Ex Parte Zimmer et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 12, 2010

10876298 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 12, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte MARK ZIMMER, PETER GRAFFAGNINO,
and BAS ORDING
________________

Appeal 2009-002378
Application 10/876,298
Technology Center 2600
_________________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MARC S. HOFF, and
THOMAS S. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAHN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellants invoke our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 12-23, 25-29, 31, 33-36, 38-48, and 50-59.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2009-002378
Application 10/876,298

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants claim a device and method for representing attributes of a
graphical user interface object, e.g., a pushbutton, scrollbar, or slider that is
to be displayed. A first value for a first attribute, such as roundness, opacity,
shadow, etc., is associated with a first display resolution. A second value for
the first attribute is associated with a second display resolution. The
attributes and associated resolution values are stored in a file.2 Claim 1 is
illustrative:
1. A method to represent a graphical user interface object,
comprising:
receiving values for each of a plurality of attributes associated with a
graphical user interface object, said plurality of attributes specifying
display characteristics of the graphical user interface object;
associating a first one of the values with a first attribute, wherein the
first value is further associated with a first display resolution;
associating a second one of the of values with the first attribute,
wherein the second value is further associated with a second display
resolution; and
storing the plurality of attributes and their associated values in a file.
The appealed rejections rely on the following prior art references:
Buchner US 5,471,572 Nov. 28, 1995
Ashe US 6,307,574 B1 Oct. 23, 2001
Lin US 2005/0219255 A1 Oct. 6, 2005
(filed Mar. 30, 2004)

2 See generally Spec. ¶¶ [0017]-[0019], [0021]-[0023], [0026], [0027], and
[0033]; Figs. 1, 4; Table 1.
Appeal 2009-002378
Application 10/876,298

3
The Examiner, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), rejected:
1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 12-15, 18-23, 25-29,3 31, 33-36, 38-41, 44-48,
and 50-59 as unpatentable over Lin and Buchner (Ans. 3-15);4 and
2. Claims 16, 17, 42, and 43 as unpatentable over Lin, Buchner, and
Ashe (Ans. 16-18).

ISSUE
The pivotal issue presented by Appellants’ responses to the
Examiner’s positions is whether the Examiner erred in determining that Lin
and Buchner, alone or in combination, teach or suggest associating a first
display resolution value with a first attribute, associating a second display
resolution value with the first attribute, and storing attributes and their
associated values in a file as recited in claim 1.

3 Claim 27 is not included in the Examiner’s statement of rejection (Ans. 3).
We presume this is a typographical error because of the discussion
addressing claim 27 in the associated statement of reasons (Ans. 13, 14).
4 We presume the inclusion of claims 16, 17, 42, and 43 in the first statement
of rejection (Ans. 3) is a typographical error because these claims are not
addressed in the associated statement of reasons. These four claims, though,
are included in the second statement of rejection (Ans. 16) and they are
addressed in the associated statement of reasons (Ans. 16-18). Claims 29,
36, 39-41, and 44 are included in the Examiner’s first statement of rejection
(Ans. 3), but are not identified as being addressed in the statement of reasons
(Ans. 4-15). Appellants do not argue claims 29, 36, 39-41, and 44.
Appeal 2009-002378
Application 10/876,298

4
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following findings of fact (FF) are supported by a preponderance
of evidence:
1. Lin discloses a user interface display apparatus and method using
texture mapping for showing a user interface on an on screen display
(Abstract).
2. Lin discloses memory storage of a texture pattern 302 in a display
code buffer 303 (¶¶ [0032]-[0034]).
3. Buchner discloses an apparatus and method for interactively
magnifying texture imagery detail in computer generated interactive
graphics (Abstract; col. 1, ll. 21-24).
4. Buchner teaches that “[c]onventional computer image generation
systems store varying levels of detail (LOD) of texture data” (col. 1,
ll. 36-37), and also discloses storing different texture versions, “which
contain[] more texels (higher resolution) . . .” (col. 3, ll. 49-51).

