Ex Parte Uthe et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 31, 2011

10811541 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 31, 2011)

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.
10/811,541 03/29/2004 Robert T. Uthe RSW920040007US1/4541-019 2249
67419 7590 10/31/2011
COATS & BENNETT/IBM
1400 CRESCENT GREEN
SUITE 300
CARY, NC 27518
EXAMINER
WONG, WILLIAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2172
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte ROBERT T. UTHE and JOHN P. WHITFIELD
_____________

Appeal 2009-011215
Application 10/811,541
Technology Center 2100
______________

Before, ROBERT E. NAPPI, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and
DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges.

KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1-4, 7-8, and 11-23.
1
We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

1
Claims 5-6 and 9-10 were previously cancelled.
Appeal 2009-011215
Application 10/811,541

2
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method, computer-readable medium,
and system for zooming in and out a display of a plurality of resources, each
of which has zero or more attributes related to the resource. See Spec. 2.
Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below:
1. A method of zooming in/out a current display of a
visualization of a network comprising a plurality of
interconnected nodes, each said network node having zero or
more attributes related to an operational characteristic or status
of said network node, and each network node being a network
node of interest if it has at least one attribute that matches
predetermined criteria, the network nodes represented in the
visualization by interconnected icons, comprising:
computing a future display area zoomed in/out from said
current display by an initial factor;
positioning said future display area over said visualization to
include the largest possible number of icons representing
network nodes of interest; and
replacing said current display with a view of said future
display area.

REFERENCES
Goldberg US 6,341,183 B1 Jan. 22, 2002

Leshem US 6,341,310 B1 Jan. 22, 2002

Slatter US 2003/0025812 A1 Feb. 6, 2003

Ball US 2003/0046390 A1 Mar. 6, 2003

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1-2, 7-8, 11-21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Slatter in view of Leshem. Ans. 3-7.
Appeal 2009-011215
Application 10/811,541

3
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Slatter in view of Leshem and Goldberg. Ans. 7-8.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Slatter in view of Leshem and Ball. Ans. 8.

ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding that Slatter in view of Leshem teaches
or suggests:
a. Zooming in/out a current display of a visualization of a network
comprising a plurality of interconnected nodes;
b. Each network node having zero or more attributes related to an
operational characteristic or status of said network node; and
c. Network nodes represented in the visualization by
interconnected icons?
2. Did the Examiner err in combining Leshem with Slatter?
3. Did the Examiner err in finding that Slatter in view of Leshem and
Goldberg teaches or suggests specific values and ranges of values for
an initial zoom factor?

ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites “zooming in/out a current display of a visualization of
a network comprising a plurality of interconnected nodes, each said network
node having zero or more attributes related to an operational characteristic or
status of said network node.” Independent claims 14, 16, and 18 recite
similar limitations. Claims 2-4, 7-8, 11-13, 15, 17, 19, and 20-23 each
depend upon one of the independent claims.
Appeal 2009-011215
Application 10/811,541

4
1. Slatter in view of Leshem:
a. Appellants initially argue that Slatter does not disclose
“manipulating a visualization of a network comprising a
plurality of interconnected nodes.” App. Br. 4. The
Examiner finds that Leshem, not Slatter, discloses this
limitation. Ans. 9. As such, we agree with the Examiner
that this argument is moot. Ans. 9.
b. Appellants argue that Slatter does not disclose manipulating
the display based on attributes (i.e., age, sex, nationality) of
the underlying object (i.e., image of people) because
Slatter’s zoom calculations are based on characteristics (i.e.,
color, brightness, shape) of the image, not attributes of the
entity (i.e., people). App. Br. 5. We disagree. Claim 1 does
not specifically require that the display be manipulated
2

based upon attributes of an underlying object. Claim 1 only
requires manipulating the display so as to encompass the
“largest number of icons representing network nodes of
interest,” wherein the network nodes of interest are nodes
that have at least one attribute related to an operational
characteristic or status of a network node that matches a
predetermined criteria. As such, Appellants arguments are
not commensurate in scope with the claims. Even so, as
correctly stated by the Examiner, while the attributes
disclosed in Slatter are indeed attributes of the image, they

2
We understand Appellants’ use of the word “manipulated” as being used in
place of the actual claim term “zooming in/out.”
Appeal 2009-011215
Application 10/811,541

5
are also attributes of the person at the time the picture was
taken. Ans. 9-10. Therefore, the color, brightness, and
shape of the image are also the color, brightness, and shape
of the person in the image. Additionally, the Examiner finds
that Leshem discloses node attributes that include the
amount of activity, the popularity, or the congestion at the
nodes. Ans. 10. Appellants do not sufficiently address these
specific findings by the Examiner. Thus, we do not find
Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive.
c. Appellants argue that Leshem does not teach visualization of
a network comprising interconnected nodes, the nodes
having attributes and being represented by the visualization
of icons because interlinked web pages are not a network
and web pages are not network nodes. App. Br. 7.
Appellants cite to a Wikipedia document that is not provided
in the Evidence Appendix and will therefore not be
considered. Even if the document was provided and
considered, we still disagree with Appellants’ arguments.
As correctly stated by the Examiner, neither Appellants’
Specification nor the claims specifically define the term
“network.” Ans. 10. As such, the Examiner interprets the
term “network” broadly as “an interconnected group or
system.” Ans. 10. We find this interpretation to be
reasonable. Subsequently, the Examiner finds that
interlinked web pages are a network and that Leshem
discloses a network of web nodes that have attributes
Appeal 2009-011215
Application 10/811,541

6
(activity, popularity, congestion) that are represented by
icons. Ans. 10-11. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner
that Slatter in view of Leshem discloses a visualization of a
network with interconnected nodes, wherein the node
attributes relate to an operational characteristic or status of
the node.
2. Appellants argue that the cited references do not teach any aspect
of the invention and that the Examiner has not said why the
combination is obvious. App. Br. 8. We disagree. As noted
above, the Examiner provides citations to the references where the
claim limitations are taught. See Ans. 11-12. Additionally, the
Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to combine
Leshem with Slatter “so the user can automatically focus on the
areas of interest.” Ans. 13. Appellants have not sufficiently
addressed this specific finding by the Examiner. Thus, we do not
find Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive.
3. Appellants argue that none of the references teach or suggest an
“initial” zoom factor for intelligent zooming because the references
teach that the zooming is user-selected. App. Br. 8. As correctly
indicated by the Examiner, the claims do not require zooming to be
automatic (Ans. 13), and as a result, this argument is not
commensurate in scope with the claims. Even so, the Examiner
finds that Slatter discloses an initial zoom factor and Goldberg
teaches that ranges of zooming are well-known in the art. Ans. 7-
8. Appellants do not sufficiently address the Examiner’s specific
Appeal 2009-011215
Application 10/811,541

7
findings. Thus, we do not find Appellants’ arguments to be
persuasive.
For the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1-4, 7-8, and 11-23.

CONCLUSION
1. The Examiner did not err in finding that Slatter in view of Leshem
teaches or suggests:
a. Zooming in/out a current display of a visualization of a network
comprising a plurality of interconnected nodes;
b. Each network node having zero or more attributes related to an
operational characteristic or status of said network node; and
c. Network nodes represented in the visualization by
interconnected icons.
2. The Examiner did not err in combining Leshem with Slatter.
3. The Examiner did not err in finding that Slatter in view of Leshem
and Goldberg teaches or suggests specific values and ranges of values
for an initial zoom factor.

SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-4, 7-8, and 11-23 is
affirmed.
Appeal 2009-011215
Application 10/811,541

8
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

ELD