Ex Parte Hou et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 1, 2017

13589958 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2017)

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.
13/589,958 08/20/2012 Zhitao Hou MS1-5296US 2027
144365 7590 12/05/2017
Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
P.O. Box 2938
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
HOANG, PETER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2616
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/05/2017 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):
uspto@slwip.com
SLW @blackhillsip.com
usdocket@ micro soft .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ZHITAO HOU, XIAO LIANG, HAIDONG ZHANG, and
DONGMEI ZHANG
Appeal 2017-003347
Application 13/5 89,95 s1
Technology Center 2600
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JON M. JURGOVAN, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-20, the only claims pending in the
application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Microsoft Technology
Licensing. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-003347
Application 13/589,958
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants ’ Invention
Appellants’ invention generally relates to “user interface tools for
exploring data visualizations” (Spec. ^ 2) that “enable users to view
graphical representations of data relationships” such as, for example, bar
charts, line graphs, pie graphs, and bubble graphs (Spec. ^ 1). The
Specification provides “[d]ata visualizations may include a large number of
data points, some of which may be small, and/or data points that are in close
proximity to one another” and “[t]o assist a user in accurately selecting a
desired data point, when displaying a data visualization, a magnification area
is simultaneously displayed.” Spec., Abstract. Claim 1, which is
illustrative, reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
rendering a data visualization on an electronic display,
wherein the data visualization comprises a graph or a chart;
determining, within the electronic display, a current
location associated with a selection device;
rendering, on the electronic display, a magnification area
overlaying the data visualization, the magnification area
including:
an enlarged view of an area of the data visualization
centered around the current location associated with the
selection device; and
vertical and horizontal crosshairs that overlay the
enlarged view of the area of the data visualization centered
around the current location associated with the selection
device, the vertical and horizontal crosshairs being
centered such that an intersection of the vertical crosshair
and the horizontal crosshair corresponds with the current
location associated with the selection device.
2
Appeal 2017-003347
Application 13/589,958
Rejections
Claims 1-6, 9-13, 15, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Abramson et al. (US
2002/0163547 Al; published Nov. 7, 2002; hereinafter “Abramson”), Hama
et al. (EP 0172368 A2; published Feb. 26, 1986; hereinafter “Isobe”2), and
Baumgaertel et al. (US 2012/0166470 Al; published June 28, 2012;
hereinafter “Baumgaertel”). Final Act. 4-19.
Claims 7, 8, 14, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Abramson, Isobe, Baumgaertel,
and Blumenberg et al. (US 2008/0259041 Al; published Oct. 23, 2008;
hereinafter “Blumenberg”). Final Act. 19-23.
ANAFYSIS
Improper Combination
Non-Analogous Art
Appellants contend the combination of Abramson, Isobe, and
Baumgaertel is improper because Abramson and Isobe are non-analogous
art. App. Br. 13-16; Reply Br. 2-3. According to Appellants, the claimed
invention’s field of endeavor is “user interface tools for exploring data
visualizations” that provide users with graphical views of data sets “wherein
the data visualization comprises a graph or a chart.” App. Br. 14 (citing
Spec., Title; 1, 13; claims 1, 10, 15). Appellants’ acknowledge
2 EP 0172368 lists Hiroshi Hama and Yasukazu Isobe as the inventors.
Isobe, Front Page. Although Hiroshi Hama is listed as the first named
inventor, when referring to this reference, Appellants and the Examiner use
the last name of the second named inventor, “Isobe.” See e.g., Final Act. 4;
App. Br. 12.
3
Appeal 2017-003347
Application 13/589,958
Baumgaertel is “directed to ‘providing touchscreen report navigation’” and,
therefore, within the same field of endeavor (App. Br. 15 (citing
Baumgaertel, Title)), but argue Abramson and Isobe are directed to different
fields of endeavor. Id.
Regarding Abramson, Appellants argue “Abramson’s field ... is
interactive electronically presented maps, and more specifically, Abramson
states that ‘the present invention provides computerized systems and
methods for providing electronically presented interactive area
representation, such as a map, and information associated therewith’” and
an “‘area representation, such as a map’ is not within the same field of
endeavor as a ‘data visualization [that] comprises a chart or a graph.’” App.
