Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 21, 2021

2019004647 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 21, 2021)

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.
14/833,040 08/21/2015 Antony Deepak Thomas 357573.01 3050
69316 7590 01/21/2021
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
EXAMINER
GEE, ALEXANDER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2425
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/21/2021 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):
chriochs@microsoft.com
usdocket@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ANTONY DEEPAK THOMAS, MONOHAR
SREENIVASACHAR, KRISHNA SUNIL YEKASI
____________________

Appeal 2019-004647
Application 14/833,040
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
MARC S. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1, 4 through 6, 8, 11 through 13, 15, 18 through 21,
23, 24, 26, and 28 through 31. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). According to Appellant, Microsoft Technology
Licensing LLC, is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-004647
Application 14/833,040

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims relate generally to determination of how much of a display
element, generated by instructions executing on a computing device, is
displayed. Specification, Abstract. The determination is performed using
approximations based on a two-dimensional array whose dimensions are
commensurate with a size of the display element. Id. Claim 1 is reproduced
below.
1. A computing device comprising:
one or more processing units;
a graphics hardware interface communicationally
coupled to a physical display device on which the graphics
hardware interface has caused to be physically displayed
multiple visual display elements; and
one or more computer-readable media comprising
computer-executable instructions which, when executed by the
one or more processing units, cause the computing device to:
generate a two-dimensional array data structure having a
quantity of rows and columns based on a graphical size of a
target display element whose visibility on the physical display
device is to be determined, the target display element being one
of the multiple visual display elements that are physically
displayed on the physical display device;
initialize the array data structure by storing a first binary
value in each entry of the array data structure;
traverse a view hierarchy, comprising the multiple visual
display elements, by separately evaluating, one-at-a-time,
individual display elements of the view hierarchy in an ordered
manner, the view hierarchy comprising both the target display
element and multiple other display elements;
for each individual display element of the view hierarchy
that is separately evaluated as part of the traversing, identify, if
the individual display element being evaluated has a sibling
relationship with either the target display element or a display
Appeal 2019-004647
Application 14/833,040

3
element having a parent relationship with the target display
element, an overlapped portion of the target display element
that is not visually displayed on the physical display device
because it is overlapped by the individual display element being
evaluated and identify, if the individual display element being
evaluated has the parent relationship with the target display
element, a cut off portion of the target display element that is
not visually displayed on the physical display device because it
extends beyond one or more visual boundaries of the individual
display element being evaluated and is, therefore, cut off by the
individual display element being evaluated;
change to the second binary value each entry in the array
data structure corresponding to the identified overlapped
portion or the identified cut off portion of the target display
element;
aggregate the binary values stored in each entry of the
array data structure; and
generate a determination that the target display element is
sufficiently visible if a comparison, between a quantity of
entries in the array data structure that are set to the first binary
value and a total quantity of entries in the array data structure,
exceeds a threshold, the comparison being based on the
aggregation;
wherein a first display element has the parent relationship
with a second display element if the first display element’s
boundaries delineate a threshold beyond which both the first
display element and the second display element are not visually
displayed on the physical display device; and
wherein the first display element has the sibling
relationship with the second display element if: the first display
element and the second display element are both visually
contained within a same parent display element and the first
display element can visually overlap the second display element
such that an overlapping portion of the first display element is
visible in place of an overlapped portion of the second display
element, the overlapped portion of the second display element
being, therefore, not visible.
Appeal 2019-004647
Application 14/833,040

4

EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS2
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4 through 6, 8, 11 through 13, 15, 18
through 20, 23, 26, and 28 through 31under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over the combined teachings of Pottjegort (US 2013/0185164 A1; pub. July
18, 2013) Jain (US 2013/0088505 A1; pub. Apr. 11, 2013) and Ptucha (US
2011/0157227 A1; pub. June 30, 2011). Final Act. 3–10.
The Examiner rejects claims 21 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Pottjegort, Jain, Ptucha and
Fauqueur (US 2014/0150013 A1; pub. May 29, 2014). Final Act. 10–11.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, the
Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s
arguments. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of all of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellant presents several arguments asserting error in the
Examiner’s rejection of independent clams 1, 8 and 15. Appeal Br. 11– 19.
The dispositive issue presented by these arguments is whether the Examiner
erred in finding that the combination of Pottjegort, Jain, and Ptucha teach the
claim limitations of claim 1, 8 and 15 directed to traversing a view hierarchy
by separately evaluating individual display elements, where the evaluation
includes identifying “if the individual display element being evaluated has a

