Ex Parte HoguetDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 19, 201612270489 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 19, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/270,489 11113/2008 22494 7590 01/21/2016 DALY, CROWLEY, MOFFORD & DURKEE, LLP SUITE 301A 354A TURNPIKE STREET CANTON, MA 02021-2714 Ramsay Hoguet 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. DESIGN-005AUS 2257 EXAMINER SAXENA, AKASH ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2128 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 0112112016 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): docketing@dc-m.com amk@dc-m.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RAMSAY HOGUET 1 Appeal2014-001977 Application 12/270,489 Technology Center 2100 Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON i\.PPEi\L STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1-90. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. 1 Appellant identifies Designin Corporation as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 2.) Appeal2014-001977 Application 12/270,489 Introduction According to Appellant, the present application "relates generally to systems, methods, and computer program products for home and/or landscape design." (Spec. 1.) Exemplary Claim Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitation italicized, is exemplary of the claimed subject matter: 1. A computer-implemented method for use in generating a home design layout, the method comprising: modifying a structural design layout with one or more structural elements; inserting one or more home design product elements into the modified structural design layout in conformance with the one or more structural elements to build a set of home design product layouts, each home design product layout rendering one or more design product elements in a layout; presenting the set of home design product layouts to a user; presenting sets of home design product images to the user, each home design product image being an image of at least one of the one or more home design product elements; and responsive to a request, converting a home design product layout of the set of home design product layouts to a three-dimensional layout, the three-dimensional layout incorporating three-dimensional models associated with corresponding home design product images from a set of the sets of home design product images. 2 Appeal2014-001977 Application 12/270,489 REFERENCE The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Mac Innes US 2005/0081161 Al Apr. 14, 2005 REJECTION2 Claims 1-90 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 102(b) as being anticipated by Maclnnes. (Final Act. 6-18.) ISSUES ( 1) Whether Mac Innes teaches "presenting the set of home design product layouts to a user," as recited in claim 1. (2) Whether Mac Innes teaches selecting the set of home design product layouts for presentation based on one or more of the following: design rules, sponsorship by advertisers, input previously provided by the user, design choices previously made by the user, or neural network analysis of design choices of other users; and presenting home design product layouts within the set of home design product layouts in order of one or more of the following: most often used by other users, most recently used by other users, level of sponsorship by advertisers, whether used by design professionals, input previously provided by the user, or design choices previously made by the user[,] as recited in claim 20, and commensurately recited in claims 50 and 80. 2 Although claims 91-101 were also rejected by the Examiner under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), Appellant cancels on appeal claims 91-101. (App. Br. 2.) The Examiner withdraws on appeal the rejection of claims 31-60, 92, 96, and 97 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. (Ans. 2.) 3 Appeal2014-001977 Application 12/270,489 (3) Whether Maclnnes teaches building the set of home design product layouts for presentation based on one or more of the following: design rules, sponsorship by advertisers, input previously provided by the user, design choices previously made by the user, or neural network analysis of design choices of other users; and presenting home design product layouts within the set of home design product layouts in order of one or more of the following: most often used by other users, most recently used by other users, level of sponsorship by advertisers, whether used by design professionals, input previously provided by the user, or design choices previously made by the user[,] as recited in claim 21, and commensurately recited in claims 51 and 81. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's arguments the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant's conclusions and we adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3, 6-18); and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellant's Appeal Brief. (Ans. 3-11.) We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis. 3 A. Claims 1-19, 22-49, 52-79, and 82-90 Appellant challenges the Examiner's finding of anticipation as to claim 1 by arguing Maclnnes does not teach "presenting the set of home 3 Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have been considered in this decision. Arguments that Appellant did not make in the briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 3 7 C.F .R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). 