Ex Parte Black-Ziegelbein et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 18, 2009

10968235 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 18, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ELIZABETH ANN BLACK-ZIEGELBEIN,
GENNARO A. CUOMO, MARC E. HABERKORN,
and BARTON C. VASHAW
____________

Appeal 2009-001850
Application 10/968,235
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided:1 June 18, 2009
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and
KARL D. EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2009-001850
Application 10/968,235

2
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm-in-part.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants invented a method, machine and computer program
product encoded on a computer-readable memory for displaying a treemap
having hierarchical information in a variety of shapes and colors. This
process improves the color and shading processing of a nested treemap.2
Independent claim 1 is reproduced below with the key disputed limitations
emphasized:
1. A process for displaying hierarchical information in a finite
display space, the hierarchical information comprising a plurality of
nodes divided into at least two clusters, each cluster having a distinct
color comprising a RGB triplet, and each node having a primary
weight and a secondary weight; the process comprising:

converting each RGB triplet to an equivalent HSL triplet, each
equivalent HSL triplet comprising:

a hue component,

a saturation component, and

a lightness component;

adjusting the lightness component to generate a discrete color
gradient for each secondary weight of each node in each cluster;

2 See generally Spec. ¶¶ 6, 21, 22, 24, 27, and 28; Figs. 1, 3, and 4.
Appeal 2009-001850
Application 10/968,235

3
converting each discrete color gradient to an equivalent RGB
triplet; and

drawing a treemap on an output device so that the treemap
comprises a nested treemap for each cluster, the nested treemap
having the cluster's distinct color and comprising a bounding box for
each node in the cluster, each bounding box having an area
proportional to the primary weight of the node and a discrete color
gradient of the equivalent RGB triplet that represents the secondary
weight of the node.

The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejection:
Dawson US 5,270,688 Dec. 14, 1993
Choe US 2004/0013298 A1 Jan. 22, 2004
Walker US 2004/0169654 A1 Sep. 2, 2004

(1) Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Walker and Choe (Ans. 3-5).
(2) Claims 3, 6, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Walker, Choe, and Dawson (Ans. 5-6).
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
refer to the Briefs and the Answer3 for their respective details. In this
decision, we have considered only those arguments actually made by
Appellants. Arguments which Appellants could have made but did not make
in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

3 Throughout the opinion, we refer to: (1) the Appeal Brief filed January 14,
2008; (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed February 15, 2008; and (3) the
Reply Brief filed April 14, 2008.
Appeal 2009-001850
Application 10/968,235

4
OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER WALKER AND CHOE
Appellants group the claims as follows: (1) claims 1 and 2; (2) claims
4 and 5; and (3) claims 7 and 8 (App. Br. 7-16). We will address each
grouping separately.

Claims 1 and 2
The Examiner finds that Walker discloses all the limitations of
representative claim 1,4 except for the step of converting each RGB triplet to
an equivalent HSL triplet and converting the discrete color gradient to an
equivalent RGB triplet. Ans. 3-4. The Examiner relies on Choe and the
ordinarily skilled artisan’s common knowledge to cure this deficiency. Ans.
4-5. Appellants argue that neither Walker nor Choe teaches or suggests: (1)
both nodes and clusters; (2) the adjusting lightness component step that
generates a discrete color gradient for each secondary weight of each node;
and (3) the recited nested treemap. App. Br. 7-16; Reply Br. 3-7.

ISSUES
The following issues have been raised in the present appeal:
(1) Under § 103, have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in
finding that Walker discloses the “plurality of nodes divided into at least two
clusters” in rejecting claim 1?
(2) Under § 103, have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in
finding that the combined Walker and Choe method results in the step of

4 Appellants group claims 1 and 2 (App. Br. 10). Accordingly, we select
independent claim 1 as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2009-001850
Application 10/968,235

5
adjusting a lightness component to generate a discrete color gradient for the
secondary weight of each node in rejecting claim 1?
(3) Under § 103, have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in
finding that Walker teaches drawing a nested treemap for each cluster in
rejecting claim 1?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence.