2 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed January 23,
2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief filed May 29, 2019 (“Reply Br.”); Final
Office Action mailed June 29, 2018 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s
Answer mailed March 22, 2019 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2019-004647
Application 14/833,040

5
sibling relationship with either the target display element or a display
element having a parent relationship with the target display element, an
overlapped portion of the target display element that is not visually
displayed on the physical display device because it is overlapped by the
individual display element being evaluated” and identifying “if the
individual display element being evaluated has the parent relationship with
the target display element, a cut off portion of the target display element that
is not visually displayed on the physical display device because it extends
beyond one or more visual boundaries of the individual display element
being evaluated and is, therefore, cut off by the individual display element
being evaluated.” Appeal Br. 17. Specifically, Appellant asserts that
Pottjegort, which the Examiner relies upon to teach this feature, does not as:
Pottjegort does not even distinguish between overlapping and
being cut off The visibility (or non-visibility) of a portion of the
advertisement 133 is determined only by comparing window-
draw-count values of the l x l pixel transparent images that are
overlaid over the advertisement 133. See e.g., Pottjegort at page
7, para. [0072]. And the difference in window-draw-count
values is just a quan[t]ity that does not - and, indeed, cannot -
differentiate between something not being drawn because it was
cut off and something not being drawn because it was
overlapped.
Appeal Br. 17−18.
The Examiner responds to Appellant’s arguments stating;
the claims merely disclose that a first display element has a
parent relationship with a second display element if both
display elements happen to have portions that extend beyond a
boundary of the physical display device, and thus, those
portions are cut-off and not visually displayed. Based on how
the claims are currently written, the claims may be broadly
interpreted to disclose that the individual display element being
evaluated may be a separate display element overlapping the
Appeal 2019-004647
Application 14/833,040

6
target display element or a window that the target display
element is encapsulated within and cutting off at least a portion
of the target display element that extends beyond the
boundaries of the window.
Answer 13.
Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection. Independent claim 1 recites limitations directed to the evaluation
of the view hierarchy involving two steps of identifying: first, (a) “if the
individual display element being evaluated has a sibling relationship with
either the target display element or a display element having a parent
relationship with the target display element, an overlapped portion of the
target display element that is not visually displayed on the physical display
device because it is overlapped by the individual display element being
evaluated;” and second, (b) “if the individual display element being
evaluated has the parent relationship with the target display element, a cut
off portion of the target display element that is not visually displayed on the
physical display device because it extends beyond one or more visual
boundaries of the individual display element being evaluated and is,
therefore, cut off by the individual display element being evaluated.”
Independent claims 8 and 19 recite similar limitations. Thus, each of the
independent claims recite an evaluation to identify if there is an overlapped
portion of the target display element, and a separate evaluation to determine
if there is cutoff portion of the target display element. Pottjegort teaches a
system that determines if elements of display are visible based upon a draw
count. Pottjegort, Abstract. Pottjegort teaches that an object may not be
visible because it is obscured by another window (similar to Appellant’s
claimed overlap). Pottjegort ¶¶7, 53 and Fig 4. Further, Pottjegort,teaches
Appeal 2019-004647
Application 14/833,040

7
that an object may not be visible because it is off the visible area of the
screen, (similar to Appellant’s claimed cut off). Pottjegort ¶6 and Fig 3.
However, Pottjegort teaches identifying whether the object is visible, by
evaluating draw count of portions of the object. We do not find that
Pottjegort teaches performing two evaluations: a first to identify obscured
portions of the target display, and a second to identify cutoff portions of the
of the target display as recited in each of the independent claims. Thus, we
disagree with the Examiner’s conclusion that the combination of Pottjegort
Jain, and Ptucha render obvious the limitations of independent clams 1, 8
and 15. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1, 4 through 6, 8, 11 through 13, 15, 18 through 20, 23, 26, and 28 through
31under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 21 and 24 relies upon
the combination of Pottjegort, Jain, Ptucha, and Fauqueur to teach the
limitations of independent clams 1 and 8 from which claims 21 and 24
ultimately depend. Answer 10. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of clams 21 and 24, for the same reasons
as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 11.
Appeal 2019-004647
Application 14/833,040

8
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 4,–6, 8,
11–13, 15,
18–20, 23,
26, 28–31
103 Pottjegort,
Jain, Ptucha
1, 4,–6, 8, 11–
13, 15, 18–20,
23, 26, 28–31
21, 24 103 Pottjegort,
Jain, Ptucha,
Fauqueur
21, 24
Overall
Outcome
1, 4,–6, 8, 11–
13, 15, 18–21,
23, 24, 26, 28–
31
REVERSED