Ex Parte Uthe

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 26, 2007

10420685 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 26, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication in and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
___________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
___________

Ex parte ROBERT THOMAS UTHE
___________

Appeal 2006-3172
Application 10/420,685
Technology Center 3600
___________

Decided: January 26, 2007
___________

Before ANITA PELLMAN GROSS, STUART S. LEVY and ANTON W.
FETTING, Administrative Patent Judges.
ANTON W. FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

This appeal involves claims 1-9 and 11-22, claims 10 and 23 having been
indicated as containing allowable subject matter by the examiner. Claims 1-23 are
the only claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134.

We REVERSE and ENTER A NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
PURSUANT TO 37 CFR § 41.50(b).

Appeal Number: 2006-3172
Application Number: 10/420,685

BACKGROUND

The appellant's invention relates to presenting inter-relationships in a tree-
map1. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below.
1. A method for presenting inter-related nodes in a treemap, the
treemap comprising hierarchical information to a rectangular 2-D
display in a space-filling manner in which the entirely of a designated
display space is utilized, the method comprising the steps of:
detecting a proximity event about a representation for a node in the
treemap;
determining through said representation at least one inter-related
node; and,
highlighting said nodes and drawing a linkage in said treemap
between said nodes.

PRIOR ART
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Theisen US 6,259,458 B1 Jul. 10, 2001
Wills US 6,304,260 B1 Oct. 16, 2001
Hodgson US 6,774,911 B2 Aug. 10, 2004
(Jun. 23, 2002)

1 A treemap is a visualization technique that maps hierarchical information to a
rectangular 2-D display in a space-filling manner in which the entirety of a
designated display space is utilized. (Spec 2).
2

Appeal Number: 2006-3172
Application Number: 10/420,685

In addition, we make the following prior art of record:
Cottingham, Excel 2000 Developer’s Handbook, ISBN 0-7821-2328-7,
pp. 524-533 (1999).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-7 and 11-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Wills and Hodgson.
Claims 8, 9, 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Wills, Hodgson and Theisen.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the
examiner's answer (mailed March 3, 2006) for the reasoning in support of the
rejection, and to appellant’s brief (filed February 1, 2006) and reply brief (filed
April 26, 2006) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant’s specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to
the respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we make the determinations that follow.
3

Appeal Number: 2006-3172
Application Number: 10/420,685

Claims 1-7 and 11-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Wills
and Hodgson.
We note that the appellant argues these claims as a group. Accordingly, we
select claim 1 as representative of the group.
The examiner applied Wills for its teachings of the need for visual
enhancements to treemaps and Hodgson to show highlighting and drawing
linkages among related nodes in a tree in response to selection of a tree node
(Answer 3-5).
The appellant argues that the examiner failed to provide objective evidence for
the motivation to combine the teachings of Wills and Hodgson (Br. 5-9; Reply Br.
2-4), and that even were Wills and Hodgson combined, it would not have resulted
in the claimed invention (Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 5).
The examiner points to Hodgson’s col. 5, lines 11-15, as evidence that a person
of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine its teachings
with Wills (Answer 8-9). This portion of Hodgson states
By selecting a capability (node 12) in the model display (10), the user
causes the processing means (not shown) to automatically generate
the hierarchical structure display (16) and redisplay the same on a
display screen with an indication, such as a highlight, to indicate the
selected capability (node) in its contextual location in the hierarchy of
the organization.
(emphasis as added by examiner).
We agree that this is evidence of such desirability and further note that
Hodgson provides stronger evidence earlier in its disclosure:
However, many organizational needs are not currently met by the
graphical model of an organization. These needs can include a need
for the user to be able to understand the location of an organization
4

Appeal Number: 2006-3172
Application Number: 10/420,685

capability within a broader organizational graph in terms of its
superior and subordinate capabilities. There is also a need for the user
to be able to maintain the context of components within an
organizational model in terms of the respective position of that
component in a structured hierarchic view of the organization.
(Col. 1, lines 44-52).
Therefore, we find the appellant's arguments to be unpersuasive as to the lack
of evidence to combine the references.
As to whether the combined references actually would result in the claimed
invention, however, we cannot agree with the examiner’s arguments. The
examiner argues that
Hodgson shows (Figs. 1, 2 and 4) the nodes (12) having linkages or
inter-relations (14), wherein detecting a proximity event about a node
in the tree map and highlighting the nodes and drawing a linkage in
the tree map between nodes. See column 1, lines 19-42; column 3,
lines 23-27; column 4, lines 40-62; and column 5, lines 1-19.
(Answer 4).
We reviewed Hodgson, particularly the sections noted by the examiner,
looking for the claimed subject matter identified by the examiner and found
Hodgson lacking. Hodgson essentially describes presenting two different
graphical displays of the same organizational information, and, when a node in one
of the displays is selected, highlighting the respective representation of that same
node in the other display. (Col. 5, lines 10-19). While Hodgson does indeed
portray linkages among nodes (ref. 14 in figs. 2 and 4), these linkages are merely
part of the model itself, and not linkages drawn among nodes that have been
determined to be inter-related to a node whose representation had a proximity
event detected about it, as required by claim 1. And while Hodgson does highlight
two representations of the same node, one of whose representations had a
5

