13364460 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2016)

Ex Parte Zhao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 27, 2016

13364460 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/364,460 02/02/2012 23446 7590 09/29/2016 MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD 500 WEST MADISON STREET SUITE 3400 CHICAGO, IL 60661 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Rongkai Zhao 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. 25331US01 6172 EXAMINER NGUYEN, VU ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2619 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/29/2016 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): mhmpto@mcandrews-ip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RONGKAI ZHAO and EUI-HONG HAN Appeal2015-004993 Application 13/364,460 Technology Center 2600 Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and DENISE M. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judges. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-21. App. Br. 5. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection (Final Act.) mailed January 3, 2014, (2) the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed June 3, 2014, (3) the Examiner's Answer (Ans.) mailed September 5, 2014, and (4) the Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed November 5, 2014. Appeal2015-004993 Application 13/364,460 INVENTION Appellants' invention hides elements within high-definition images for users to find. See Spec. ,-r 1. The invention can be used for marketing, gaming, or other purposes. Id. Claim 1 is reproduced below: 1. A method for utilizing high definition images, comprising: storing a high definition image; concealing at least one hidden target element within the high definition image; directing at least one user to view the high definition image and identify the at least one hidden target element in the high definition image; changing the resolution of the high definition image; and revealing the at least one hidden target element within the high definition image. The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability: Gunawardana US 2009/0186694 Al July 23, 2009 Johannes Kopf et al.; Capturing and Viewing Gigapixel Images; 26 ACM Trans. on Graphics 93-1-93-10 (2007) ("Kopf'). THE REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, and 4--21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as anticipated by Gunawardana. Final Act. 5-11. Claims 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) over Gunawardana and Kopf. Final Act. 11-12. 2 Appeal2015-004993 Application 13/364,460 THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION CLAIM 1 Storing a High-Definition Image The Examiner finds that Gunawardana discloses every element of claim 1, including storing a high-definition image. Final Act. 5-6. According to the Examiner, Gunawardana retrieves stored digital images and thus teaches storing images. Id. at 5 (citing Gunawardana i-fi-146-47). Appellants argue that Gunawardana lacks high-definition images. App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 3-5. According to Appellants, the term "high definition" at a minimum refers to 1280x720 pixels. App. Br. 11. Also, in Appellants' view, Gunawardana's zooming feature does not require images to have different resolutions, and even if Gunawardana's resolution were changed during zooming, the resulting resolution would not necessarily be high definition. Id. at 12. Issue UnderÂ§ 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding that Gunawardana stores a high-definition image? Analysis We begin by construing the key disputed limitation of claim 1, which calls for "a high-definition image." The Specification explains that high- definition images include "gigapixel images" (i.e., a digital image bitmap comprising at least one billion pixel elements). Spec. i12. However, the disclosure also states that "high-definition images may also comprise less than 1 billion pixel elements." Id. An alternative understanding in the 3 Appeal2015-004993 Application 13/364,460 disclosure of "high-definition images" includes those that are "generated by collecting a set of images depicting various portions of a scene, and then assembling the images in order to create a high definition image." Spec. i-f 2, cited in Ans. 5. But Appellants have not expressed a clear intent to define the term "high-definition image." So although these examples inform our interpretation, the recited high-definition image is not limited to a gigapixel image or an image having a particular number