Ex Parte AHN

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 4, 2016

13219114 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 4, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/219,114 08/26/2011
66547 7590 11/08/2016
THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P,C
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 210E
Melville, NY 11747
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sang-Jun AHN
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.
678-4254
(Pl8597-US/DMC)
9201
EXAMINER
OWENS, TSION B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/08/2016 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):
pto@farrelliplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SANG-JUN AHN 1
Appeal2016-000404
Application 13/219,114
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, LARRY J. HUME, and
TERRENCE W. MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1-11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Samsung Electronics
Co., Ltd. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2016-000404
Application 13/219,114
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The Invention
Appellants' disclosed and claimed inventions "relate[] generally to the
implementation of a three dimensional stereoscopic image, and more
particularly to a method and an apparatus for implementing a three-
dimensional stereoscopic web page." Spec. 1, 11. 13-15 ("Field of the
Invention").
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal (emphasis and labeling added to contested limitations):
1. A method for implementing a three-dimensional
web page, the method comprising:
[L 1] determining whether a content for display is a web
page;
[L2] distinguishing a text area displaying text and a
multimedia area displaying multimedia information, in a source
code document for the web page when the content is the web
page;
generating a depth map for the content based on tags
included in the text area; and
generating a three-dimensional stereoscopic image of the
web page by using the depth map.
2 Our decision relies upon Appellant's Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
May 4, 2015); Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Sept. 22, 2015); Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.," mailed July 22, 2015); Final Office Action ("Final Act.,"
mailed Dec. 23, 2014); and the original Specification ("Spec.," filed
Aug. 26, 2011 ).
2
Appeal2016-000404
Application 13/219,114
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Berestov et al. ("Berestov") US 2004/0100489 Al
Kanzaki US 2007/0277102 Al
Izzat et al. ("Izzat") US 2010/0238267 Al
Rejections on Appeal
May 27, 2004
Nov. 29, 2007
Sept. 23, 2010
RI. Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 10, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Kanzaki and Berestov.
Final Act. 4; Ans. 2.
R2. Claims 3, 4, 8, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over the combination of Kanzaki, Berestov, and Izzat. Final.
Act. 6; Ans. 4.
CLAIM GROUPING
Based on Appellant's arguments (App. Br. 3-8), we decide the appeal
of obviousness Rejection RI of claims 1, 2, 5-7, 10, and 11 on the basis of
representative claim 1.
Remaining claims 3, 4, 8, and 9 in Rejection R2, not argued
separately, stand or fall with the respective independent claim from which
they depend. 3
3 "Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the failure of
appellant to separately argue claims which appellant has grouped together
shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the Board must consider the
patentability of any grouped claim separately." 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
3
Appeal2016-000404
Application 13/219,114
ISSUE
Appellant argues (App. Br. 3-7; Reply Br. 1-5) the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the
combination of Kanzaki and Berestov is in error. These contentions present
us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches
or suggests a "method for implementing a three-dimensional web page" that
includes, inter alia, limitations L 1 and L2, as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellants. We do not consider arguments that
Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs, and we
deem any such arguments waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
We disagree with Appellant's arguments with respect to claims 1-11;
and we incorporate herein and adopt as our own: ( 1) the findings and
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken, and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner's Answer in
response to Appellant's arguments. We incorporate such findings, reasons,
and rebuttals herein by reference unless otherwise noted. However, we
highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claim 1 for
emphasis as follows.
Limitation LI - "Determining" Step
Appellant contends, "Kanzaki and Berestov fail to disclose or fairly
suggest determining whether a content for display is a web page, as recited
4
Appeal2016-000404
Application 13/219,114
in Claim 1," and "none of the Abstract, paragraphs [0008] or [0026], or any
other part of Kanzaki discloses determining whether a content for display is
a web page, as recited in Claim 1." App. Br. 4. Further, "[t]he other parts of
Kanzaki are also deficient, and Berestov fails to cure this defect of Kanzaki
... [such that] the rejection of Claim 1 must be withdrawn." App. Br. 5.
