Ex Parte Doll et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 21, 2018

14459684 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/459,684 08/14/2014
758 7590 12/26/2018
FENWICK & WEST LLP
SILICON VALLEY CENTER
801 CALIFORNIA STREET
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 94041
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Evan Doll
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.
27751-27352/US 2377
EXAMINER
HE,WEIMING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/26/2018 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):
PTOC@Fenwick.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EV AN DOLL, TROY BRANT, and
RAPHAEL MAURO SCHAAD
Appeal2018-002625
Application 14/459,684 1
Technology Center 2600
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final rejection
of claims 1, 3, 8-11, 14--16, 18, and 20-29, which are all of the claims
pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
Claims 2, 4--7, 12, 13, 17, and 19 have been cancelled.
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Flipboard, Inc. (App.
Br. 1).
Appeal 2018-002625
Application 14/459,684
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellants, the claims are directed to selecting
animation files for display (Abstract). Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method for loading animation files into a memory of a
client device, the method comprising:
using a computer processor to perform steps, the steps
compnsmg:
accessing a plurality of animation files, each animation file
associated with a corresponding visual prominence describing
how visually prominent the animation file is displayed in a
display of a display device of the client device, and comprising a
plurality of frames, each frame having a variable display
duration;
determining rankings of the plurality of animation files
based on the corresponding visual prominence of each animation
file of the plurality of animation files;
selecting an animation file from the plurality of animation
files based on corresponding rankings of the plurality of
animation files;
displaying the selected animation file in a portion of the
display device of the client device according to the
corresponding visual prominence of the selected animation file;
obtaining one or more contextual features about the client
device, the contextual features describing computing resources
used by the client device when displaying frames of one or more
animation files;
determining that the computing resources of the client
device exceeds computing resources needed for displaying the
selected animation file;
responsive to the determination, selecting an additional
animation file from the plurality of animation files based on the
corresponding rankings of the plurality of animation files; and
displaying the additional animation file in another portion
of the display device.
2
Appeal 2018-002625
Application 14/459,684
App. Br. 16-17 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Wells
Bull
Denoue
Adachi
Spracklen
us 5,870,683
US 2009/0167768 Al
US 2010/0123908 Al
US 2012/0169741 Al
US 2014/0226901 Al
REJECTIONS
Feb.9, 1999
July 2, 2009
May 20, 2010
July 5, 2012
Aug. 14, 2014
Claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 14, 16, 18, 20-23, 25, and 27-29 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi, Bull and Denoue
(Non-Final Act. 3-11).
Claims 9, 11, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Adachi, Bull, Denoue, and Wells (id. at 11-13).
Claims 15 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Adachi, Bull, Denoue, and Spracklen (id. at 14).
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and
the issues raised by Appellants. Arguments not made are waived (see MPEP
§ 1205.02; 37 C.F.R. §§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) and 4I.39(a)(l)).
ISSUES
35 us.c. § 103
Appellants contend their invention as recited in claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 14,
16, 18, 20-23, 25, and 27-29, is patentable over Adachi, Bull and Denoue
(App. Br. 7-14).
3
Appeal 2018-002625
Application 14/459,684
ANALYSIS
Issue 1
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Adachi, Bull and Denoue teaches or suggests "displaying the selected
animation file in a portion of the display device" and "displaying the
additional animation file in another portion of the display device," as recited
in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 22 (App. Br. 7-12; Reply Br. 2-6).
Specifically, Appellants argue Adachi "merely modif[ies] [the] presentation
of different animation parts of a particular animation, rather than selecting
an additional animation file ... and presenting the additional animation file
in another portion of the display device" (Reply Br. 4--5; App. Br. 11-12).
We are persuaded. The Examiner relies on Adachi' s "animation
parts" to teach the claimed "selected animation file" and "additional
animation file" (See Ans. 2-3; see also Non-Final Act. 3--4 ( citing Adachi,
Fig. 6)). Specifically, Adachi discloses "animation parts A and B" are
animated to move in a "drawing direction" (Adachi ,r,r 66-69, Fig. 6), which
the Examiner describes as "animation file A ... animated from the top
toward the center of the display screen during its animation period, while
animation file B is animated from [the] lower left comer toward to the center
during its animation period in [Figure] 6" (Ans. 3 ( emphases added); see id.
at 6). Accordingly, we understand that the Examiner relies on animation
part A to teach the claimed "selected animation file" and relies on animation
part B to teach the claimed "additional animation file." Id. at 6 ("the first or
second drawing-target part is interpreted as an animation file").