Walker
1. Walker discloses the database clients (e.g., “clients 1,” “client 2,”
“client 3,” and “client 4”) are visually depicted as rectangle objects having a
size or area that is proportional to a metric (e.g., number of queries against a
database) and is colored to reflect the value of another metric (e.g., query
response time). ¶¶ 82-83; Fig. 6.
2. In the context of discussing the color metric (e.g., average query
response time), Walker states that the metric can be depicted using a
plurality of colors (e.g., red and green). Walker also teaches the shade of a
color can be selected to be brighter or duller. ¶¶ 83-84; Fig. 6.
3. As an example, Walker teaches that the tree map displays the
different response times of the database clients using different colors (e.g.,
red and green). Walker states a database client that has the best average
response time or good average response time will be green (e.g., “client 2”
and “client 5” are bright green and “client 3” and “client 6” are duller green)

Appeal 2009-001850
Application 10/968,235

6

and a database client that has the poorest average response time or a poor but
better than average response time will be red (e.g., “client 1” is bright red
and “client 4” is duller red). ¶¶ 84-85; Fig. 6.
4. Walker discloses each rectangle and its corresponding shade or
brightness is colored with the user-specified color palette. ¶ 75.
5. Walker discloses client databases, Clients 1-4, are grouped with
Server 1 and client databases, Clients 1, 2, and 5, are grouped with Server 2.
¶ 82, 83, and 89; Fig. 7.

Choe
6. Choe teaches converting a red, green, and blue (RGB) triplet
into a hue, saturation, and value (HSV) triplet to represent colors most
similar to human vision. ¶¶ 91-96.

Appellants’ Disclosure
7. Appellants state “‘lightness’ (also sometimes referred to as
‘luminance’ or ‘luminescence’) indicates the intensity of light per unit area
of its source,” and define lightness in an HSL color model as equalling
((max(R,G,B)+min(R,G,B))/2. Spec. ¶ 24.5
8. Appellants describe “Cluster A” and “WebGroup” as nested
treemap of the treemap visualization (e.g., “Main Tree.”) See Spec. ¶¶ 4, 19;
Fig. 1.

5 The Specification incorporates the FreeDictionary.com link,
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/HLS%20color%20space, by
reference. See Spec. ¶ 24.
Appeal 2009-001850
Application 10/968,235

7
9. Claim 1 recites that each node in a cluster has a bounding box,
“each bounding box having an area proportional to the primary weight of the
node and a discrete color gradient of the equivalent RGB triplet that
represents the secondary weight of the node.” Claim 1, ll. 15-17.
10. The Specification defines a “node” to include “any data
structure unit having either data or a link to another data structure unit.”
Spec. ¶ 2.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073-74 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so
doing, the Examiner must make the factual determinations set forth in
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966) (stating that 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 leads to three basic factual inquiries: the scope and content of the prior
art, the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, and the
level of ordinary skill in the art). “[T]he examiner bears the initial burden,
on review of the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie
case of unpatentability.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir.
1992). Furthermore,
“there must be some articulated reasoning with
some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness” . . . . [H]owever, the
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.

Appeal 2009-001850
Application 10/968,235

8
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that Walker fails to teach or suggest the distinct
limitations of a “node” and a “cluster.” App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 3.
Specifically, Appellants contend that Walker’s rectangles are representation
of an observable object and are either a “node” or a “cluster” but not both.
App. Br. 8. As the Examiner explains (Ans. 6-7), Walker discloses clusters
(e.g., Server 1 and Server 2) that are divided into nodes (e.g., database
Clients 1-4 for Server 1 and Clients 1, 2, and 5 for Server 2). FF 5.
Additionally, Walker teaches that the average query response time for a
rectangle object (e.g., database client) may be visually depicted using a
plurality of colors. FF 1-2. For example the database client or node’s box
may be different colors depending on whether the database client’s response
is good, adequate, or poor. See FF 1-3. Walker, therefore, suggests other
organizational types than Server 1 and Server 2, such as a cluster of nodes
that are treated collectively as a unit for purposes of displaying data (e.g.,
color) in order indicate the database’s response time. See id. Thus, Walker
discloses and teaches the limitation of a plurality of clusters divided into at
least two nodes recited in claim 1.
Appellants recognize the Examiner’s explanation that Walker
discloses hierarchical information comprising a plurality of clusters divided
into two nodes. See Reply Br. 3 (noting that “the Examiner clarified that
Server 1 and Server 2 of Walker FIG. 7 are interpreted as meeting the
claim’s ‘clusters’ and that the smaller rectangles of Walker FIG. 7 are
Appeal 2009-001850
Application 10/968,235