Br. 15 (citing Abramson, Abstract). Appellants further argue Abramson is
not analogous art because “Abramson [is not] reasonably pertinent to the
particular problem with which the Appellant was involved.” Id.
Regarding Isobe, Appellants argue
Isobe’s field of endeavor is image display, and more specifically,
Isobe states that “the invention relates to a method for displaying
an entire image on a portion of the display screen and a partial
image of the entire image, on the remaining portion of the display
screen, with a contour of the partial image being overlappingly
displayed on the entire image”
and “displaying an image is not within the same field of endeavor as a ‘data
visualization [that] comprises a chart or a graph.’” App. Br. 15 (citing Isobe
1:3—8). Appellants further argue Isobe is not analogous art because “Isobe
[is not] reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the
Appellant was involved.” Id.
A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness determination
under § 103 only when it is analogous to the claimed invention. In re Klein,
4
Appeal 2017-003347
Application 13/589,958
647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also Innovention Toys, LLC, v.
MCA Entertainment, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed.Cir.2011); In re Bigio,
381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed.Cir.2004); In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658
(Fed.Cir.1992). Two separate, alternative tests define the scope of
analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor,
regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the
field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably
pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.
Klein, 647F.3dat 1348.
Abramson
We determine the field of endeavor “by reference to explanations of
the invention’s subject matter in the patent application, including the
embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed invention.” Bigio, 381
F.3d at 1325. We find Appellants’ field of endeavor is user interface tools
for exploring data visualizations. Spec., Title; 2, 16.
Abramson is directed to “providing electronically presented
interactive area representation, such as a map, and information associated
therewith.” Abramson, Abstract. Abramson teaches “[a] user can select
text, imagery, or other information presented on the map and associated with
one or more items or locations, causing presentation of information relating
to the associated one or more items or locations, such as appropriate contact
information or a hyperlink to an appropriate Web site.” Id. Abramson
further teaches “internal navigation within the map can be provided using a
magnifier that highlights, indicates, or otherwise defines a portion of the
map, causing a simultaneous magnified presentation of the defined portion
to be provided.” Abramson 5. As such, Abramson is directed to a user
5
Appeal 2017-003347
Application 13/589,958
interface tool for exploring data visualizations. We are not persuaded that a
skilled artisan working in the field of user interface tools for exploring data
visualizations regarding one form of data visualization, e.g., Appellants’
graph or chart, would not be aware of user interface tools for exploring data
visualizations regarding other forms of data visualization, e.g., Abramson’s
map. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Abramson is “in the
analogous art of cursor selection of magnified areas in a display
visualization.” Ans. 5.
Isobe
Isobe is directed to “a method for displaying an entire image on a
portion of a display screen and a partial image of the entire image on the
remaining portion of the display screen.” Isobe, Abstract. Isobe teaches
“[t]he display of the entire image on the display screen is highly desirable in
the image process” but “[d]ue to the limited number of pels [picture
elements] on the display screen ... the entire image becomes rough image,
and the operator could not precisely select or specify a point on the rough
image.” Isobe 7:24-29. To solve this problem, Isobe teaches “the operator
could roughly scan the entire image by moving the cursor on the entire
image, simultaneously, he could see or observe its detailed partial image on
the right side of the screen” thereby allowing the operator to specify any
point on the entire image. Isobe 7:29-8:2.
Appellants’ Specification describes a pertinent problem faced by the
inventor as the precise selection of particular data points on data
visualizations representing large data sets and/or on data visualizations
displayed on display devices with small screens. See Spec. 1, 14. As
such, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Isobe is reasonably
6
Appeal 2017-003347
Application 13/589,958
pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved, and,
therefore, analogous art, because Isobe “aids in solving the pertinent
problem of helping a user identify an exact location of an indicating cursor
of a selection device.” Ans. 5.
Motivation to Combine
Appellants further contend the combination of Abramson, Isobe, and
Baumgaertel is improper because there is no motivation to combine the
references. App. Br. 16-21; Reply Br. 3. Appellants argue the Examiner
“presented no line of reasoning as to why an artisan, at the time the
application was filed, reviewing only the collective teachings of the
references would have found it obvious to selectively pick and choose
various elements and/or concepts to arrive at the claimed invention” (App.
Br. 16) and “one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
would have no reason to combine the teachings of Abramson, Isobe, and
Baumgaertel because none of the references expresses a reason to combine
the teachings of these references, either explicitly or implicitly.” App.
Br. 19.
Appellants further argue
The Office’s contention appears to be that it would have
been obvious to modify Abramson and Isobe in view of the
teachings of Baumgaertel to “achieve the predictable result of
explicitly using manipulation of data directed to graphs and
charts.” However, the Office does not point to any evidence in
any of the cited documents or elsewhere in the record to support
this motivation, especially because Baumgaertel is directed to
“providing touchscreen report navigation,” which includes charts
and graphs. Because manipulation of data presented in graphs
and charts is already described by Baumgaertel, there would be
no need to combine Baumgaertel with the teachings of Abramson
7
Appeal 2017-003347
Application 13/589,958
and Isobe to achieve “manipulation of data directed to graphs and
charts.”
App. Br. 19 (citing Final Act. 6; Baumgaertel, Title) (internal citations
omitted). Appellants argue the Examiner’s reasoning is conclusory, not
supported by the evidence of record, and, therefore, fails to provide the
requisite articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning required to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness. App. Br. 19-20. According to
Appellants, “only hindsight reasoning in light of Appellant’s claims would
lead one to consider combining the teachings of Abramson, Isobe, and
Baumgaertel.” App. Br. 20.
We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. A motivation to
combine can be found in “any need or problem known in the field of
endeavor at the time of the invention and addressed by the patent.” KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007). “[T]he analysis need not
seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the
challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative
steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418.
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds Abramson teaches or suggests
all the recited limitations except “wherein the data visualization comprises a
graph or a chart” and the magnification area including the claimed “vertical
and horizontal crosshairs.” Final Act. 4-6. The Examiner finds, and we
agree, Isobe teaches a magnification area including
vertical and horizontal crosshairs that overlay the enlarged
view of the area of the data visualization centered around
the current location associated with the selection device,
the vertical and horizontal crosshairs being centered such
that an intersection of the vertical crosshair and the
horizontal crosshair corresponds with the current location
associated with the selection device.
8
Appeal 2017-003347
Application 13/589,958
See Final Act. 5-6 (citing Isobe, Figs. 2, 5; p. 7,11. 13-15). The Examiner
finds one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellants’ invention
would be motivated to combine the teachings of Abramson and Isobe
because “it achieves the predictable result of explicitly using crosshairs to
improve visualization of a center of the cursor to aid in selection of an area
by a user.” Final Act. 6. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Baumgaertel
teaches rendering a chart (e.g., a data visualization) on an electronic display.
Id. (citing Baumgaertel, Figs. 4-11; 2). The Examiner finds one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellants’ invention would be
motivated to combine the teachings of Abramson and Isobe with the
teachings of Baumgaertel because “it achieves the predictable result of
explicitly using manipulation of data directed to graphs and charts.” Final
Act. 6.
We find these teachings to be properly combinable. “Common sense
teaches . . . that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary
purposes, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the
teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle” since the
skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR at
420-21. We further find that the Examiner has articulated how the claimed
features are met by the proposed combination of the reference teachings with
some rational underpinning, consistent with the guidelines stated in KSR.
