Ex Parte Hoguet

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 19, 2016

12270489 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 19, 2016)

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