Ex Parte Hao et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 26, 2009

10694076 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 26, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte MING C. HAO, UMESHWAR DAYAL,
STEPHANY KALIL, PETER WRIGHT, BETTY CANT,
MING-CHIEN SHAN, FABIO CASATI, VIJAY
MACHIRAJU, PANKAJ K. GARG, and KLAUS WURSTER
________________

Appeal 2008-6181
Application 10/694,076
Technology Center 2600
________________

Decided:1 February 26, 2009
________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN A. JEFFERY
and MARC S. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).

Appeal 2008-6181
Application 10/694,076

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1 through 25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

INVENTION
The invention is directed towards a system, method, and computer
readable medium for generating a pixel-oriented graph that represents
aggregate information by providing visual boundaries. See generally
Specification 3:3-21. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and
reproduced below:
1. A method for generating a pixel-oriented graph, comprising:
determining a visual boundary for representing an aggregate
of a set of values of a variable depicted in the pixel-oriented
graph;
constructing a set of pixel blocks that represent the values
such that the pixel blocks are visually distinguished by the
visual boundary, each pixel block having a set of pixels and
each pixel having a pixel value that visually represents one of
the values of the variable.

REFERENCES
Daniel A. Keim, Ming C.Hao, & Umeshwar Dayal, Hierarchical Pixel Bar
Charts, 8 IEEE Trans. on Visualization and Comp. Graphics (No. 3) 255,
255-69 (2002).2

Daniel A. Keim, Designing Pixel-Oriented Visualization Techniques:
Theory and Applications, 6 IEEE Trans. on Visualization and Comp.
Graphics (No. 1) 59, 59-78 (2000).3

2 This reference hereinafter referred to as Keim 2002.
3 This reference hereinafter referred to as Keim 2000.
2
Appeal 2008-6181
Application 10/694,076

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 8, 11, 13-15, 18, 20-22, and 24
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)4 as being anticipated by Keim 2002.
The Examiner rejected claims 3-5, 9, 10, 12, 16, 17, 19, 23, and 25
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Keim 2002.
The Examiner rejected claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Keim 2002 in view of Keim 2000.

ISSUES
The Anticipation Rejection over Keim 2002

Appellants argue on pages 3 through 6 of the Appeal Brief and pages
1 through 3 of the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
claims 1, 2, 8, 11, 13-15, 20-22, and 24 over Keim 2002 is in error. We
select independent claim 1 as representative of the group comprising claims
1, 2, 8, 11, 13-15, 20-22, and 24 since Appellants did not separately argue
any of the claims with particularity apart from claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appellants argue that Keim 2002 does not teach “a visual
boundary for representing an aggregate of a set of values of a variable
depicted in a pixel-oriented graph.” App. Br. 4.
Thus, with respect to claims 1, 2, 8, 11, 13-15, 20-22, and 24,
Appellants’ contentions present us with the issue: have Appellants shown
that the Examiner erred in finding that Keim 2002 teaches a visual boundary

4 The Keim 2002 reference also qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b).
3
Appeal 2008-6181
Application 10/694,076

for representing an aggregate of a set of values of a variable depicted in a
pixel-oriented graph under § 102?

The Obvious Rejection over Keim 2002

Claims 3-5, 10, and 17
Appellants argue on page 7 of the Appeal Brief that the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 3-5, 10, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Keim 2002 is in error. Appellants reason that claims 3-5,
10, and 17 are allowable based on their dependency from independent
claims 1 and 13. App. Br. 7.
Thus, Appellants’ contentions present the same issues as presented
with respect to claims 1 and 13.

Claims 9, 16, and 23
Appellants argue on pages 7 through 8 of the Appeal Brief and on
page 3 of the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9, 16, and
23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Keim 2002 is in
error. We select claim 9 as representative of the group comprising claims 9,
16, and 23 since Appellants did not separately argue any of the claims with
particularity apart from claim 9. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellants argue that Keim 2002 does not disclose replicating one or more
pixels in the pixel blocks to fill in one or more gaps in the pixel blocks.
App. Br. 7.
Thus, Appellants’ contentions present us with the issue: have
Appellants shown the Examiner erred in finding that Keim 2002 teaches
4
Appeal 2008-6181
Application 10/694,076

replicating one or more pixels in the pixel blocks to fill in one or more gaps
in the pixel blocks under § 103?

Claims 12, 19, and 25
Appellants argue on page 8 of the Appeal Brief that the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 12, 19, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Keim 2002 is in error. We select claim 12 as
representative of the group comprising claims 12, 19, and 25 since
Appellants did not separately argue any of the claims with particularity apart
from claim 12. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appellants argue that the
reference does not disclose assigning a weight to a visual boundary that
indicates the importance of the aggregate. App. Br. 8.
Thus, Appellants’ contentions present us with the issue: have
Appellants shown the Examiner erred in finding that Keim 2002 teaches
assigning a weight to a visual boundary that indicates the importance of the
aggregate under § 103?