Adachi's multiple animation parts, however, do not teach multiple
animation files that are displayed in various portions of a display device, i.e.,
4
Appeal 2018-002625
Application 14/459,684
"displaying the selected animation file in a portion of the display device"
and "displaying the additional animation file in another portion of the
display device." The claims require that "each animation file ...
compris[ es] a plurality of frames." But Adachi states that its "animation part
is an image," i.e., a single frame (Adachi ,r 2; see Adachi ,r,r 43 ("thumbnails
as an animation part"), 65 ("animation parts A to E that are thumbnails")).
We cannot readily find, and the Examiner has not adequately explained,
where Adachi describes that an animation part is more than a single image.
Accordingly, we are constrained by the record to reverse the
Examiner's stated obviousness rejection of independent claims 1 and 22.
Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants' other arguments
(see Ans. 8-9, 12). Dependent claims 3, 8, 9-11, 14--16, 21, and 23-29
stand with their respective independent claims. Because we do not sustain
the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1 and 22, we do not sustain
the Examiner's rejections of dependent claims 3, 8, 9-11, 15, 16, 21, and
23-29.
Although we recognize Denoue teaches multiple animation files that
are displayed in different portions of a display (Denoue Abstract
("documents embed animations"), ,r,r 14 ("embedded items may be flash
animations, slide animations or build-ups, animated graphic interchange
format (AGIF), video files"), 64 ("images 210, 230 are in GIP format")), the
Examiner does not clearly or fairly rely on Denoue to teach multiple
animation files that are displayed in different portions of a display (see Non-
Final Act. 5---6; see also Ans. 4--5). Moreover, the Examiner's combination
is not stated as relying on Denoue' s animation files because the Examiner
5
Appeal 2018-002625
Application 14/459,684
instead relies on Adachi' s animation parts to teach the claimed animation
files (Ans. 3; Non-Final Act. 4). As such, whether it would have been
obvious to substitute the animation files of Denoue with the animation parts
of Adachi or to include Denoue' s animation files in the combination of
Adachi and Denoue are not questions fairly presented before us.
Issue 2
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Adachi and Bull teaches "preloading frames from each of the selected one or
more animation files into the memory of the client device," as recited in
claim 18 (App Br. 13-14). Specifically, Appellants argue "Adachi's
disclosure of data stored in a storage unit is silent regarding whether frames
of one or more animation files are preloaded into a memory of a client
device" (id. at 13). Appellants further argue "Bull determines an optimal
frame rate for various frames based on resources required for each frame,
selects a group of frames to render, and provides the rendered frames at their
optimal frame rate," but does not teach the claimed limitation (id. at 14).
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds (Ans. 8-9), and we agree,
Bull's description of"frames of an animation (e.g. frames 302-312 of FIG.
3A) [that] are cached in memory" (Bull ,r 51, Fig. 5) teaches "preloading
frames from each of the selected one or more animation files into the
memory of the client device."
Appellants' arguments directed to Adachi (see Ans. 13) do not
address the Examiner's findings regarding Bull (Ans. 8-9). Further,
Appellants' arguments discussing Bull's frame rate optimization (see id. at
14 (citing Bull ,r 8) do not address the Examiner's reliance on Bull's frame
6
Appeal 2018-002625
Application 14/459,684
caching (Ans. 8-9 (citing Bull ,r 51, Fig. 5)). A cache is memory that stores
data - in Bull's case, frames - for future access ( see Bull ,r,r 31, 5 6).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Bull
teaches "preloading frames from each of the selected one or more animation
files into the memory of the client device," as recited in claim 18.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Adachi, Bull, and Denoue. We likewise sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because Appellants
offer no additional persuasive arguments for patentability (see App. Br. 14).
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 14, 16, 21-23, 25, and
27-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi, Bull and
Denoue is reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Adachi, Bull and Denoue is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 9, 11, and 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi, Bull, Denoue, and Wells is
reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 15 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Adachi, Bull, Denoue, and Spracklen is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7