Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 13, 2016

13554081 (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/554,081 07/20/2012 MING CHEN
52021 7590 05/17/2016
Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC
20283 State Road 7
Ste. 300
Boca Raton, FL 33498
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.
CN920100082US2_8150-0267 2494
EXAMINER
CHAUHAN, ULKA J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2614
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/1712016 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):
ibmptomail@iplawpro.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MING CHEN, JUN FENG LIU, and JIN XIN YING
Appeal2014-006817
Application 13/554,081
Technology Center 2600
Before JEFFREYS. SMITH, JON M. JURGOV AN, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 1-7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.2
1 Appellants identify IBM Corporation as the real party in interest. (App.
Br. 1.)
2 Our decision refers to the Specification filed July 20, 2012 ("Spec."); the
Final Office Action mailed Sept. 17, 2013 ("Final Act."); the Appeal Brief
filed Dec. 17, 2013 ("App. Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed Mar. 21,
2014 ("Ans."); and the Reply Brief filed May 19, 2014 ("Reply Br.").
Appeal2014-006817
Application 13/554,081
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims are directed to dynamic partitioning of a screen display to
reduce the amount of data required to transmit a changed region of an image
in the context of application sharing among two or more computers. (Spec.
Abs., i-f 2.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for improving application sharing by dynamic
partitioning, comprising:
partitioning a screen display of an application into grid
reg10ns;
in response to detecting that an application image in the
plurality of grid regions has changed, offsetting positions of the
grid regions, so that the changed portions of the application
image are in fewer grid regions using a computer system; and
transmitting image data in the offset grid regions involving
the changed portions of the application image and identifications
and offset data of the offset grid regions to an application sharing
client.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-7 stand provisionally rejected for non-statutory
obviousness-type double patenting over claims 8-14 of co-pending
application No. 13/239,446 in view of Padlia (US 7,203,359 Bl; Apr. 10,
2007). (Final Act. 6-9.)
Claims 1, 2, and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Chun (US 6,115,501; Sept. 5, 2000) and Padlia. (Final Act. 9-14.)
Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Chun, Padlia, and Johnston (US 2006/0012612 Al; Jan. 19, 2006). (Final
Act. 13-18.)
2
Appeal2014-006817
Application 13/554,081
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Chun,
Padlia, and Bartell (US 2005/0069189 Al; Mar. 31, 2005). (Final Act. 18-
20.)
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Sankuratri
(US 2011/0141133 Al; June 16, 2011), Chun, and Liu (US 8,255,461 Bl;
Aug. 28, 2012). (Final Act. 20-24.)
APPELLANTS' ARGUMENTS
Claim 1
1. Appellants argue the combination of Chun and Padlia fails to teach
or suggest the claimed "in response to detecting that an application image in
the plurality of grid regions has changed, offsetting positions of the grid
regions, so that the change portions of the application image are in fewer
grid regions using a computer system." (App. Br. 10-13; Reply Br. 2-3.)
Specifically, Appellants acknowledge that Chun teaches offsetting positions
of a grid, but argue the reference is silent regarding changed portions of an
application image.
2. Appellants argue Chun teaches the image is moving, but not
necessarily changing. (App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 2-3.) According to
Appellants, even assuming arguendo Chun' s image does change, Chun does
not identify changed portions of the image, and thus cannot teach "the
changed portions of the application image are in fewer grid regions."
3. Appellants argue Chun does not teach the claimed "transmitting
image data in the offset grid regions involving the changed portions of the
application image and identifications and offset data of the offset grid
regions to an application sharing client." (App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 3--4.)
3
Appeal2014-006817
Application 13/554,081
Specifically, Appellants acknowledge Chun teaches "the amount of the data
to be stored and transmitted can be significantly reduced," but argue Chun
does not teach that this "data" includes (i) image data in the offset grid
regions and (ii) identifications and offset data of the offset grid regions, as
claimed. Appellants argue the cited passage of Chun is silent as to exactly
what data is transmitted. Appellants also argue the Examiner's cited passage
does not state that the information is sent to an application sharing client.
Appellants conclude the Examiner commits error by mischaracterizing the
scope and content of the applied prior art.
4. Appellants dispute the Examiner's finding that "Chun would be
transmitting the minimized grid positions to reduce the amount of
information transferred." (App. Br. 14--15.) Appellants contend the
Examiner's finding is speculative; that the Examiner has not presented any
evidence and/or analysis that this finding necessarily (i.e., inherently) flows
from the teachings of Chun; and that the Examiner's statement is conclusory
in nature.
5. Appellants argue Chun and Padlia fail to teach aspects of the
claimed "in response to detecting that an application image in the
plurality of grid regions has changed, offset positions of the grid regions,
so that the changed portions of the application image are in fewer grid
regions using a computer system." (App. Br. 15-16; Reply Br. 4--5.)
Appellants acknowledge Padlia teaches the bolded portion and Chun teaches
the underlined portion of the claim language, but not that the performance of
the offsetting is conditional upon the detecting.
6. Appellants argue modifying Chun and Padlia does not make sense
based on their teachings. (App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 5-6.) Appellants argue the
4
Appeal2014-006817
Application 13/554,081
resultant combination would involve the grids of Chun being newly created
via the process of Padlia, which would not involve offsetting existing grid
positions but instead creating new ones.
7. Appellants state the Examiner noted the benefit of the combination
is that "users can share applications and least amount of bandwidth is used."
(App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 5---6.) Appellants argue sharing applications is not
relevant to the claimed invention or proposed combination. Appellants also
argue that reduction of bandwidth is addressed by Chun, so one of ordinary
skill would not combine Padlia to provide a feature Chun already provides.
ANALYSIS
The obviousness-type double-patenting rejection is provisional
because one of the references upon which it is based has not issued as a
patent. Accordingly, we do not consider this rejection further in our
analysis.
"Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when 'the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains.'" KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3)
the level of skill in the art, and ( 4) where in evidence, so-called secondary
considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
5
Appeal2014-006817
Application 13/554,081
Appellants present no evidence or argument concerning the level of
skill in the art under factor (3), or secondary considerations under factor (4),
of the Graham analysis. Accordingly, we assume the Specification and cited
prior art are representative of the level of ordinary skill in the art under
factor (3), and proceed in the analysis without evidence of secondary
considerations under factor ( 4).
Turning to factors (1) and (2) of the Graham analysis, we now
consider the scope and content of the prior art, and any differences between
the claimed subject matter and the prior art, considering Appellants'
arguments (1) - (7).
Regarding argument ( 1 ), Appellants acknowledge that Chun teaches
offsetting positions of a grid, but argue the reference is silent regarding
changed portions of an application image. We agree with the Examiner
Chun and Padlia teach this feature. (Ans. 2-3; Final Act. 10-11.)
Specifically, Chun (1: 16-27) contemplates moving a grid to minimize the
information needed to represent objects moving in an image, which
necessarily involves changed portions of an image. Moreover, Padlia (3 :22-
26) teaches identifying areas of an image changing over time. A person of
ordinary skill in the art understands an image could be generated on a
computer by an application. Thus, this argument does not establish any
distinction a person of ordinary skill would recognize between the claimed
subject matter and cited references.
Regarding argument (2), Appellants contend an image that is moving
is not necessarily changing. We disagree. If an image moves, it changes.
Appellants further argue in the claimed invention, an object in the image
changes, whereas in Chun, it does not. However, the claim recites no
6
Appeal2014-006817
Application 13/554,081
language commensurate in scope with Appellants' argument. Also, we
agree with the Examiner that Chun moves its grid so that the changed
portion of its image is in fewer grid regions. (Ans. 3-5, citing Chun 1:6-27,
Figs. 9C, 9D; Final Act. 10-11.) Moreover, as the Examiner notes, Padlia
(3 :22-25) teaches areas of an image identified as changing over time. (Final
Act. 11-12.) Thus, we are not persuaded by this argument that there is a
distinction between the claimed limitation and the cited references.
Regarding argument (3), Appellants acknowledge Chun teaches "the
amount of the data to be stored and transmitted can be significantly
reduced," but argue Chun does not teach that this "data" includes (i) image
data in the offset grid regions and (ii) identifications and offset data of the
offset grid regions, as claimed. Appellants argue the cited passage of Chun
is silent as to exactly what data is transmitted. (App. Br. 13.) We disagree.
Chun states:
As illustrated in FIG. 4, reference numeral 31 denotes an address
generation controller for moving an address start position at
which an address is generated within the range of the X-axis and
Y-axis by a predetermined distance, and reference numeral 3 3
denotes an address generator for generating X-axis and Y-axis
addresses so that the image of an object can be segmented to a
unit region and sequentially outputted in accordance with an
address start position which the address generation controller 31
generates, and reference numeral 3 5 denotes a memory for
sequentially storing an image of an object having predetermined
shape information and segmenting and outputting a unit region
in accordance with an address which the address generator 33
generates.