9
interpreted as meeting the claim’s ‘nodes.’”) However, Appellants further
argue that Walker fails to teach the limitation of “each cluster having a
distinct color.” App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 3-4. We disagree.
Walker teaches that the tree map displays the different response times
of the database clients using different colors (e.g., red and green). FF 1-3.
Thus, Walker teaches a first cluster of nodes that is one color (e.g., green)
when the database client has the best average response time or a good
average response time. Walker teaches another cluster of nodes that is
different color (e.g., red) when the database client has the poorest average
response time or a poor but better than average response time than the client
with the poorest average response time. See FF 3. Additionally, based on
this teaching, Walker suggests a scenario where the Server 1’s client
databases (e.g., Clients 1-4) would all have good or the best average
response time and thus be different shades of green, and Server 2’s client
databases (e.g., Clients 1, 2, and 5) would all have poor or poor but better
than average response time and thus be different shades of red. See FF 1-3
and 5. Walker therefore teaches that each cluster can have a distinct color as
recited in claim 1 to illustrate visually the client databases’ response times.
Appellants next argue that the neither Walker nor Choe teaches the
limitation of “adjusting the lightness component to generate a discrete color
gradient for each secondary weight of each node in each cluster” as recited
in claim 1. App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 4-6. Claim 1 recites that each node in a
cluster has a bounding box, the box has an area proportional to the primary
weight of the node and a discrete color gradient that represents the

Appeal 2009-001850
Application 10/968,235

10
secondary weight of the node. FF 9. Thus, claim 1 recites two weights: (1)
a primary weight of the node addressing the box’s area and (2) a secondary
weight of the node addressing the color of the box. The adjusting step
addresses generating a discrete color gradient for the secondary weight.
Specifically, Appellants contend that Walker teaches selecting a color
from a color palette and not adjusting the color’s lightness. App. Br. 9;
Reply Br. 4. Appellants state “‘lightness’ (also sometimes referred to as
‘luminance’ or ‘luminescence’) indicates the intensity of light per unit are of
its source.” FF 7. Appellants further define and the Examiner finds that
lightness in an HSL color is equal to ((max(R,G,B)+min(R,G,B))/2. FF 7;
Ans. 7-8. Thus, as the Examiner explains (Ans. 7-8), when the shade of a
color (e.g., red) in Walker is adjusted (e.g., to a brighter or duller red) to
indicate a different average response time (see FF 4-5), at least one of the
red, green, and blue (RGB) values (e.g., at least the red value) changes.
Since at least one of the R, G, and B values are altered when the particular
shade of a color is selected for a particular client database or node, at least
one of the max and min RGB values and, thus, the lightness component will
be adjusted.
Appellants further contend that Walker uses a color palette to select a
color or shade of a color for a rectangle and does not generate a discrete
color gradient for each secondary weight. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 5. The
Examiner finds that Walker’s palette of colors (FF 4) has a number of shades
for each color going from bright to dull and reads on the recited gradient.
See Ans. 9. We do not agree. Claim 1 recites that the adjusting step results
in generating a discrete color gradient for each secondary weight of each
node and not just generating a color palette. Furthermore, Walker discloses
Appeal 2009-001850
Application 10/968,235

11
that the step of selecting a shade or a color or adjusting the lightness of a
color generates a single color or secondary weight for each client database or
node (e.g., Client 1). See FF 2-3. Thus, we agree with the Appellants to the
extent that a single client database (e.g., Client 1) shown in Figure 7 is one
shade of a color and not a color gradient.
Nonetheless, the Specification does not limit a node to a single
bounded box or a single client database in Walker. The Specification
defines a “node” as “any data structure unit having either data or a link to
another data structure unit.” FF 10. Thus, we find that two client databases
can read on a “node” as recited in claim 1. These two client databases (e.g.,
either Client 1 and 2 of Server 1 or Client 3 and 4 of Server 1) can read on a
single node that includes more than one shade of color (e.g., a brighter red to
a duller red). Additionally, Walker only shows examples of the client
databases that are part of each server or cluster (see FF 1-2) and does not
limit the number of client databases within each server. Walker therefore
suggests to an ordinary skilled artisan that a server (e.g., Server 1) can be
expanded to include more client databases (e.g., Client 5 and 6) as part of a
server (e.g., Server 1). Moreover, if more client databases are added to a
cluster, a node can include multiple client databases (e.g., Clients 1-3), and
each group of client databases form a shape that has an area proportional to
the primary weight of the collective databases that are grouped into a node.
We further note that while Walker discusses only two intensities of
color (e.g., brighter and duller red), Walker suggest to a skilled artisan that
more than two intensities of a color can be used to represent the degree of
the good and poor response. See FF 2-3. One skilled in the art would have
recognized using multiple intensities or shades of color for identifying the
Appeal 2009-001850
Application 10/968,235