Because the Examiner rejects the claims as obvious over the
combined teachings of Kanzaki and Berestov, the test for obviousness is not
what the references show individually but what the combined teachings
would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Merck &
Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to Appellant's contentions, the Examiner cites the Abstract
and paragraphs 8 and 26 of Kanzaki as teaching or suggesting limitation L 1,
i.e., "determining whether a content for display is a web page." We agree
with the Examiner's findings. We agree because, not only does the Title of
Kanzaki ("TECli1...JIQUE FOR CHANGING THE DISPLAY OF WEB
PAGES AS TIME PASSES") appear to contradict Appellant's argument that
there is no teaching or suggestion in Kanzaki of determining whether display
content is a web page, the Abstract further teaches: "A display device for
displaying a web page is provided, which displays each of the contents
contained in a web page so that users can recognize whether the content is
new or not. "4 We therefore find Kanzaki teaches or at least suggests the
4 We note the Examiner's Answer had a typographical error in referring
twice, incorrectly, to the Kanzaki reference as "Katayama," (Ans. 5 and 6),
which Appellant acknowledged. See Reply Br. 3. In light of Appellant's
acknowledgement of the likelihood of a typographical error, we view this
error to be harmless error, particularly in further consideration of the
Examiner's correct analysis in the Final Rejection. See Final Act. 2 and 4--5.
5
Appeal2016-000404
Application 13/219,114
recited "determining" step LI. See Kanzaki iii! 6, 22, 25, 26, and 28,
Abstract. 5
Limitation L2 - "Distinguishing" Step
With respect to the recited "distinguishing" step L2, Appellant
contends, "none of paragraphs [0006], [0022], [0023], [0025] or [0028] of
Kanzaki discloses distinguishing a text area displaying text and a
multimedia area displaying multimedia information, in a source code
document for the web page when the content is the web page." App. Br. 5.
Appellant further contends, "[n]either the tree structure display that
schematically shows a plurality of web pages nor the other parts of
paragraph [0006] of Kanzaki discloses distinguishing a text area displaying
text and a multimedia area displaying multimedia information in a source
code document for the web page when the content is the web page, as recited
in Claim 1." App. Br. 6.
We disagree with Appellant's contentions, which only acknowledge a
portion of the Examiner's findings (e.g., Kanzaki if 6), and apparently ignore
other citations (e.g., Kanzaki iii! 22, 23), which teach:
[0022] FIG. 2 shows an example of a web page contained in
the page database 25. This web page is a tagged text in which
each of contents to be displayed is written in association with
tags that indicate additional information of the contents. For
example, web pages may be written in languages, such as
HTML (hyper text markup language). More specifically, this
web page includes five contents.
5 Although not dispositive to our Decision, we also note the secondary
reference to Berestov also teaches or suggests limitation LI. For example,
see Berestov, Abstract.
6
Appeal2016-000404
Application 13/219,114
[0023] Firstly, this web page contains content 200 at the sixth
line. The content 200 is a text saying "THIS PICTURE IS ... ".
The content 200 is written in association with tags 210. The
tags 210 are those for specifying each element in a page that
uses a table structure. These tags 210 cause the content 200 to
be displayed at the first line of the page using the table
structure ....
Kanzaki i-fi-122-23 (emphasis added).
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner's finding that the combination
of Kanzaki and Berestov teaches or suggests contested limitation L2, as
recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are
not persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the combined teachings
and suggestions of the cited prior art combination to teach or suggest the
disputed limitations L 1 and L2 of claim 1, nor do we find error in the
Examiner's resulting legal conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we sustain
the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, and grouped
claims 2, 5-7, 10, and 11 which fall therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra.
§ 103(a) Rejection R2 of Claims 3, 4, 8, and 9
In view of the lack of any substantive or separate arguments directed
to the obviousness Rejection R2 of claims 3, 4, 8, and 9 under§ 103 (see
App. Br. 8), we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims. We deem
arguments not made waived. 6
6 Appellants merely argue, "[c]laims 2-5 and 7-11 are patentable at least by
virtue of their respective dependency from independent Claims 1 and 6.
App. Br. 8.
7
Appeal2016-000404
Application 13/219,114
REPLY BRIEF
To the extent Appellants may advance new arguments in the Reply
Brief (Reply Br. 1-5) not in response to a shift in the Examiner's position in
the Answer, we note arguments raised in a Reply Brief that were not raised
in the Appeal Brief or are not responsive to arguments raised in the
Examiner's Answer will not be considered except for good cause (see 37
C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2)), which Appellants have not shown.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err with respect to obviousness Rejections RI
and R2 of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the cited prior art
combinations of record, and we sustain the rejections.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-11.
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
8