Ex Parte Hou et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 1, 201713589958 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 1, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation