Ex Parte Uthe

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 27, 2008

10420688 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 27, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ROBERT THOMAS UTHE
____________

Appeal 2007-3331
Application 10/420,688
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: March 27, 2008
____________

Before ANITA PELLMAN GROSS, MAHSHID D. SAADAT,
and SCOTT R. BOALICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Uthe (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1 through 15, which are all of the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appellant's invention relates to a method of presenting multi-
ownership in a tree-map. Specifically, the invention relates to indicating in a
tree-map multiple occurrences of a node when one occurrence of the node is
Appeal 2007-3331
Application 10/420,688

2
selected. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it reads as
follows:
1. A method for presenting multi-ownership in a tree-map, the
method comprising the steps of:

detecting a proximity event about a representation for a node in the
tree-map;

determining through said representation a unique identifier for said
node;

locating all other representations in the tree-map which corresponding
to said unique identifier; and,

highlighting each of said representations in the tree-map.

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
(filed Jul. 23, 2002)
Bauernschmidt US 2004/0168115 A1 Aug. 26, 2004
(filed Feb. 21, 2003)

Claims 1 through 6 and 10 through 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Bauernschmidt in view of Hodgson or
Theisen.
Claims 7 through 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Wills in view of Hodgson or Theisen.
We refer to the Examiner's Answer (mailed May 16, 2006) and to
Appellant's Brief (filed April 26, 2006) and Reply Brief (filed July 16, 2006)
for the respective arguments.
Appeal 2007-3331
Application 10/420,688

3
SUMMARY OF DECISION
As a consequence of our review, we will reverse the obviousness
rejections of claims 1 through 15.

OPINION
Each of independent claims 1 and 10 recites "determining … a unique
identifier" for a node and highlighting all representations which correspond
to that unique identifier. The Examiner asserts (Ans. 4) that Bauernschmidt
discloses that a user's specifying in window 414 a particular month or year
satisfies the step of determining a unique identifier. Appellant contends
(App. Br. 5) that Bauernschmidt's window 414 does not uniquely identify a
particular node. The first issue, therefore, is whether Bauernschmidt teaches
or suggests a unique identifier for a node.
In addition, the Examiner admits (Ans. 4) that Bauernschmidt fails to
teach highlighting each representation that corresponds to the unique
identifier but asserts (Ans. 4-5) that Theisen teaches highlighting all
representations of unique identifier 184 to link them together and that
Hodgson teaches highlighting nodes to link them together in a tree map.
Appellant contends (App. Br. 8) that Hodgson does not teach highlighting
each representation that corresponds to a unique identifier, but, rather,
"Hodgson merely teaches highlighting a selected capability in a hierarchical
structure display 16 after a capability 12 has been selected in a model
display 10." Similarly, Appellant contends (App. Br. 10-11) that Theisen
fails to teach highlighting each representation that corresponds to a unique
Appeal 2007-3331
Application 10/420,688

4
identifier, but, rather, Theisen1 "merely teaches highlighting a tree above and
below a relevant node representation." The second issue, therefore, is
whether Hodgson or Theisen teaches or suggests highlighting each
representation that corresponds to a unique identifier of a node.
Bauernschmidt discloses (paragraph 0052) that window 414 is a
control window which displays nodes of the tree-map. The user can "open
the nodes of the tree in window 414, such as month node 416, to display
additional nodes, such as weeks of the month." The window opens one node
to display related nodes. The indicator of a particular month, for example,
not only identifies a node for that month, but also identifies nodes for the
weeks of that month. The window, therefore, does not uniquely identify a
particular node. We find no unique identifier for a node in Bauernschmidt.
Hodgson discloses (col. 4, ll. 51-56) linking a graphical display of a
model and a hierarchical representation of an organization and allowing a
user to highlight on one representation elements related to a selected
component on the other representation. In other words, Hodgson discloses
highlighting related elements from two different displays, not the same
element multiple times in a single display. Thus, Hodgson does not suggest
a unique identifier for a node, thereby failing to cure the deficiency of
Bauernschmidt. Further, with no teaching of a unique identifier, Hodgson
also fails to disclose highlighting each representation that corresponds to a
unique identifier of a node.

1 Brief actually says Hodgson, but it is clear from the context that Appellant
meant Theisen.
Appeal 2007-3331
Application 10/420,688

5
Theisen discloses (col. 7, ll. 31-34) locating a cursor over a string
identifier 184 associated with stick 186 and highlighting a portion of the tree
that is above and below stick 186. Theisen does not disclose highlighting
other occurrences of identifier 184. Therefore, Theisen fails to disclose
highlighting each representation that corresponds to a unique identifier of a
node.
Since Bauernschmidt fails to disclose a unique identifier for a node,
and neither Hodgson nor Theisen discloses highlighting each representation
that corresponds to a unique identifier of a node, the Examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness for claims 1 through 6 and 10
through 15. Consequently, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 1
through 6 and 10 through 15 over Bauernschmidt in view of Hodgson or
Theisen.
Independent claim 7 does not recite a unique identifier for a node.
However, claim 7 recites, in pertinent part, highlighting multiple portions of
a tree-map that represent a single node. The Examiner (Ans. 7-9) rejects
claims 7 through 9 over Wills in view of Hodgson or Theisen. The
Examiner admits (Ans. 8), and we agree, that Wills fails to teach
"highlighting multiple portions of the tree-map in which the portions
represent a single node." The Examiner (Ans. 8-9) relies on Theisen and
Hodgson in the same way discussed supra. However, we found that neither
Hodgson nor Theisen discloses highlighting multiple occurrences of the
same node. Instead, Hodgson highlights related elements from two different
displays, and Theisen highlights a portion of the tree that is above and below
a stick 186. Thus, neither Hodgson nor Theisen remedies the deficiency of
Appeal 2007-3331
Application 10/420,688

6
Wills, and we cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 7
through 9.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1 through 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.

REVERSED

KIS

CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, L.L.P.
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
950 PENINSULA CORPORATE CIRCLE
SUITE 3020
BOCA RATON, FL 33487