of pixels. Also, claim 3, which depends from claim 1, recites that the high-definition image comprises at least one-billion pixels. And the principles of claim differentiation dictate that the scope of claim 1 is broader than the scope of claim 3. As such, claim 3 provides additional evidence that claim 1 does not limited high-definition images to at least one-billion pixels. Furthermore, one plain meaning of "high definition" refers to the degree of detail or definition in an image relative to a standard or typical level.2 So, a broad, but reasonable, interpretation of a high-definition image consistent with the disclosure is an image that provides a level of detail exceeding a typical level or an image assembled from images depicting various portions of a scene. Taking the evidence collectively and in contrast to Appellants' position (App. Br. 11 ), we are unpersuaded that the high- definition image recited in claim 1 requires a particular number of pixels. 2 Steven M. Kaplan, Wiley Electrical & Electronics Engineering Dictionary 342 (2004) (defining "high-definition" as "[a] level of definition which amply exceeds a given standard or typical level. It may refer, for instance, to color reproduction and detail of a televised image which is highly faithful to the original scene, or to printing which is completely realistic." 4 Appeal2015-004993 Application 13/364,460 Given this interpretation, the Examiner did not err in finding that Gunawardana stores a high-definition image. Final Act. 5---6. Like Appellants' high-definition images, Gunawardana depicts an image assembled from other images depicting various portions of a scene, and Gunawardana further discloses the image at multiple levels of detail. See Gunawardana i-f 51, cited in Final Act. 5; Ans. 6. For example, Gunawardana's user can enlarge portions of a map to reveal additional detail at various viewing or zoom levels. Gunawardana i-f 51. The additional detail provided at different viewing levels (e.g., a building at one level and a door or window at another level) show that the definition at some levels exceed that at a typical level. See id. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded that Gunawardana lacks the recited, stored high-definition images. Changing the Resolution of the High-Definition Image Appellants further contend that Gunawardana does not change the resolution of the high-definition image, as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 5. According to Appellants, Gunawardana's zooming does not require displaying an image at different resolutions because the zooming function can be accomplished by presenting images at the same resolution. App. Br. 12. Issue UnderÂ§ 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding that Gunawardana changes the resolution of a high-definition image as recited? 5 Appeal2015-004993 Application 13/364,460 Analysis Although Appellants discuss the number of pixels that may be in a high-definition image (Spec. i-f 2), Appellants do not use the term "resolution" in the descriptive portion of Specification. Nor does the descriptive portion of the Specification contain the phrase "changing the resolution." The Specification, however, describes that users can "magnify portions of a high-definition image" to reveal additional details, which Appellants point to as providing support for this limitation at issue. Id. i-fi-13, 6, discussed at Ans. 6; see App. Br. 7 n.7 (citing Spec 2:20). 3 The Examiner finds that Gunawardana changes the resolution of high-definition image by zooming. Final Act. 6 (citing Gunawardana i-fi-1 51- 53). In the Examiner's view, changing the resolution encompasses changing the level of detail in an image. Ans. 6. Consistent with the disclosure's example of magnifying an image as changing the resolution, we agree with the Examiner. Moreover, the non-limiting embodiment in the disclosure informs but does not limit our construction of the limitation at issue. One plain meaning of "resolution" is "[t]he amount of graphical information that can be shown on a visual display."4 Therefore, a broad, but reasonable, interpretation of changing the resolution is to change the amount of graphical information 3 The Specification does not use line numbers. Nevertheless, Appellants' citation to page 2, line 20 corresponds to paragraph 6. 4 John Daintith & Edmund Wright, A Dictionary of Computing (6th ed. 2008), available at http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199234004.001.000 II acref-9780199234004-e-4475?rskey=ZOnY g7&result=l (last visited Sept. 16, 2016). 