ANALYSIS5
Obviousness over Lin and Buchner
Appellants collectively argue the rejected independent claims (Br. 9-
13). We, accordingly, select independent claim 1 as representative for the
argued group. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(vii).
Appellants commence by contending that the Examiner “admits that
Lin does not expressly teach any of the elements recited in independent

5 Arguments that Appellants did not make have not been considered and are
deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Appeal 2009-002378
Application 10/876,298

5
claims” (Br. 9). As discussed infra, the Examiner disagrees. More
specifically, Appellants assert Lin teaches “a system and method for adding
detail to a user display using texture maps. Lin at Abstract, ¶¶ 11, 12, 15,
31, 33, and FIG. 3” (Br. 7). The use of texture maps, Appellants argue, is
“irrelevant from the perspective of the claimed invention which is directed to
associating at least two values with a single graphical user interface object
display attribute (each value associated with a different display resolution)-
the attribute-value association being stored in a single file (independent
claims 1, 28, 57, and 59) or extracted from a single file (independent claims
20 and 45)” (Br. 9).
The Examiner finds that Lin teaches “[u]sing a texture mapping
method for creating a user interface display system [abstract]” (Ans. 4; FF
1). The Examiner further finds, reasons, and acknowledges:
Lin et al. teaches, "Associating a first one of the values with the first
attribute, wherein the first value is further associated with a first
display resolution," as recited by the applicant[s] in the independent
claims, wherein the first attribute is the texture map that is being
applied to the GUI, and the first value associated with a first display
resolution is the resolution of the texture map. The Examiner
admit[s] that Lin et al. does not expressly teach a first attribute
associated with a first and second value, as recited in the claims by
the Applicant[s], not that Lin et al. does not teach anything.
(Ans. 21.) We agree with these findings and reasoning, because we find that
Lin teaches manifesting a user interface by applying texture content 302, i.e.,
a texture map (FF 2), which unavoidably would have an affiliated resolution
value. Appellants have not contested the Examiner’s findings and reasoning
concerning Lin teaching a first attribute in association with a first resolution
Appeal 2009-002378
Application 10/876,298

6
value. Appellants argue that Lin fails to teach or suggest “storing a plurality
of attributes and their associated values in a file where one of the attributes
has at least two values associated with it” (Br. 10). This argument is
rendered moot because the Examiner acknowledges that Lin does not teach
“a first attribute associated with a first and second value” (Ans. 21).
With respect to Buchner, Appellants contend that the Examiner,
without any reference to a supporting document, alleges “that the different
levels of detail (‘LOD’) taught by Buchner can represent first and second
values associated with a display attribute” (Br. 10). The Examiner responds
that Buchner is the supporting document for teaching first and second values
in association with a display attribute, and cites to discussion in the Final
Action, mailed Aug. 7, 2007, at ¶¶ 14-23 (Ans. 21). We agree with the
Examiner because we find Buchner teaches using texture data at varying
levels of detail, which are associated with different levels of resolution (FF
4). We are not persuaded by Appellants that the Examiner’s findings lack
support in the record.
Relying on the asserted Lin and Buchner deficiencies, which are
addressed supra, Appellants also argue that the combination of references is
without support and merit because of “Buchner’s failure to teach or describe
the use of a single file to record plural values for a single display attribute,
wherein each value corresponds to a different display resolution” (Br. 12).
The Examiner acknowledges that Buchner does not teach a memory having
multiple files (Ans. 22), and reasons that a memory, such as Buchner’s, “is
the equivalent to a single file, wherein the different files (value[s]) are stored
Appeal 2009-002378
Application 10/876,298

7
in different addresses within said single file (memory)” (id.). Appellants
have not contested the Examiner’s reasoning. Based on the record, we agree
with the Examiner that the references are not deficient as argued by
Appellants, including the assertion that Buchner fails to teach use of a single
file. We find the Examiner’s articulated reasoning as to why Buchner’s
teachings encompass a memory that is a file to have rational underpinnings
premised from common sense. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418 (2007) (“[A]nalysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account
of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would employ.”).
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting representative claim 1 as being obvious under § 103(a).
We also will sustain the rejection of the other independent claims 20, 28, 45,
57, and 59. We further will sustain the same rejection of the respective
dependent claims 2, 4, 6-10, 12-15, 18, 19, 21-23, 25-27, 29, 31, 33-36, 38-
41, 44, 46-48, 50-56, and 58 not argued by Appellants.
Obviousness over Lin, Buchner, and Ashe
Appellants argue the patentability of rejected dependent claims 16, 17,
42, and 43 by relying on the same arguments asserted for base independent
claims 1 and 28 (Br. 16-18). For the reasons indicated previously, we are
not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of the base independent
claims, and, therefore, will sustain the rejection of dependent claims 16, 17,
42, and 43.

Appeal 2009-002378
Application 10/876,298

8

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 12-23, 25-29,
31, 33-36, 38-48, and 50-59 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

KIS

WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH,
RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI, L.L.P.
20333 Tomball Parkway
SUITE 600
HOUSTON, TX 77070