Ex Parte Chao

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 28, 2016

13260333 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/260,333 09/25/2011
22879 7590 11/01/2016
HP Inc,
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hui Chao
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.
82854185 7607
EXAMINER
SALVUCCI, MATTHEW D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2016 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte HUI CHAO
Appeal2015-006946
Application 13/260,333
Technology Center 2600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-4 and 6-20.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, LP. App. Br. 3.
2 The Examiner finds "[ c ]laim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a
rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form
including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening
claims." Final Act. 15.
Appeal2015-006946
Application 13/260,333
THE INVENTION
Appellant's invention "provide[ s] systems and methods that enable
graphic object collages that conform to non-rectangular layout boundaries to
be generated." Spec. iJ 25.
1. A method, comprising:
defining a mesh of rectangular cells of uniform size that is
aligned with a non-rectangular layout boundary such that a count
of ones of the cells having at least a prescribed fraction of their
size contained within the layout boundary is maximized;
determining a layout of frames within the layout boundary based
on locations of the cells with respect to the layout boundary,
wherein the frames define respective size dimensions and
positions of respective views of graphic objects on a page; and
outputting the views of the graphic objects arranged m
accordance with the layout of the frames on the page.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 6-11, 13, 14, 17, and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Maclnnes (US 2010/0321405 Al;
Dec. 23, 2010) and Schulz (US 2009/0148064 Al; June 11, 2009).
The Examiner rejects claims 3, 4, 12, 15, 16, 19, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Maclnnes, Schulz, and Sheasby
(US 7,403,211 B2; July 22, 2008).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that images disclosed in Maclnnes, arranged and
scaled to fit within the dimensions of a panel, teach or suggest a "mesh of
rectangular cells with uniform size." Final Act. 6 (citing Maclnnes iii! 25,
2
Appeal2015-006946
Application 13/260,333
34, 35). Additionally, the Examiner finds that a set of uniform anchor pixels
to which the images are anchored, also, or alternatively, teach or suggest a
"mesh of rectangular cells with uniform size." Final Act. 3 (citing Maclnnes
,-i 25); see also Ans. 12-13.
Appellant argues the combination of Maclnnes and Schulz, applied to
all claims, has not been shown to teach or suggest "'defining a mesh of
rectangular cells of uniform size that is aligned with a non-rectangular layout
boundary such that a count of ones of the cells having at least a prescribed
fraction of their size contained within the layout boundary is maximized.'"
App. Br. 7-11. Specifically, Appellant contends the Maclnnes' images have
different sizes and therefore "are not rectangular cells with uniform size."
App. Br. 8. (citing Maclnnes Fig. 5). Addressing the Examiner's findings
regarding the Maclnnes' anchor pixels, the Appellant contends "Maclnnes
does not try to align the 'anchor pixels' with a non-rectangular layout
boundary." App. Br. 9.
We agree with both contentions. Figure 5 ofMacinnes clearly shows
that the images arranged within the panel are not of uniform size, and
instead, have different sizes. Further, we also agree with the Appellant that
the anchor pixels of Maclnnes are not aligned with a non-rectangular
boundary and are instead simply a fixed arrangement of pixels (i.e., set by
the manufacture). See Maclnnes ,-i 25.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1, and independent claims 13 and 17, which contain
substantially the same disputed limitation and were rejected on substantially
the same basis. See Final Act. 11. For the same reasons we also do not
sustain the Examiner's rejections of the pending dependent claims.
3
Appeal2015-006946
Application 13/260,333
DECISION
For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-4
and 6-20 are reversed.
REVERSED
4