Appeal Number: 2006-3172
Application Number: 10/420,685

proximity event detected about it, Hodgson does not describe highlighting inter-
related nodes as well. Therefore, we find the examiner's arguments to be
unpersuasive.
Accordingly we do not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1-7 and 11-20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Wills and Hodgson.
Claims 8, 9, 21 and 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Wills,
Hodgson and Theisen.
The examiner relies on Theisen to show iteration of the detecting and
highlighting. (Answer 6-7). Nothing in Theisen teaches or suggests drawing
linkages among nodes that have been determined to be inter-related to a node
whose representation had a proximity event detected about it. Like Hodgson,
Theisen draws links for the model itself and does not draw additional links in
response to such detecting. Therefore, we find the examiner's arguments to be
unpersuasive. Accordingly we do not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 8,
9, 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Wills, Hodgson and
Theisen.
6

Appeal Number: 2006-3172
Application Number: 10/420,685

NEW GROUND OF REJECTION UNDER 37 CFR § 41.50(b)
Pursuant to 37 CFR § 41.50(b), we enter the following new ground of
rejection:
Independent claims 1, 11 and 14, and dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15,
16, 19, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Cottingham, Excel 2000 Developer’s Handbook, pp. 524-533, 1999, describing the
auditing feature of the Excel spreadsheet software product.
The auditing feature of Excel, initiated by a mouse click event on a cell and on
a menu button, provides visual highlighting (by placing a dot with a
distinguishable color in a cell) and linkage drawing (by drawing directed arrows)
of nodes related to a selected node in the worksheet (see figures on pp. 527 and
531), and that this audit display may be performed repeatedly, i.e. iteratively,
throughout the affected chain (see the two TraceAllLevelsOfPrecedency and
TraceAllLevelsOfDependency calls, which, by virtue of tracing all levels,
inherently trace each level iteratively, on p. 531).
We also note that a spreadsheet, being an array, is a tree data structure that
presents hierarchical row and column information to a rectangular 2D display in a
space filling manner in which the entirety of a designated worksheet display space
is utilized by individual cells. It is a treemap in that it maps a tree comprised of a
root (the spreadsheet frame) and leaves from the root (individual cells) within the
root representation.
The examiner should consider whether the remaining claims, which introduce
limitations regarding mouse-over events and numeric constraints on the number of
7

Appeal Number: 2006-3172
Application Number: 10/420,685

iterations shown, are patentable in view of Cottingham and the remaining art of
record.
CONCLUSION
To summarize,
• The rejection of claims 1-7 and 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Wills and Hodgson is not sustained.
• The rejection of claims 8, 9, 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Wills, Hodgson and Theisen is not sustained.
• Pursuant to 37 CFR § 41.50(b), we enter the following new ground of
rejection
o Independent claims 1, 11 and 14, and dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 8,
12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Cottingham.
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 CFR §
41.50(b) (effective September 13, 2004, 69 Fed. Reg. 49960 (August 12, 2004),
1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (September 7, 2004)). 37 CFR § 41.50(b) provides
“[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered
final for judicial review.”
37 CFR § 41.50 (b) also provides that the appellant, WITHIN TWO MONTHS
FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two
options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the
appeal as to the rejected claims: (1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so
8

Appeal Number: 2006-3172
Application Number: 10/420,685

rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event
the proceeding will be remanded to the examiner . . . .
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under § 41.52 by
the Board upon the same record . . . .
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
REVERSED
and
ENTERED A NEW GROUND OF REJECTION PURSUANT TO
37 CFR § 41.50(b).

ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
STUART S. LEVY ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANTON W. FETTING )
Administrative Patent Judge )

9

Appeal Number: 2006-3172
Application Number: 10/420,685

Carey, Rodriguez, Greenberg & Paul, LLP
Steven M. Greenberg
950 Peninsula Corporate Circle
Suite 3020
Boca Raton, FL 33487

AWF/ki
10