6 Appeal2015-004993 Application 13/364,460 shown on a visual display, for example, by magnifying portions of an image to reveal additional details. Accord Ans. 6 (interpreting the recited change in resolution to mean changing the level of detail in an image). Like Appellants' magnification example (Spec. i-fi-13, 6), Gunawardana's zooming reveals additional details (see Gunawardana i151, cited in Final Act. 5; Ans. 6). To accomplish this, Gunawardana enlarges (i.e., magnifies) a portion of the map. Gunawardana i151. Through this enlargement, Gunawardana reveals an additional amount of graphical information, such as buildings, doors, windows, and so forth. See id. Because Gunawardana changes the amount of graphical detail or information in this way, the Examiner's finding that Gunawardana's zooming changes the resolution (Final Act. 6) is reasonable. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded by Appellants' argument. Revealing the At Least One Hidden Target Element within the High-Definition Image Appellants argue that Gunawardana does not reveal a hidden-target element within the high-definition image, as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 14-18; Reply Br. 5-7. According to Appellants, Gunawardana's trivia points or clues are not concealed in the image and, thus, not revealed. App. Br. 15. Rather, Appellants note that Gunawardana associates locations and zoom levels with trivia points or clues, and then uses the location and zoom level to determine when to reveal a clue. Id. at 15-16 (citing Gunawardana i-fi-135, 44). In Appellants' view, Gunawardana may maintain associations between objects and locations at a zoom level and use this data to display the object when the user has moved to a location at a particular 7 Appeal2015-004993 Application 13/364,460 zoom level, but does not teach that an object must be placed within an image. Reply Br. 6-7. Appellants also argue that applying an object (e.g., a gift) to a user, such as displaying the object in the home or profile page, does not reveal that object, as recited. App. Br. 17-18 (citing Gunawardana iTiT 29, 42). Issue UnderÂ§ 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding that Gunawardana reveals at least one hidden target element within the high-definition image? Analysis To the extent that Appellants argue that Gunawardana's map is not a high-definition image, we disagree for the above-discussed reasons. Further, we are unpersuaded that Gunawardana's objects are not within the map. The Examiner finds that Gunawardana reveals at least one hidden target element by navigating to and displaying an object. Final Act. 6 (Gunawardana iTiT 35, 44, 52). For example, Gunawardana's user can hide virtual objects, such as flowers, in the map for other users to find. Gunawardana iT 53, cited in Final Act. 6. Gunawardana expressly states that flowers are "in the virtual map at a restaurant." Gunawardana iT 53. To find an object, the user zooms or enlarges the map, displaying such details as buildings, doors, and "so forth." Id. iT 51, cited in Ans. 9. In fact, the user can select a graphical element (e.g., an icon) or select an item, such as a window or door, to claim the gift. Gunawardana iT 44, Fig. 3. On this record, the Examiner's finding 8 Appeal2015-004993 Application 13/364,460 that Gunawardana's virtual object or items within the map (e.g., the recited hidden target element) are revealed to the user (Final Act. 6; Ans. 9) is reasonable. To be sure, Gunawardana's system also determines whether user's guesses correspond to the hidden object's location. Gunawardana i-fi-132, 38, 43. But for the above-discussed reasons, we are unpersuaded that Gunawardana relies solely on these associations to interact with the user, without also displaying or revealing objects within the image as argued. See App. Br. 15-16; Reply Br. 6-7. We are further unpersuaded by Appellants' argument that applying an object to a user's homepage does not reveal that object. App. Br. 17. Namely, the Examiner does not rely on this feature to teach the "revealing" step. See Ans. 9. Rather, the Examiner cites the zooming and subsequent display that, in tum, reveals more details and the hidden target element, as recited. Id. The Examiner makes further findings concerning the target element in the Answer. Ans. 7 (finding that the next clue corresponds to the target element). Gunawardana's virtual object and items discussed above, however, are sufficient to meet the disputed hidden target element limitation. Concealing At Least One Hidden Target Element within the High-Definition Image Appellants contend that Gunawardana does not conceal the hidden-target element within the high-definition image, as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 18-19. In Appellants' view, associating zoom level and location with an object is different from concealing the object within an image. 9 Appeal2015-004993 Application 13/364,460 Id. at 19. According to Appellants, Gunawardana's object is part of the mapping application, but the object is not within an image. Id. Appellants also argue that Gunawardana lacks the recited concealing for the same reasons presented in connection with the recited revealing. Reply Br. 7. Issue UnderÂ§ 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding that Gunawardana conceals at least one hidden target element within the high definition image, as recited? Analysis For the same reasons presented in connection with the recited revealing, we are unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that Gunawardana conceals an element within the image, as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 5. That is, Gunawardana discloses hiding virtual objects in the map for other users to find when zooming to view a location and details on the map. Gunawardana i-f 52, cited in Ans. 9; see also Ans. 10 (discussing zooming in to reveal concealed targets) and Gunawardana i-f 44. So although Gunawardana associates hidden objects with map locations (App. Br. 18-20), the Examiner reasonably concludes that Gunawardana's objects are not only part of the mapping location, but also within an image produced by that mapping application. See Final Act. 6; see also Ans. 9-10. For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 5, 6, and 8-10, not separately argued. See App. Br. 22-25; Reply Br. 3-11. 10 Appeal2015-004993 Application 13/364,460 CLAIM 125 Appellants repeat the argument presented in connection with claim 1 that Gunawardana lacks high-definition images for independent claim 12. App. Br. 20; Reply Br. 8. The issues before us, then, are the same associated with claim 1, and we refer Appellants to our previous discussion. Appellants further contend that Gunawardana lacks a target element "embedded in" the image, as recited. App. Br. 20-22. Appellants note that Gunawardana does not use the term embedded. Id. at 20. In Appellants' view, associating objects with locations and zoom levels, as Gunawardana teaches, is not the same as embedding an object in an image. Id. at 21. We see no error in the Examiner's broad, but reasonable, construction of "embedded" in light of the Specification. As the Examiner indicates (Ans. 11 ), the Specification does not define this term. The Specification explains that the target element may be embedded in the images either as the image is created or after the image is created. Spec. i-f 19. We thus construe "embed" by applying its plain meaning, which broadly means to make something an integral part of something larger. 6 See Ans. 11 (stating "embedding" means "to insert or fix that object in something else.") Here and as noted above, Gunawardana expressly states that flowers (e.g., a target image) are "in the virtual map at a restaurant." 5 Independent claim 12 recites, in part, "the at least one target image" in line 11. This limitation lacks an antecedent basis in the claim, which previously recites "at least one target element." For the purposes of this appeal, we understand "the at least one target image" to refer to the "at least one target element." We leave the question of whether claim 12 satisfies the requirements of 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112(b) to the Examiner. 6 Harry Newton, Newton's Telecom Dictionary 304 (21st ed. 2005). 11 Appeal2015-004993 Application 13/364,460 Gunawardana if 53 (emphasis added). By hiding the flowers or other objects in the map, Gunawardana embeds those objects in the larger map---in other words, makes them an integral part of the larger map. Id. if 44; id. iii! 51, 53, cited in Final Act. 5---6, 8 (referring to claim 1 ). On this record, the Examiner did not err in finding that Gunawardana embeds target elements in the image. Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the rejection of independent claim 12 and dependent claims 15-20, not separately argued. See App. Br. 22-25; Reply Br. 3-11. CLAIMS 2 AND 13 Claim 2 depends from claim 1, and claims 13 depends from claim 12. Claim 2 recites "the at least one user is rewarded whenever the at least one user detects the at least one hidden target element." Appellants argue that Gunawardana's user does not detect the recited hidden-target element, as recited in claims 2 and 13. App. Br. 22-23. According to Appellants, Gunawardana's users guess the target's location, which is different from detecting a hidden-target element in an image. Id. Granted, Gunawardana's user detects the object by making repeated guesses about its location. Gunawardana if 52, cited in Ans. 12. Yet, these guesses are essentially a way to detect the object. Id. If the object is detected, Gunawardana applies the object to the user. Id. Here, applying the object to the user means rewarding the user with the object by making the user the "owner." Id. Gunawardana also teaches users can select a window or door to claim a gift (e.g., user is rewarded). Gunawardana if 44. 12 Appeal2015-004993 Application 13/364,460 Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2 and 13. See Final Act. 6, 9. CLAIMS 47 AND 14 Claim 4 depends from claim 1, and claim 14 depends from claim 12. Appellants argue that Gunawardana does not select a user, as recited in claim 4. App. Br. 23. Gunawardana, in Appellants' view, selects a user based on an identification, which is different from selecting based on stored information. Id. The Examiner, however, cites an identifier component (e.g., 102) to support the finding that Gunawardana selects a user based on stored user information, such as the progress of a user or information related to an intended recipient (e.g., a first user). Ans. 13 (citing Gunawardana i-f 23); see also Gunawardana, Fig. 1. That is, identifier component 102 maintains game information, including the hidden object's intended recipient's identification. Gunawardana i-f 23, Fig. 1. Like the recited selected user, the intended recipient is directed to view the image to find the object. See id. Because Gunawardana' s identifier component 102 maintains recipient identification (e.g., stored information related to a first user) and the progress of the user (id.), we agree with the Examiner that Gunawardana teaches at least one user is selected based on stored information. 7 Claim 4, which depends from claim 1, recites "the first user." Neither claim 1 nor claim 4 recite a first user. Accordingly, the first user has no clear antecedent basis. For the purposes of appeal, we understand the first user to be one user of the recited "at least one user." We leave the question of whether claim 4 satisfies U.S.C. Â§ 112(b) to the Examiner. 13 Appeal2015-004993 Application 13/364,460 Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 4 and 14. See Final Act. 6, 9. CLAIM7 Claim 7 depends from claim 1. Appellants argue that Gunawardana penalizes a user if a timer expires or the user exceeds the number of attempts, which is different from tracking the amount of time that a user takes to identify the target, as recited in claim 7. App. Br. 23-24. Gunawardana's penalties, however, are based on tracking a user's time. See Gunawardana ,-r 56, cited in Final Act. 7; see also Gunawardana ,-r 23. Specifically, Gunawardana's "recipient" has a predefined time limit to find a hidden object. Gunawardana ,-r 56. The time begins when the clue is presented to the recipient. Id. In one example, Gunawardana gives the recipient a 50% discount if the recipient finds the object in two hours and a 20% discount if the recipient finds the object after two hours. Id. Appellants have not explained persuasively how this award system would operate without tracking the amount of time a user takes to identify the object. See App. Br. 24. On this record, we are unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that Gunawardana teaches using a timer to track the amount of time it takes for a user to identify the hidden target element. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 7. See Final Act. 7. 14 Appeal2015-004993 Application 13/364,460 CLAIMS 11 8 AND 21 Claim 11 depends indirectly from claim 1, and claim 21 depends indirectly from claim 12. Appellants argue that Gunawardana allows each user to receive a gift when each user guesses a location associated with a gift, which is different from rewarding multiple users when at least one hidden target is detected, as recited in claims 11 and 21. App. Br. 24. Claim 11 recites, in pertinent part, "both the first of the at least first user, and the at least second user are rewarded when the at least one hidden target element is detected" (emphasis added). Under its plain meaning, the term "when" simply means at the time or "in the event that."9 So a broad, but reasonable, interpretation of claim 11 includes rewarding first and second users in the event that at least