The Obvious Rejection over Keim 2002 in view of Keim 2000

Appellants argue on page 9 of the Appeal Brief that the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Keim 2002 in view of Keim 2000 is in error. Appellants reason that
claims 6 and 7 are allowable based on their dependency from independent
claim 1 and dependent claim 4. App. Br. 9.
5
Appeal 2008-6181
Application 10/694,076

Thus, Appellants’ contentions present the same issues as presented
with respect to claims 1 and 4.

FINDINGS OF FACT
Keim 2002
1. Keim 2002 teaches a method of creating hierarchical pixel bar
charts. Abstract.
2. The pixel bar charts contain a bar with a particular height and
width. The height of the bar indicates the level of hierarchy
(determined by how the data is presented) and the width is
determined by the actual data to be displayed. Pg. 258, col. 1,
§ 3.3 and Figs. 12-15.
3. The pixel bar charts contain data that is displayed as dividing
attributes (Dx and Dy), ordering attributes (Ox and Oy), and a
coloring attribute (C). Pg. 259, col. 2 and Fig. 6.
4. As an example, Figure 12(a) displays a particular day (Dx), with
the number of waiting messages (Ox), and the round trip time (Oy)
that can be illustrated using particular colors (C) for each pixel.
The width of the bar is therefore determined by the number of
waiting messages. Bright colors map to high data values and dark
colors map to low data values. Therefore, a red pixel (a transaction
that exceeds a threshold of 30 seconds) has a longer round trip time
than a green pixel. Pg. 261, n.2, pg. 264, col. 2, § 6.1, and Fig.
12(a).
5. The height of the bars can take on different levels, each
representing a particular hierarchy. For instance, the first (highest)
6
Appeal 2008-6181
Application 10/694,076

level may represent days; the second level may represent hours;
and the third (lowest) level may represent minutes. Pg. 264, col. 2,
§ 6.1 through pg. 265, col. 1 and Figs. 13-15.
6. After the height and the width of the bars are determined, the
pixels are placed into the corresponding regions according to Ox
and Oy. Pg. 261, col. 1, § 4.3, pg. 264, col. 2, § 6.1, and Figs. 12-
15.
7. In order to show aggregated values, Keim 2002 discloses the use of
average/median lines. These lines are a visual boundary that
separates the bar into two parts. The data above the line exceeds
the average/median value while the data below the line is below
the average/median value. Pg. 264, col. 1, § 5.2, and Fig. 12(a).
8. In the example described above, the bar with the lowest
average/median line indicates the day containing messages with
the highest round trip time. Pg. 264, col. 1, § 5.2, and Fig. 12(a).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Office personnel must rely on Appellants’ disclosure to properly
determine the meaning of the terms used in the claims. Markman v.
Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 980 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc).
“[I]nterpreting what is meant by a word in a claim is not to be confused with
adding an extraneous limitation appearing in the specification, which is
improper.” In re Cruciferous Sprout Litigation, 301 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed.
Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted; emphasis in
original).
7
Appeal 2008-6181
Application 10/694,076

On the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court has stated that “[t]he
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739 (2007).
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
either in the same field or a different one. If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103
likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique
has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless
its actual application is beyond his or her skill. . . . [A] court
must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable
use of prior art elements according to their established
functions.

Id. at 1740. “One of the ways in which a patent’s subject matter can be
proved obvious is by noting that there existed at the time of the invention a
known problem for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the
patent’s claims.” Id. at 1742.

ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 1, 2, 8, 11, 13-15, 20-22, and 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a) as anticipated by Keim 2002

Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 1, 2, 8, 11, 13-15, 20-22, and 24 as being anticipated by
Keim 2002. Appellants argue that the dividing attributes of Keim 2002, Dx
and Dy, do not provide a visual boundary as required by the claim. App. Br.
4. In addition, Appellants argue that even if Keim 2002 discloses the steps
8
Appeal 2008-6181
Application 10/694,076