(Chun 9:35--47.)
7
Appeal2014-006817
Application 13/554,081
Thus, as the Examiner finds, Chun teaches the X-axis and Y-axis
addresses identify particular unit regions, and thus may be considered
the claimed "identifications." (Final Act. 8-9.) Moreover, Chun
teaches determining and outputting the X-axis and Y-axis position
corresponding to the grid position having the minimum number of unit
regions, i.e., the claimed "offset." (Final Act. 10-11, citing Chun
12: 17-27.) As the Examiner further notes, Chun teaches:
coding the image of the object with respect to the minimum
number of unit regions, and generating motion information, thus
achieving higher compaction rate, whereby the amount of the
data to be stored and transmitted can be significantly reduced.
(23:55-67.)
Thus, we agree with the Examiner Chun teaches the claimed features.
Regarding argument (4), Appellants dispute the Examiner's finding
that "Chun would be transmitting the minimized grid positions to reduce the
amount of information transferred." (App. Br. 14--15.) Appellants contend
the Examiner's finding is speculative; that the Examiner has not presented
any evidence and/or analysis that this finding necessarily (i.e., inherently)
flows from the teachings of Chun; and that the Examiner's statement is
conclusory in nature.
For reasons previously explained, we disagree with Appellants'
arguments. As the Examiner indicates, Chun teaches detecting the number
of unit regions in which the image of an object exists, moving the grid
position so that the object of an image exists in a minimum number of unit
regions, and coding the image of the object existing in the detected unit
regions so as to minimize the amount of information. (Ans. 6, citing Chun
5: 10-16.) Chun also teaches the purpose of its method is to reduce the
8
Appeal2014-006817
Application 13/554,081
amount of data to be stored and transmitted. (Chun 23:55---67.) Thus, we
find these arguments unpersuasive.
Regarding argument ( 5), Appellants contend Chun and Padlia do not
teach that the performance of offsetting positions of the grid regions is
conditional upon detecting that an application image in the plurality of grid
regions has changed. (App. Br. 15.) However, Padlia teaches identifying
areas of an image that change over time on a screen of a first digital device
for the purpose of refreshing a screen of a second digital device. (Final Act.
11, citing Padlia 3 :22-2 7.) A person of ordinary skill, considering Chun and
Padlia, would understand such refreshing would involve determination of
offset of the grid position in response to identifying areas of an image that
change over time, thus meeting the claimed limitation.
Regarding argument ( 6), Appellants contend the combination resulting
from modifying Chun and Padlia would involve the grids of Chun being
newly created via the process of Padlia, which would not involve offsetting
existing grid positions but instead creating new ones. (App. Br. 15-16.) We
find no evidence in Chun or Padlia that necessitates Appellants' conclusion,
and instead the person of ordinary skill would realize that detection of a
change in the image should be performed before determining offsets of grid
positions and the number of grid regions minimizing data transfer. "The test
for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference, nor is it that
the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (citation omitted).
9
Appeal2014-006817
Application 13/554,081
Regarding argument (7), Appellants state the Examiner noted the
benefit of the combination is that "users can share applications and least
amount of bandwidth is used." (App. Br. 16.) Appellants argue sharing
applications is not relevant to the claimed invention or proposed
combination. However, the preamble of claim 1 recites "A method for
improving application sharing ... " Thus, we disagree with Appellants that
sharing applications is not relevant to what is claimed.
Appellants also argue that reduction of bandwidth is addressed by
Chun, so one of ordinary skill would not combine Padlia to provide a feature
Chun already provides. We do not agree with this argument. A person of
ordinary skill considering the problem of reducing transmission bandwidth
when sharing applications would appreciate the features of Chun and Padlia
can be applied to solve that problem.
Accordingly, considering factors (1 }-(3) of the Graham analysis
together, we find there are no significant differences between the
combination of Chun and Padlia and what is claimed considering the level of
ordinary skill in the art. Thus, we sustain the Examiner's finding of
obviousness for claim 1.
Appellants present the same arguments for the remaining claims,
which we find unpersuasive for the reasons explained.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue the Examiner did not address
arguments made by Appellants in the Appeal Brief. (Reply Br. 2---6.) In
view of the substantial overlap between the arguments, we are satisfied the
Examiner adequately responds to Appellants' arguments, and that
Appellants' arguments do not show error in the Examiner's rejections.
10
Appeal2014-006817
Application 13/554,081
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims
1-7.
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
11