one hidden target element is detected. Gunawardana explains that multiple users can be awarded, when at least one hidden target is detected. See Gunawardana i-f 58, cited in Final Act. 8. Namely, one user can discover the gift. Gunawardana i-f 58. That user is the virtual "owner" of the gift and is rewarded with ownership of that gift. Id. i-f 52. That same user can re-gift the object to a second user, making the second user the "owner" of the gift. Id. So, the second user is also rewarded. See id. In this way, the first user's discovery rewards both 8 Similar to claim 4, claim 11 recites "the first of the at least first user" but lacks an antecedent basis for the "at least first user" and "the first" of the at least first user. For the purposes of appeal, we understand "the first of the at least first user" to be one user of the recited "at least one user" in claim 1. We leave the question of whether claim 11 satisfies 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112(b) to the Examiner. 9 The Random House College Dictionary 1498 (Revised ed. 1982) (def. 4). 15 Appeal2015-004993 Application 13/364,460 users. Accordingly, Gunawardana's first and second users are rewarded when the first user detects a hidden target element as recited. See id. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 11 and 21. Final Act. 8, 11. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION Contentions Claim 3 depends from claim 1. The Examiner finds that Gunawardana discloses every recited element of claim 3, except for an image that comprises at least one billion pixels. Id. at 11. The Examiner relies on Kopf to teach this feature in concluding that claim 1 would have been obvious. Id. at 11-12. Appellants argue that the Examiner has failed to make a prima facie case of obviousness. App. Br. 25-26; Reply Br. 10-11. According to Appellants, the Examiner has failed to provide any evidence supporting its allegation that it would have been obvious to combine Gunawardana and Kopf. App. Br. 26. Appellants argue that one of ordinary skill would not have modified Gunawardana with Kopf because Kopf s specialized equipment for capturing gigapixel pictures is unrelated and not compatible with Gunawardana. Id. In Appellants' view, Gunawardana's ability to associate a map's location information with gifts in a game contrasts with Kopf s capture and viewing of pictures with specialized equipment. Id. 16 Appeal2015-004993 Application 13/364,460 Issue Is the Examiner's reason to combine the teachings of Gunawardana and Kopf supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner's obviousness conclusion? Analysis The record articulates a reason with some rational underpinning to combine Gunawardana and Kopf to justify the Examiner's obviousness conclusion. Final Act. 11-12; Ans. 16. The Examiner proposes to increase the resolution of Gunawardana images using Kopf' s technique "to ensure an optimal view ... of the scene being viewed." Final Act. 11-12 (quoting Kopf, Abstract). Doing so would only provide additional detail when zooming in and improve viewing. See, e.g., Gunawardana ,-r 44; Kopf, Abstract. That is, the Examiner's combination uses Kopf' s technique known to improve viewing and applies the technique to Gunawardana images to improve its images in the same manner. Moreover, one skilled in the art would have recognized the benefits of using Kopf' s imaging technique to improve image viewing in Gunawardana, such as improving the details of a building, door, or window when attempting to find an specific object so as to claim a gift. See Gunawardana ,-r 44, 53; see Final Act. 11-12. In this way, the Examiner combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results-an obvious combination. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). In contrast, Appellants have not shown that using Kopf' s gigapixel pictures in Gunawardana would have been uniquely challenging or otherwise beyond the level of ordinarily skilled artisans. Also, other than 17 Appeal2015-004993 Application 13/364,460 merely asserting that Kopf' s specialized equipment for capturing gigapixel pictures is not compatible with Gunawardana (see App. Br. 26), Appellants have not supported with evidence or shown adequately that the Examiner's proposed combination would render the prior art unsuitable for its intended purpose or teach away from such an approach. On the contrary, Gunawardana's game can be constructed using digital images. See Gunawardana i-f 6. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 3. CONCLUSIONS The Examiner did not err in rejecting (1) claims 1, 2, and 4--21 under Â§ 102 and (2) claim 3 underÂ§ 103. DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-21 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 18 Application/Control No. Appiicant(s)IPatent Under Patent Appeal No. * * Notice of References Cited Documeni Number Country Code-Nun1ber-Kind Code A US- B US- c US- D US- E US- F US- G USÂ· H US- US- J US- K US- L US- M US- N 0 p Q R s T Document Number Country Code-Number-Kind Code Date MM-YYYY Date MM-YYYY l 3i364,460 2015-004993 Examiner Art Unit [2619 U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS Name FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS Couniry Name NON-PATENT DOCUMENTS * Include as applicable: Au1hor, Tille Date. Pub!isher. Edition or Volume, Pe1iinen1 Pages) u A Dictionary of Computing (6 Ed.) v Newton's Telecom Dictionary w The Random House College Dictionary Revised Edition x Wiley Electrical and Electronics Engineering Dictionary *!\copy of this t"eference :snot be1n9 furnished wnn tn:s Off;ce act:on. (See MPEP Â§ 707.05(a).) Dates in MM-YVYY forrna.t are publication dates. Classifications n1ay be US or foreign. U.S. Pa.tent and Trademaok Oftice PT0-892 (Rev 01-2001) Noiice of References Cited Part of Paper No. I Page 1 of1 Classifica1ion Classifica1ion 9/16/2016 Resolution - Oxford Reference Oxford Reference A Dictionary of Computing (6 ed.) John Daintith and Edmund Wright =>ublisher: Oxford University Press =>rint ISBN-13: 9780199234004 ::::urrent Online Version: 2008 resolution Print Publication Date: 2008 Published online: 2008 elSBN: 9780191726576 1 The amount of graphical information that can be shown on a visual display. The resolution of a display device is usually denoted by the number of lines that can be distinguished visually per inch. Resolution is often confused with addressability. The addressability of a computer-graphics system is defined by the number of displayable lines, or alternatively by the number of points or pixels (picture elements) that can be displayed in the vertical and horizontal directions. Computer graphics systems are now capable of addressing many thousand pixels horizontally and vertically but the resolution is likely to be nearer 400 lines per inch. 2 See A/D coNvERTER, D/ A coNvERTER. 3 A rule of inference in mathematical logic, used to deduce a new logical formula from two old ones. It has been used extensively in the automatic derivation of mathematical theorems since it is an efficient alternative to traditional rules of inference. See also UNIFICATION. WAS THIS USEFUL?(} Yes No http://www.oxfordreference.com/vi ew I 10.1093/acref/9780199234004. 001.0001/acref-9780199234004-e-4475?rskey=ZOn Y g7&result= 1 1/2 STAY INFORMED To be alerted by email to news, updates and corrections send a blank email to newton@news.cmgbooks.com or go to yvww.cmpbooks.com/newton San Francisco N.EWTON's rmcoM DICTIONARY Copyright Â© 2005 Horry Newlon email: Hurry@HarryNewlon.com personal web site: www.HanyNewton.com business web si!e: www .lnSemchOfThePerfectlnvestment.com All rights reserved under International ond Pon-American Copyright conventions, if11:1uding the right to reproduce this book or portions thereof in any form whatsoever. Published by CMP Books An impnnl at CMP Media LlC 600 Harrison Street, San Francisco, CA 94107 Phone 415-947Â·66 l 5 ond Fox 415-947Â·6015 email: bookorders@cmp.com www.cmpbooks.com CMP For individual or quantity orders CMP Books 6600 Silacci Woy Gilroy, CA 95020 Tel: 1-800-500Â·6875 or l-408Â·848-5296 fox: 408-848Â·57 84 cmp@rushorder.com This book is also sold through www.Amozon.com, www.Fatbrain.com. wwW:BarnesAndNobie.com and oil fine booksellers worldwide. Distributed to the book !rode in the U.S. by Publishers Group West 1700 Fourth St., Berkeley, CA 94710 ISBN Number 1-57820Â·315-5 The idea ls that if you grnb their oltenlion ifl 30 seconds, they'll ask you to stick mound and pitch some more. eiev@tcr iseeking Organizes the way data is read from hrnd disks and logirnlly orgmizes disk operations os they arrive ut the Novell Ne!Warn locol area network se;ver !or processing. A queue is maintained for each disk driver operating within the server. As disk reud una write requests are queued for a spedfic drive, the operating system sorts incoming requests into o priority based on the drive' s current head position. As the disk drivÂ· er services the queue, subsequent requests ore lornted either in the vicinity ot the last request or in the opposite direction. Thus, the drive heads opemte in a sweeping fashion, from the outside to the inside of the disk. Elevator