as claimed, Keim 2002 discloses them out of order. Reply Br. 2. We
disagree.
Claim 1 recites “determining a visual boundary for representing an
aggregate of a set of values of a variable depicted in the pixel-oriented
graph.” The Examiner has found the visual boundary to be the bar in the
pixel bar chart. Ans. 10. We agree.
Keim 2002 teaches a method of creating hierarchical pixel bar charts.
FF 1. Each hierarchical pixel bar chart contains a “bar” of a particular
height and width. FF 2. The height of the bars often indicates the different
levels of hierarchy, as will be explained in the example below. FF 2. The
width of the bars is conditioned upon the data to be displayed. FF 2. The
data is displayed as dividing attributes (Dx and Dy), ordering attributes (Ox
and Oy), and a coloring attribute (C). FF 3. For example, information to be
displayed could be a particular day (Dx), with the number of waiting
messages (Ox), and the round trip time (Oy) that can be illustrated using
particular colors (C) for each pixel. FF 4. As the color gets brighter the data
values of the pixels are increased; whereas, if the color gets darker the data
values of the pixels are decreased. FF 4. The height of the bars is pre-
selected according to how the data is to be presented. FF 5. The first level
(height) of the bars may indicate the days, followed by the second level that
indicates the hours, and lastly by the third level that indicates minutes. FF 5.
If the number of waiting text messages (Ox) on a particular day is greater
than another day, the bar’s width will be larger. FF 4. As a result, a visual
boundary is created by the height and width of the bar for a particular set of
values. Thus, we find that the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding that
the reference teaches the visual boundary, as claimed.
9
Appeal 2008-6181
Application 10/694,076

Appellants additionally argue that even if the steps of claim 1 are
taught by Keim 2002, there is nothing to indicate that the visual boundary is
determined first and then a set of pixel blocks are constructed. Reply Br. 2.
We disagree. As stated above, Keim 2002 creates the visual boundary by
first determining the height of bars, based upon how the data is to be
displayed. FF 2 and 5. Then, the width of the bars is determined based upon
the data received. FF 2 and 4. After the visual boundary has been created,
the pixels are placed in the corresponding regions according to Ox and Oy.
FF 6. As a result, we find there is no indication in the reference that
indicates that the hierarchical pixel bar charts are created in any other order
than as claimed in claim 1. Thus, Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded
us of error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1 and we
therefore sustain the rejection of that claim, as well as that of claims 2, 8, 11,
13-15, 20-22, and 24 which fall with claim 1.

Rejection of claims 3-5, 9, 10, 12, 16, 17, 19, 23, and 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Keim 2002

Claims 3-5, 10, and 17
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 3-5, 10, and 17. Appellants’
arguments that the rejection of these claims is in error is not persuasive for
the reasons discussed supra with respect to independent claims 1 and 13.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 3-5,
10, and 17.

10
Appeal 2008-6181
Application 10/694,076

Claims 9, 16, and 23
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 9, 16, and 23. Representative claim 9 recites
“filling in one or more gaps in the pixel blocks by replicating one or more
pixels in the pixel blocks.” Keim 2002 teaches that creating the pixel bar
charts involves (1) determining a pixel color (C) and (2) placing the pixels in
the corresponding region. FF 3, 4, and 6. In the example described above, a
red pixel has a longer round trip time than a pixel that is green. FF 4. Since
pixels are placed in the pixel bar chart, the color of the pixel is replicated for
each data point containing the same round trip time. For instance, pixels are
colored red for every transaction that exceeds a threshold of 30 seconds. FF
4. Since we find that Keim 2002 teaches replicating one or more pixel
blocks, we therefore sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims
9, 16, and 23.

Claims 12, 19, and 25
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 12, 19, and 25. Representative claim 12
recites “applying a weight to the visual boundary that indicates a relative
importance of the aggregate.” As discussed above, Keim 2002 discloses a
visual boundary that includes the width and the height of the bar. FF 2. In
addition, Keim 2002 discloses another type of visual boundary. FF 7. In
order to show aggregated values, average/median lines are employed in pixel
bar charts. FF 7. The average/median line is a visual boundary that
separates the bar into two parts. FF 7. The data above exceeds the
average/median value while the data below is below the average/median
11
Appeal 2008-6181
Application 10/694,076

value. FF 7. In the example we discussed supra, the lowest
average/median line on the pixel bar chart indicates the day containing
messages with the highest round trip time. FF 8. As a result, a weight, i.e.,
the average/median value, is assigned to the average/median line which
indicates the relative importance of the aggregated data. Thus, we find that
Keim 2002 teaches applying a weight to the visual boundary that indicates a
relative importance of the aggregate, as claimed, and we sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 12, 19, and 25.

Rejection of claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Keim 2002 in view of Keim 2000

Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 7. Appellants’ arguments are not
persuasive for the reasons discussed supra with respect to independent claim
1 and dependent claim 4. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 6 and 7.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding Keim
2002 teaches a visual boundary for representing an aggregate of a set of
values of a variable depicted in a pixel-oriented graph in rejecting
representative claim 1 under § 102.
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Keim 2002 teaches replicating one or more pixels in the pixel blocks to fill
in one or more gaps in the pixel blocks in rejecting representative claim 9
under § 103.
12
Appeal 2008-6181
Application 10/694,076

Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Keim 2002 teaches assigning a weight to a visual boundary that indicates the
importance of the aggregate in rejecting representative claim 12 under
§ 103.

SUMMARY
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 25 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

ELD

HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY
P.O. BOX 272400
3404 E. HARMONY ROAD
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION
FORT COLLINS, CO 80527-2400
13