4 Appeal2014-001977 Application 12/270,489 design product layouts to a user." (App. Br. 8-10.) We disagree. As the Examiner correctly finds, Macinnes teaches a "library" of objects as well as "several templates of room plans." (Ans. 3 (citing Macinnes i-fi-154 and 90- 95 and Figs. 25 and 26).) As the Examiner further correctly finds, Macinnes teaches that the user can choose from these layouts and can also customize them if desired. (Ans. 4 (citing Macinnes i-fi-192, 95 and Fig. 6).) We further note additional portions of Macinnes also provide further context and support for the Examiner's finding that Macinnes teaches the disputed limitation of claim 1: Embodiments of the present invention may be used by interior design professionals. The system and tool of these embodiments permit designers and their clients to select, customize and rearrange groupings of furnishings to see how they may look within the client's actual room in a WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) environment. These embodiments include each of (i) a large on-line catalog containing 3D images and information for textures and furnishings, \~1hich may include fabric, \~1allpaper, paint colors and finishes, wood finishes upholstered furniture, case goods, art, art objects and decorative accessories, (ii) a library of 3D room models that may be interactively sized, an interactive 3D room model generator containing a floor plan tool, and (iii) a library of 3D furnishings models. Interior designer and architect users may showcase renderings of completed projects to prospective clients. A zoom tool may be available here as well, to aid viewers in examining areas of the image they wish to view in greater detail. (Macinnes i-fi-141, 45 (emphases added).) In short, we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's finding Macinnes anticipates claim 1. We, therefore, affirm the Examiner's 35 5 Appeal2014-001977 Application 12/270,489 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim I, and also claims 2-19, 22--49, 52-79, and 82-90, which Appellant argues collectively with claim 1. (App. Br. 10.) B. Claims 20, 50, and 80 Claim 20 depends from claim 1, and adds the limitation: selecting the set of home design product layouts for presentation based on one or more of the following: design rules, sponsorship by advertisers, input previously provided by the user, design choices previously made by the user, or neural network analysis of design choices of other users[.] (Claims App.) The Examiner correctly concludes the claim language "one or more of' means that only one of the recited alternatives need be present in the prior art to satisfy this limitation. (Ans. 4; see also Ans. 9.) The Examiner finds Maclnnes teaches, inter alia, the alternative "based on design choices previously made by the user." (Ans. 9 (citing Maclnnes i-fi-139, 92).) We agree. In particular, as the Examiner correctly finds, Maclnnes teaches "[t]he user may import 112 from object library 42 (FIG. 2) by choosing one of several templates of room plans which may be further customized." (Maclnnes i192 (emphases added); Ans. 9.) Moreover, we reject Appellant's contention that, in so doing, the Examiner is "focusing [on] items and objects" instead of on the claimed "product design layouts." (App. Br. 11.) As the Examiner correctly finds, Maclnnes teaches selection of both "objects" as well as home design product layouts (e.g., "templates of room plans"). (Ans. 9.) 6 Appeal2014-001977 Application 12/270,489 Claim 20 further adds the limitation: presenting home design product layouts within the set of home design product layouts in order of one or more of the following: most often used by other users, most recently used by other users, level of sponsorship by advertisers, whether used by design professionals, input previously provided by the user, or design choices previously made by the user. (Claims App.) Appellant argues the Examiner's finding of anticipation by Maclnnes is in error because "[ t ]here is no teaching of home design product layouts." (App. Br. 14.) For the reasons stated above, we disagree, and we adopt the Examiner's contrary finding. (See Ans. 9-10.) Appellant also focuses on only part of the Examiner's citations to Maclnnes (i.e., Table 7), and argues that such specific portions of Maclnnes do not teach "selecting the set of home design product layouts for presentation based on one or more of the following .... " (Reply Br. 5.) This argument fails to address the entirety of the Examiner's rejection, which relies on additional teachings in l\1aclnnes (e.g., i-fi-139 and 91-96), and is thus unpersuasive of Examiner error. Appellant additionally emphasizes, in Reply, that "the Examiner's rationale does not explain how Maclnnes teaches presenting home design product layouts within the set of home design product layouts in order .... " (Reply Br. 6.) The language of claim 20, however, recites "in order of one or more of the following: .... "(emphasis added). As noted above, the language "one or more of the following" may be satisfied by only a single of the recited alternatives, and thus the "order" required by claim 20 is similarly satisfied by an "order" of only one of the alternatives. For the reasons stated above, Appellant has shown no error. 7 Appeal2014-001977 Application 12/270,489 In short, we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's finding Macinnes anticipates claim 20. We, therefore, affirm the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 20 and also claims 50 and 80, which Appellant argues collectively with claim 1. (App. Br. 10.) C. Claims 21, 51, and 81 Claim 21 depends from claim 1, and adds the limitations building the set of home design product layouts for presentation based on one or more of the following: design rules, sponsorship by advertisers, input previously provided by the user, design choices previously made by the user, or neural network analysis of design choices of other users; and presenting home design product layouts within the set of home design product layouts in order of one or more of the following: most often used by other users, most recently used by other users, level of sponsorship by advertisers, whether used by design professionals, input previously provided by the user, or design choices previously made by the user. (Claims App.) Appellant's arguments regarding claim 21 reiterate the same arguments presented for claim 20 (App. Br. 15-18; Reply Br. 7-8), which we have rejected for the reasons stated above. We concur with the Examiner's contrary findings. (Ans. 10-11.) In short, we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's finding Mac Innes anticipates claim 21. We, therefore, affirm the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 21 and also claims 51 and 81, which Appellant argues collectively with claim 1. (App. Br. 15.) 8 Appeal2014-001977 Application 12/270,489 DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1-90 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)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED hh 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation