VIA Alliance Semiconductor Co., Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 2, 2020

2019004896 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2020)

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.
15/160,991 05/20/2016 Yanjie WANG 252229-1620 1630
109673 7590 12/02/2020
McClure, Qualey & Rodack, LLP
280 Interstate North Circle SE
Suite 550
Atlanta, GA 30339
EXAMINER
WANG, YUEHAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2618
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/02/2020 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):
dan.mcclure@mqrlaw.com
terri.logan@mqrlaw.com
uspatents@mqrlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YANJIE WANG, QIAN WANG, and CHENYANG ZHU
Appeal 2019-004896
Application 15/160,991
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
MAHSHID D. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judges.
FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–5, 7 and 8. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as VIA Alliance
Semiconductor Co., Ltd. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-004896
Application 15/160,991

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellant’s subject matter on appeal and is
set forth below:
1. A method for displaying graphic layers, comprising:
receiving a plurality of graphic layers;
assigning sequence numbers to the graphic layers
according to an overlay order; and
displaying the graphic layers in a sequence order
according to the sequence numbers,
wherein the step of assigning the sequence numbers to
the graphic layers according to the overlay order further
comprises:
judging whether a current graphic layer overlays any
other graphic layer;
assigning an initial sequence number to the current
graphic layer when the current graphic layer does not overlay at
least one graphic layer, wherein the initial sequence number is a
minimum sequence number; and
assigning a first sequence number to the current graphic
layer when the current graphic layer overlays the at least one
graphic layer, wherein the first sequence number is a next
sequence number after a maximum sequence number between
sequence numbers of the at least one graphic layer overlaid by
the current graphic layer;
wherein at least two graphic layers are not overlaid with
other graphic layers and the graphic layers having the same
overlay order are assigned to the same sequence number.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Mao US 2008/0278519 A1 Nov. 13, 2008
Lee US 8,201,102 B2 June 12, 2012

Appeal 2019-004896
Application 15/160,991

3
THE REJECTION
Claims 1, 3–5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Mao in view of Lee.
OPINION
We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential),
cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t
has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the
alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). After considering the evidence
presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are not
persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. Thus, we affirm the
Examiner’s rejection for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action
and the Answer, with the following emphasis.
Appellant does not make separate arguments in support of
patentability of any particular claim or claim grouping. Accordingly, the
claims subject to each ground of rejection will stand or fall with claim 1.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv).
We refer to pages 4–7 of the Answer regarding the Examiner’s
statement of the rejection. Appellant argues that the applied art does not
disclose certain features of claim 1 as identified on pages 4–6 of the Appeal
Brief. The features are:
assigning a first sequence number to the current graphic layer when
the current graphic layer overlays the at least one graphic layer,
wherein the first sequence number is a next sequence number after a
maximum sequence number between sequence numbers of the at least
one graphic layer overlaid by the current graphic layer.
Appeal 2019-004896
Application 15/160,991

4

Appellant argues that the teachings of Mao relied upon by the
Examiner do not teach the aforementioned features for the reasons expressed
on pages 6–8 of the Appeal Brief. Appellant additionally argues that Lee
does not remedy Mao for the reasons set forth on page 8 of the Appeal Brief.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument for the reasons
provided by the Examiner on pages 7–9 of the Answer. Therein, the
Examiner explains that paragraph [0031] of Mao describes that the
overlapped graphic layers are in sequential order as indicated by numerals
1–5 and/or I–IV. The Examiner states that paragraph [0036] of Mao further
describes assigning a unique number to each layer. The Examiner states that
the determination process disclosed in paragraph [0042] of Mao determines
the first layer, therefore the number assigned to the first layer is the initial
sequence number. The Examiner explains that if there is only one layer
presented, the layer with an initial number is interpreted as the only current
graphic without overlapped layers. The Examiner states that according to
Mao’s Figure 2 and paragraph [0043], the upmost graphic layer is the first
layer with a minimum number.
On pages 8–9, the Examiner further explains how the number of
graphic layers in Mao is interpreted as ascending order starting from the top
to the bottom along the depth Z-axis, and that this satisfies certain
requirements of the claims, noting that limitations from the Specification are
not read into the claims. We agree. See Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV
Enter., Inc., 357 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (particular embodiments
appearing in the written description must not be read into the claim if the
claim language is broader than the embodiment.).
Appeal 2019-004896
Application 15/160,991

5
It is noted that Appellant does not specifically address these
aforementioned responses made by the Examiner as set forth in the Answer,
other than to state that the positions taken in the Answer have been
addressed in the Appeal Brief. Reply Br. 1.
Beginning on page 9 of the Appeal Brief, Appellant also argues that
the combination of Mao and Lee is improper because the rationale is
conclusory and embodies hindsight for the reasons expressed on pages 9–11
of the Appeal Brief. We are unpersuaded of error by this line of argument
for the reasons stated by the Examiner on page 9 of the Answer, for which
no specific dispute is made in Appellant’s Reply Brief.
In view of the above, we affirm the rejection.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–5, 7, 8 103 Mao, Lee 1, 3–5, 7, 8
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–5, 7, 8

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2019-004896
Application 15/160,991

6
AFFIRMED