seeking improves disk chamel perÂ· formance by significantly reducing disk head thrnshing (rapid backÂ·and-forth movements of the disk head) and by minimizing head seek times. Imagine how inefficient an elevator would be if the people using it hod lo get off the elevator in the order they got on. Hf Extremely I.ow Frequency. Frequencies from 30 Hz to 300 Hz. HHXT Equal level for End Crosstalk. Not a measurement, but a calculated result, that is derived by subtracting the insertion loss of the disturbing pair from the HXT this poi; induces in an adjacent pair. See PESElfHT. HIU Electrical Line lnte~oce Unit. ieHipti' curve Elliptic curves ore created using mothemotical expressions from numÂ· ber theory and algebraic geomeny. Elliptic curve cryptosystems replace conventional mod- ular discrete logmithm cryptosystems with the elliptic curve operations. There ore currentiy no specialized ottacks, which means that shorter key sizes for elliptic cryptosystems gr1e the same security as larger keys in other cryptosystems. elite hacker One of a reasonably small number of hackers who possess great skill and imagination, Hite hackers ore able lo devise novel attacks which me technical~ sophisÂ· ticoted and ingenious. elongation A coble tem1. The fmctional incrense in length of a material stressed in tension. UOT Hellenic Organization for Standardization (Greece). HSU Ethernet l..Ati Service Unit. An ElSU provides 12 independent virtual Ethernet bridges for running over MM neiworks. ElSUs are designed for flexible deployment, either loco! to an ATM switch or at a remote site. ElSUs ore designed for !..AN intemeiworking services over ATM networks. Elvis Year The peak year of something's popularity. EM 1. Element Manager. Software and hardware used to manage and monitor compoÂ· nents of a telecommunications network al their lowest level. 2. Abbreviation fur End of Medium. The binarywde is 1001001, the Hex is 91. 3 .. Electrnmognelk. See Electromagnetic Spectrum. EMA See Electronic Messaging Association. EMACS A standard Unix text editor preferred by Unix types that beginners tend to hate. EMAG ETSI MIS Advisory Gmup. emaH A colloquial term for electronic mail. See Email address. email 11ddre55 The UUCP or domain-based address by which a user is referred to. Mv email address is HARRYNEWTO~@MCIMAIL. COM. email gateway An email gateway is typically a PC on LAN. The PC has one or more modem and/or fox/modem cards. Its job is to send and receive eÂ·moils and/or send and receive foxes for everyone on the LAN. To pick up emails, it might dial once on hour into various mail systems, like MCI Moil, CompuServe, ond download all the messages for all the people on the LAN. Once it hos those messages, it brings them onto ifs hard disk and then olerrs tlie recipients that they now have an eÂ·moil. See Server. email hygiene Principles or pmctices that reduce spam und protell a computer from viruses and othe; threats embedded in or attached to e-mail messages. email refledor An Internet electronic moil oddress which outomaticolly sends you bock a reply (i.e. reflects mail to you) if you include certain key words in your message to it. Such key words might be "subscribe" or "lists help." em~U server See fmoil Gotewoy. iemuii shorthand Acronyms for commonly used phrases that one would otherwise lype. Some of the most popular ones are: IMHO: In My Humble Opinion; BTW: By The Woy; RTM: Read The Mnnuoi; lOl laughing Out Loud; FWIW: For What !l's Worth; and ROH: Rolling On The Floor Laughing. ~nu-181 threads A fancy way of saying on-going correspondence by electronic 1Wil. I first heard this term from Sean Purcell, o smart fellow working on the excellent product called Outlook from Microsoft. Signs and Symbols United States Colleges and Universities Canadian Colleges and Universities English Given Names Basic Manual of Style REVISED EDITION COPYRIGHTÂ© 1982, 1980, J979, 1975 BY RANDOM HOUSE, INC. Previous edition copyrightÂ® 1973, 1972, 1969, 1968 by Random House, Inc. 1535 1539 1551 1552 1559 All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of tbis book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without permission in writing from the publisher. AU inquities should be addressed to Random House, Inc., 201 E. 50th Street, New York, N.Y. !0022. Based on The Random Huuse Dictionary of the English Language-The Unabridged Edition CopyrightÂ© 1981, 1979, 1973, !971, 1970, 1969, 1967, 1966 by Random House, Inc. ' PUBLISHED IN THE UNIT.ED STATES OF AMERICA BY RANDOM HOUSE, JNC., NEW YORK AND SIMULTANEOUSLY IN CANADA llY RAN))OJ>i HOUSE OF CANAOA L!l