Ex Parte Chedeau et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 5, 2017

13715636 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 5, 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.
13/715,636 12/14/2012 Christopher Serge Benjamin Chedeau 079894.0908 4905
91230 7590 07/07/2017
Raker Rntts; T T P /Faeehnnk Tne
EXAMINER
2001 ROSS AVENUE SHIN, ANDREW
SUITE 700
Dallas, TX 75201 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/07/2017 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):
ptomaill @bakerbotts.com
ptomai!2 @ bakerbotts .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER SERGE BENJAMIN CHEDEAU,
ANDREW CHUNG, and EMILY B. GREWAL1
Appeal 2016-007111
Application 13/715,636
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges.
DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
Non-Final Rejection of claims 1—11, 13—19, and 21—22. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the Real Party in Interest is Facebook, Inc. App.
Br. 3.
2 Our Decision makes reference to Appellants’ Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,”
filed July 11, 2016) and Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed January 5, 2016),
and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 9, 2016) and the Non-
Final Office Action (“Non-Final Act.,” mailed June 9, 2015).
Appeal 2016-007111
Application 13/715,636
INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to positioning images in an array
based on image size, image order, and array dimension such that each
available position between a first image and a last image is occupied,
displaying the images in a contiguous array. Spec. 14; Abstract.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1.
1. A method comprising:
by a computing device, determining a sequence of image
elements;
by the computing device, determining, for each image element in
the sequence, a first position in an array of contiguous
image elements, the first position being based on a size of
the image element, an order of the image element in the
sequence, and dimensions of the array;
by a computing device, determining, in response to an instruction
to adjust the position or size of a first image element, a
second position in the array for at least one second image
element, the second position determined based on a rule
requiring the image elements to be contiguous such that
each available image position between the first image
element in the sequence and the last image element in the
sequence is occupied by an image element; and
by the computing device, providing information to render the
array of contiguous image elements.
Perrodin et al.
Serena
REFERENCES
US 2013/0238964 Al Sept. 12, 2013
US 2013/0013667 Al Jan. 10, 2013
2
Appeal 2016-007111
Application 13/715,636
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—11 and 13—19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Perrodin. Non-Final Act. 4—10.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Perrodin and Serena. Non-Final Act. 11—13.
ISSUE
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—11, 13—
19,21, and 22 turns on whether Perrodin anticipates “in response to an
instruction to adjust the position or size of a first image element, a second
position in the array for at least one second image element. . . determined
based on a rule requiring the image elements to be contiguous such that each
available image position between the first image element in the sequence
and the last image element in the sequence is occupied by an image
element,” as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited by
independent claims 10 and 15.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1—11 and 13—19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Perrodin.
Appellants contend Perrodin fails to expressly or inherently disclose
determining a sequence of images where “in response to an instruction to
adjust the position or size of a first image element, a second position in the
array for at least one second image element. . . determined based on a rule
requiring the adjusted image elements to be contiguous such that each
available image position between the first image element in the sequence
3
Appeal 2016-007111
Application 13/715,636
and the last image element in the sequence is occupied by an image
element,” as required by claim 1. App. Br. 6—9. Further, Appellants argue
that while Perrodin discloses an algorithm for reflowing images, where the
reflow may result in the image elements being contiguous, such a disclosure
is insufficient to teach a rule requiring the images to be contiguous. App.
Br. 8 ; see Perrodin Figs. 18—19. Appellants further argue that Figures 16
(illustrating an array where an image is being resized) and 17 (illustrating
reflowing images in the array with spaces between images after resizing)
illustrate that the layout algorithm does not require a contiguous image
layout, but simply may result in a contiguous layout. App. Br. 8; Reply Br.
2-3.
We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. The Examiner
finds that Perrodin teaches a layout algorithm for a journal, where the
algorithm is used to reflow image elements in a contiguous manner in the
journal. Non-Final 4—6; Ans. 13—14; see Perrodin Figs.5—6, 18—19. The
Examiner further finds that when the images are rearranged in the journal,
the images are reflowed (rearranged) and the contiguous nature is
maintained where “empty spaces between images do not occur.” Ans. 14;
see Perrodin Figs. 18—19.
As found by the Examiner, Perrodin discloses an example of moving
images in the journal and reflowing the images through the journal after the
move, where the “remaining images are then sequentially placed on the next
available grid cell.” See Ans. 13; Perrodin || 167—171, Figs. 18—19. That is,
in response to an instruction to adjust the position of an image, a second
position in the array for at least one second image is determined based on a
rule requiring the images to be sequentially placed on the next available grid
4
Appeal 2016-007111
Application 13/715,636
cell. See Ans. 13—14; Perrodin ]f]f 167—171. The Examiner further finds that
Figures 5 and 6 disclose examples of the set of rules for reflowing items in
the array, such as the sequential rearranging. Perrodin Figs.5—6; see also
Perrodin Figs.7—10, Tflf 119-140, 284. Therefore, the set of rules for
rearranging images sequentially in Perrodin is functionally the same as the
claimed “rule requiring the image elements to be contiguous” because the
images are contiguously reflowed in the layout in the next available grid
cell, in the same manner as Appellants’ method. See Ans. 13; Perrodin
167—170, Figs.18—19. Thus, we are not persuaded that Perrodin fails to
disclose “a rule requiring the image elements to be contiguous such that each
available image position between the first image element in the sequence
and the last image element in the sequence is occupied by an image
element,” as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited by
independent claims 10 and 15.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1, and similarly, we sustain the rejection of independent claims 10 and
15. Appellants argue that dependent claims 2—9, 11, 13, 14, 16—19, 21, and
22, are patentable for the same reasons as their independent claims. As
such, we sustain the rejections of dependent claims 2—9, 11, 13, 14, 16—19,
21, and 22 for the same reasons discussed above in our analysis of claim 1.
CONCFUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1—11 and 13—19 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Perrodin.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 21 and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Perrodin and Serena.
5
Appeal 2016-007111
Application 13/715,636
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1—11, 13—19, 21, and 22.
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
6