a user takes an action that selects a new level of detail to be
displayed, and that a user “incrementally” moves in sequence form an
overview level of detail to each more detailed level of information.” (Br. 6,
par. 3 (emphasis original); see also Br. 7). We have already determined
supra that the claim does not preclude user-action, but, rather, requires it.
Further, “incrementally” creates no distinction, since: “[t]he present
invention contemplates a wide variety of ways to define successive levels of
information detail and to map them to states of an information control value”
(FF 4). Hence, as Appellant acknowledges that different cake selections
create additional displayed levels of detail, “also referred to herein as

2 The user-adjustable slider/filter ultimately evaluates (filters) intersecting
values associated with the selected cake(s) (see FF 7-8, Figs. 5-7), meeting
the first claim step, since the slider “operate(s) on one or more data fields”
(values or attributes) of mushroom data “of the data record to determine one
or more information control values.” While we have determined that Becker
meets each claim step, as indicated supra, we also concur with the
Examiner’s unchallenged determination that Lipkin meets the first claim
step.
Appeal 2007-3478
Application 10/156,169

11
rendering plans” (FF 3), selecting and displaying Becker’s particular cakes
meet the claim phrase “select[ing] the particular rendering plan from a set of
predetermined rendering plans.”3
Similarly, binning involves filtering to determine the range of a
particular value or attribute, which also encompasses “selecting the
particular rendering plan from a set [thereof],” since, for example, a wider
bin results in the display of taller cakes and/or less values or attributes (as
overlapping values or attributes become binned together) (see FF 8). As
another alternative, simply increasing the size of a cake or cakes and
eliminating attributes or values having low record counts, by passing
selected attributes or values through Becker’s weight threshold slider (FF 8,
see also FF 7) (i.e., user-adjustable filter), meets the claim. Finally, our
determination that Becker’s mushroom embodiment (FF 7) meets the claim
under several different alternatives is buttressed by a comparison thereof to
Appellant’s email embodiment (FF 5), which reveals the similarities
between the two systems.
CONCLUSION
Because Appellant has failed to point to any error in the Examiner’s
position, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection with respect to claim 24,
and also with respect to claims 25-26 and 28-43 which are not argued
separately (Br. 4, 9-12).

3Becker’s mushroom example involves a limited set of data, attributes,
values, and levels of display. Consequently, the rendering plans are “pre-
determined” (by the system, algorithm, program, etc.) because only a limited
set of combinations of data can be displayed. Becker also explicitly
discloses implementing every level of detail (Becker, col. 15, ll. 37 to 46) -
also meeting the limitation of predetermined rendering plans.
Appeal 2007-3478
Application 10/156,169

12

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 24-26 and 28-43 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

KIS

MHKKG/SUN
P. O. BOX 398
AUSTIN, TX 78767