See Final Act. 5-6; Ans. 27-28. Appellants have not provided evidence that
combining such teachings was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of
ordinary skill in the art,” or that such a combination “represented an
unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price,
Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
9
Appeal 2017-003347
Application 13/589,958
As to Appellants’ allegation that the Examiner has engaged in
impermissible hindsight, we have reviewed the rejection for improper
hindsight and find none. Isobe teaches a magnification area including a
cursor cross (e.g., vertical and horizontal crosshairs) to precisely select or
specify a point on an image. Isobe, p. 7,1. 24 - p. 8,1. 2. Abramson teaches
that the data visualization is of “maps and other area representations
(including geographic and non-geographic areas)” (Abramson 3) and that
an area representation “can be extended to layers of integrated circuits, or
any appropriate object, assembly or topography having area, including, for
example, three dimensional objects, and whether or not relief is also
represented with any area” (Abramson 58). Baumgaertel teaches that data
visualization can be a chart or graph (e.g., an appropriate object having an
area). Baumgaertel ^ 18. As such, we conclude the Examiner’s rejection
takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made, and does not include
knowledge gleaned only from the Appellants’ disclosure. See In re
McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in combining
Abramson, Isobe, and Baumgaertel to reject claim 1. Independent claims 10
and 15 recite limitations similar to the limitations discussed supra with
respect to claim 1 and were rejected on substantially the same basis.
Compare Final Act. 9-16, with id. at 4-6. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in combining Abramson, Isobe, and
Baumgaertel to reject claims 10 and 15 for reasons similar to the reasons
discussed above with respect to claim 1.
10
Appeal 2017-003347
Application 13/589,958
Claims 3 and 12
Claim 3 depends from claim 2. Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and
recites “wherein the data visualization comprises a plurality of selectable
data points.” Claim 3 recites “in an event that the current location associated
with the selection device is associated with a particular data point of the
plurality of selectable data points, the magnification area further includes a
details box displaying details associated with the particular data point.”
Appellants contend the combination of Abramson, Isobe, and Baumgaertel
fails to teach or suggest the limitations recited in claim 3. App. Br. 21-23;
Reply Br. 3. In particular, Appellants contend Baumgaertel does not teach
or suggest “the magnification area further includes a details box displaying
details associated with the particular data point,” as recited in claim 3. Id.
Appellants argue Baumgaertel, instead, merely presents the same particular
data point, and does not display ‘details associated with the particular data
point’” and does not teach that the data point is included in a magnification
area, as required by claim 3. App. Br. 23 (citing Baumgaertel, Figs. 4, 5;
126).
Baumgaertel teaches displaying a first report in a first area of a
display. Baumgaertel ^ 24. The report may include a table containing
business information and/or a graphical representation of business
information. Id. Baumgaertel teaches “the user might touch the selected
element 416, ‘drag’ it to another area 418 of the display 400, and drop it by
removing his or her finger.” Baumgaertel ^ 25; see also Baumgaertel,
Fig. 4. Baumgaertel teaches when the other area 418 is not associated with
another report, a third report 530, representing the selected element 416, is
displayed at the other area 418. Baumgaertel ^ 26; see also Baumgaertel,
11
Appeal 2017-003347
Application 13/589,958
Fig. 5. Baumgaertel teaches the third report 530 “includes sales information
for only the elements that had been selected in the first report (‘trousers’).”
Id. The Examiner finds element 416 (“trousers”) corresponds to the claimed
“particular data point;” the third report 530 corresponds to the claimed
“details box;” and the sales information “500” corresponds to the claimed
“details associated with the particular data point.” Final Act. 7-8.
Appellants argument (App. Br. 23) that Baumgaertel merely presents the
same particular data point, and does not display “details associated with the
particular data point” is not persuasive because claim 3 does not prohibit the
details associated with the particular data point from being displayed in both
the data visualization and the details box. Appellants’ argument (App.
Br. 23) that Baumgaertel does not teach that the data point is included in a
magnification area, as required by claim 3, is not persuasive because the
Examiner relies upon Abramson, not Baumgaertel for teaching or suggesting
the claimed magnification area. See Final Act. 5 (citing Abramson ^ 15).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 3.
Regarding the rejection of claim 12, Appellants rely on the arguments
presented with respect to claim 3. App. Br. 23. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 12 for the reasons discussed
supra with respect to claim 3.
Claims 2, 4 9, 11, 13, 14, and 16—20
Appellants do not present separate arguments for the remaining
claims, claims 2, 4-9, 11, 13, 14, and 16-20 (see App. Br. 13-24), which,
therefore, fall for the reasons stated for the claims from which they depend.
12
Appeal 2017-003347
Application 13/589,958
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
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
13