12
range of good to poor response time and presenting the response time in
even greater detail. For example, this teaching suggests a positive average
response time can be further presented into categories of good, better, and
best. Walker’s teachings and suggestions yield no more than a predictable
result of including more client databases with a server and more shades of a
color to represent more detailed information. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416-17.
Thus, based on all of Walker’s teachings and suggestions, we find that
Walker teaches adjusting the lightness component (e.g., adjusting shading)
to generate a color gradient (e.g., dullest to the brightest red) for each
secondary weight (e.g., color) of each node (e.g., multiple adjacent client
databases) of a cluster as recited in claim 1. We, therefore, need not address
whether Choe cures the purported deficiency of adjusting a lightness
component. App. Br. 9.
However, Choe is relied upon to teach converting a RGB triplet into a
HSV triplet so as to represent colors that are most similar to the human eye.
Ans. 4-5; FF 6. Appellants argue that the Examiner admits Choe teaches
using a HSV color space and not a HSL color space. App. Br. 9 and Reply
Br. 4-5. We agree. However, the Examiner further states that HSL and
HSV color spaces are very closed related, and one skilled in the art would
know to substitute one for another depending on the use. See Ans. 5, 9, and
10. The Examiner elaborates by citing to the previously-discussed
FreeDictionary.com link incorporated by reference. See n.5 supra, of this
opinion. This reference discusses that HSL and HSV are two related
representations of the RGB color space and that some people prefer the HSL
over the HSV color space because the HSL color space better reflects the
intuitive notions of saturation and lightness. Thus, considering the collective
Appeal 2009-001850
Application 10/968,235

13
teachings of Walker and Choe in light of an ordinarily skilled artisan’s
background knowledge, the Examiner has presented a reason to combine
Walker and Choe to convert a RGB triplet into an equivalent HSL triplet that
is most similar to the user’s eye and based on the user’s preferences. See
KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Additionally, we see no reason why Walker’s
teaching of adjusting the lightness component of a color through shading
cannot equally be applied to the lightness component of a HSL triplet.
Lastly, Appellants argue that Walker fails to teach the limitation of
“the treemap comprises a nested treemap for each cluster” recited in claim 1
because Walker is silent to a “nested treemap.” App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 6-7.
The Specification has no special definition of a nested treemap, but
Appellants describe “Cluster A” and “WebGroup” as a nested treemap of
Figure 1’s “Main Tree.” FF 8; App. Br. 4. Walker similarly discloses
cluster “Server 1” and cluster “Server 2” that are part of the treemap
visualization (i.e., unlabeled data base system that includes both Server 1
and Server 2). See FF 11. Additionally, each of Walker’s nodes has a
distinct color (e.g., red or green) and forms a cluster or nested treemap with
the other nodes of that distinct color. See FF 1-3 and 5. We, therefore, are
not persuaded that Walker does not disclose the “nested treemap for each
cluster” recited in claim 1.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not shown the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Walker and
Choe.

Appeal 2009-001850
Application 10/968,235

14
Claims 4 and 5
Independent representative claim 46 recites a data processing machine
with limitations similar in scope to claim 1, including “a plurality of nodes
divided into at least two clusters, each cluster having a distinct color,” “a
program in memory operable to cause the processor to convert each RGB
triplet to an equivalent HSL triplet” and to “adjust the lightness component
to generate a discrete color gradient to represent a discrete value of the
secondary weight of each node in each cluster,” and “the treemap comprises
a nested treemap for each cluster.” The Examiner finds that Walker and
Choe collectively teach this limitation (Ans. 3-5). Appellants repeat the
arguments made in connection with claim 1, such as neither Walker nor
Choe teaches or suggests: (1) both nodes and clusters; (2) the adjusting
lightness component step that generates a discrete color gradient for each
secondary weight of each node; and (3) the recited nested treemap (App. Br.
10-13). The issues for claim 4 are, therefore, the same as those in
connection with claim 1.

ANALYSIS
For the reasons previously discussed with regard to claim 1, we are
not persuaded that Walker and Choe fail to teach the limitation of claim 4.
These arguments also fail to persuasively rebut the Examiner’s prima facie
case of obviousness – a position we find reasonable.

6 Appellants group claims 4 and 5 (App. Br. 13). Accordingly, we select
independent claim 4 as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2009-001850
Application 10/968,235

15
Since Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 4, we will sustain the rejection of claim 4 and dependent
claim 5 which falls with claim 4.

