Ex Parte Suermondt et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 29, 2007

10096452 (B.P.A.I. May. 29, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte HENRI JACQUES SUERMONDT and
GEORGE HENRY FORMAN
____________

Appeal 2007-0455
Application 10/096,452
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: May 29, 2007
____________

Before JAMES D. THOMAS, KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, and JOSEPH F.
RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Final Rejection of
claims 1 to 10, 12 to 22, 24 to 28 and 33 to 40. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appellants have invented a hierarchical visualization tool that has a
display that simultaneously shows a plurality of predictive features for a
Appeal 2007-0455
Application 10/096,452

class, and a distribution of those features with respect to a plurality of
descendant classes of that class (Figure 4A; Specification 18 and 19).
Claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal, and it reads as
follows:
1. A tool for analysis of a classification hierarchy, the tool
comprising:

a display simultaneously showing a plurality of features that are
predictive for a class and a distribution of said features with respect to a
plurality of descendant classes of said class.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Becker US 6,301,579 B1 Oct. 9, 2001
The Examiner rejected claims 1 to 10, 12 to 22, 24 to 28 and 33 to 40
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) based upon the teachings of Becker.
Appellants contend inter alia that Becker lacks a display that
“simultaneously shows two recited elements: (1) a plurality of features that
are predictive for a class, and (2) a distribution of the features with respect to
a plurality of descendant classes of the class” (Br. 7).
We hereby sustain the rejection of record.
ISSUE
Does Becker describe a display that simultaneously shows features of
a class, and a distribution of the features with respect to a plurality of
descendant classes of the class?
FINDINGS OF FACT
Appellants disclose a hierarchical tool in which a display 400
simultaneously shows in a first view 401 a plurality of features 405 for a
2
Appeal 2007-0455
Application 10/096,452

class 404, and in a second view 403 shows a distribution of the features with
respect to a plurality of descendant classes of the class 404 (Figure 4A).
Becker describes a visualization tool in which a display 500
simultaneously shows in a first tree-like view 515 a plurality of features that
are predictive of a class 514 of mushrooms, and in a second table-like view
590 shows a distribution of the features with respect to a plurality of
descendant classes (e.g., odor and weight) of the class (Figure 5; col. 21, ll.
21 to 49). During a drill-down operation of the selected class 514 of
mushrooms, a third display 625 is simultaneously opened with the other two
displays (col. 22, ll. 39 to 43). Becker indicates that a table with rows and
columns results from a drill-down operation (Figures 9A and 9B; col. 23, ll.
24 to 43). The height of the selected class 514 serves as a highlight of the
number of records in the class (col. 21, ll. 30 and 31). The features of the
mushrooms are clearly shown and described by words (e.g., pungent odor
and spore color).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation is established when a single prior art reference discloses
expressly or under the principles of inherency each and every limitation of
the claimed invention. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342,
1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1946 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475,
1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

3
Appeal 2007-0455
Application 10/096,452

ANALYSIS
As indicated supra, Becker describes all of the elements and steps
found in the hierarchical tool claims1 on appeal.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Anticipation has been established by the Examiner because Becker
describes a hierarchical tool display as set forth in the claims on appeal.
DECISION
The anticipation rejection of claims 1 to 10, 12 to 22, 24 to 28 and 33
to 40 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

pgc

Hewlett-Packard Company
Intellectual Property Administration
P.O. box 272400
Fort Collins, CO 80527-2400

1 Appellants did not file a reply brief in response to the Examiner’s findings
(Answer 3 to 24) that Becker describes all of the elements and steps set forth
in the claims on appeal.
4