Ex Parte Zhang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 25, 2016

12738648 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121738,648
92689 7590
HONEYWELL/SLW
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O. Box 377
09/09/2010
02/29/2016
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Danqing Zhang
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.
H0014920-5200 3455
EXAMINER
TILLERY, RASHAWNN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/29/2016 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):
patentservices-us@honeywell.com
uspto@slwip.com
SLW@blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DANQING ZHANG, CHENZHOU YE, MING GE,
and GUAN TIEN TAN
Appeal2014-003345
Application 12/738,648
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN A. EVANS, CATHERINE SHIANG, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify Honeywell International Inc. as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-003345
Application 12/738,648
INVENTION
Appellants disclose a system and method for visualizing trend data.
Abstract. Claim 9, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized, is
representative:
9. A method for visualizing trend data of a sensed parameter,
compnsmg:
receiving a request to display a macro trend view in a display,
the request includes macro trend view monitoring parameters;
retrieving macro trend data from a database as a function of the
macro trend view monitoring parameters:
converting the retrieved macro trend data into the macro trend
view to display in a window of the display;
detecting a user operation of a navigation pointer on the macro
trend view;
if the user operation is detected, calculating a position of the
navigation pointer in the macro trend view;
retrieving micro trend data as a function of the calculated
• • -C t. . . . position 01 tue nav1gat1on pomter;
converting the retrieved micro trend view data into the micro
trend view to display in the window of the display; and
presenting one or more lines extending from an area located by
the navigation pointer in the macro trend view to the micro trend
view.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1---6, 12, 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Lefave (US
6,704,012 Bl; issued Mar. 9, 2004), Bell et al. (US 2007/0250789 Al;
published Oct. 25, 2007), and Venolia (US 7,477,268 B2; issued Jan 13,
2009). Final Act. 2-7.
2
Appeal2014-003345
Application 12/738,648
The Examiner rejects claims 7-11, 13-17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Lefave, Bell,
Venolia, and Costache et al. (US 7,653,582 B2; issued Jan. 26, 2010). Final
Act. 7-16.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1-20 in light of
Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. We have considered in this
decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any
other arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in
the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellants fail to identify reversible error. Upon consideration of the
arguments presented in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, we agree with the
Examiner that all the pending claims are unpatentable over the cited
combination of references. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons
set forth in the rejection from which this appeal is taken and in the
Examiner's Answer. We provide the following explanation to highlight and
address specific arguments and findings primarily for emphasis.
Appellants contend that the Examiner errs because none of cited
references teaches or suggests "converting the retrieved macro trend data
into the macro trend view to display in a window of the display" and
"converting the retrieved micro trend view data into the micro trend view to
display in the window of the display" as recited in claim 9. App. Br. 9.
Appellants argue that in claim 9, the macro trend data is stored in database
80 and the micro trend view is retrieved from the micro trend data stored in
cache 90, and thus the macro trend view and the micro trend view are
retrieved from different sets of data. Reply 2 (citing Spec. i-fi-125, 36, Figs 1
3
Appeal2014-003345
Application 12/738,648
and 2). Appellants argue that Lefave does not disclose retrieving two
different sets of data to obtain two different views. App. Br. 9.
Appellants do not persuade us of Examiner error. In particular,
Appellants fail to show that the macro trend view and the micro trend view
recited in claim 9 "are retrieved from different sets of data." See Reply 2
(citing Spec. i-fi-125, 36, Figs 1 and 2). Paragraphs 25 and 36 of the
Specification, relied on by Appellants, describe storing the retrieved macro
trend view data in cache so that it can be used in the future to generate an
associated micro trend view. Spec. i-fi-125, 36. We find that those paragraphs
support the Examiner's finding that the micro trend data recited in claim 9
"is merely a selected subset of the macro trend data," regardless of where the
macro trend data is physically stored. See Ans. 4 (citing Spec. i-fi-f 14--15).
Moreover, claim 9 is silent with regard to the physical storage from which
the micro trend data is retrieved, and we decline to import a limitation
regarding a physical storage location into the claim. Furthermore, we are
not persuaded that placing data retrieved from a database into cache for later
use would not have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill.
For these reasons, we do not find that the Examiner errs in finding that
the combination of Lefave, Bell, Venolia, and Costache teaches or suggests
"converting the retrieved macro trend data into the macro trend view to
display in a window of the display" and "converting the retrieved micro
trend view data into the micro trend view to display in the window of the
display" as recited in claim 9.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 9, as well as the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of
independent claims 1, 12, 15, and 18, which Appellants argue are patentable
4
Appeal2014-003345
Application 12/738,648
for similar reasons. App. Br. 11. We also sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejections of dependent claims 2-8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20, not
argued separately. Id.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5