Claims 7 and 8
Independent representative claim 77 includes a limitation of a
computer program encoded on a computer-readable memory with limitations
similar in scope to claim 1, including the memory is operable to cause a
computer to render a treemap with hierarchical information having “a
plurality of nodes divided into at least two clusters, each cluster having a
distinct color,” the program product having “instructions for causing the
computer to convert each RGB triplet to an equivalent HSL triplet,” “to
adjust the lightness component to generate a discrete color gradient to
represent a discrete value of the secondary weight of each node in each
cluster,” and to render a treemap that “comprises a nested treemap for each
cluster.” The Examiner finds that Walker and Choe collectively teach this
limitation (Ans. 3-5). Appellants repeat the arguments made in connection
with claim 1. App. Br. 13-16. The issues for claim 7 are, therefore, the
same as those in connection with claim 1.

7 Appellants group claims 7 and 8 (App. Br. 16). Accordingly, we select
independent claim 7 as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2009-001850
Application 10/968,235

16
ANALYSIS
For the reasons previously discussed with regard to claim 1, we are
not persuaded that Walker and Choe fail to teach the limitation of claim 7.
These arguments also fail to persuasively rebut the Examiner’s prima facie
case of obviousness – a position we find reasonable.
Since Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 7, we will sustain the rejection of claim 7 and dependent
claim 7 which falls with claim 8.

REJECTION OVER WALKER, CHOE, AND DAWSON
Claims 3, 6, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable by Walker, Choe, and Dawson (Ans. 5-6). Appellants group
the claims as follows: (1) claim 3; (2) claim 6; and (3) claim 9 (App. Br. 16-
18). We will address each grouping separately.

Claim 3
Claim 3 recites the step of normalizing the saturation component to
approximately fifty percent. The Examiner finds that Walker, Choe, and
Dawson collectively teach all the limitations (Ans. 5-6). Appellants argue
that Dawson does not teach the saturation component is normalized
approximately fifty percent as recited (App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 8-9).

Appeal 2009-001850
Application 10/968,235

17
ISSUE
The following additional issue has been raised in the present appeal:
Under § 103, have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in
finding that Dawson teaches normalizing the saturation component to
approximately fifty percent?

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following additional findings of fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence.

Dawson
11. Dawson teaches “the red component of the background is of
shade which is toward the middle of the red shading (e.g., 50% saturation).”
The code for the red shade is inverted and is used to produce a final cursor
color in an effort to contrast with the background on a computer display.
Title and col. 4, ll. 7-20.

ANALYSIS
Dawson teaches shading a background to a red shade at fifty percent
saturation. See FF 11. As the word, “normalize” means “to make conform
to or reduce to a norm or standard,”8 normalizing a saturation component
involves more than just selecting a shade or saturation percentage for a
background. Normalizing requires the shading to conform to a standard.

8 See Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, 11th ed., available at
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/normalize (last visited June 9,
2009).
Appeal 2009-001850
Application 10/968,235

18
Dawson fails to discuss that the red shade is normalized or conforms to any
standard. See FF 11. Additionally, the inversion of the code used to
produce a final cursor color, as disclosed by Dawson (id.), does not teach or
suggest normalizing or conforming the saturation component of the HSL
triplet to any standard. Thus, we find that Dawson fails to teach or suggest
the step of normalizing the saturation component of a HSL triplet as recited
in claim 3.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have shown the Examiner erred
in rejecting claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Walker, Choe, and
Dawson.

Claims 6 and 9
Claims 6 and 9 recite a similar normalization step to the recitation in
claim 3. Thus, for the same reasons discussed above in connection with
claim 3, we find that Appellants have shown the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 6 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Walker, Choe, and Dawson.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) Under § 103, Appellants have not shown that the Examiner
erred in finding that Walker discloses the “plurality of nodes divided into at
least two clusters” in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8.
(2) Under § 103, Appellants have not shown that the Examiner
erred in finding that the combined Walker and Choe method results in the
step of adjusting a lightness component to generate a discrete color gradient
for the secondary weight of each node in a cluster in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4,
5, 7, and 8.
Appeal 2009-001850
Application 10/968,235

19
(3) Under § 103, Appellants have not shown that the Examiner
erred in finding that Walker teaches drawing a nested treemap for each
cluster in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8.
(4) Under § 103, Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
finding that Dawson teaches normalizing the saturation component to
approximately fifty percent in rejecting claims 3, 6, and 9.
(5) Claims 1-9 are indefinite under § 112, second paragraph.

DECISION
We have sustained the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and
8 and have not sustained the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 6, and 9.
Accordingly, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-9 is affirmed-in-
part.
No period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

pgc

IBM CORPORATION
3039 CORNWALLIS RD.
DEPT. T81 / B503, PO BOX 12195
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27709