Ex Parte Durocher

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2016

12871481 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/871,481
58139 7590
IBM CORP. (WSM)
c/o WINSTEAD P.C.
P.O. BOX 131851
DALLAS, TX 75313
08/30/2010
06/29/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Eric Durocher
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.
RSW920100105US1 1810
EXAMINER
HILL, SCHILLER D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2614
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2016 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):
patdocket@winstead.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIC DUROCHER
Appeal2014-008574
Application 12/871,481
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
JOHN D. HAMANN Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 21. Final Act. 1.
We reverse.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method for distinguishing superimposed
links to a node in a drawing area. See Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A method for distinguishing superimposed links to
a node in a drawing area of a computer screen, the method
compnsmg:
Appeal2014-008574
Application 12/871,481
identifying links connected to a side of a node involved
in an editing interaction;
determining an order of said identified links to be
connected to said side of said node involved in said editing
interaction by sorting said identified links based on coordinates
of one or more of a bend point and an opposite end point of said
identified links; and
repositioning connection points of said identified links to
said side of said node involved in said editing interaction based
on said determined order.
REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner rejected claims 1through21under35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Wong (US 2006/0209085 Al; Sept. 21, 2006) and Miro
Sponeman, On the Automatic Layout of Data Flow Diagrams (Mar. 19,
2009) (Thesis) (Christian-Albrechts-Universitat zu Kiel, Department of
Computer Science). Final Act. 2-13 .1
ANALYSIS
Appellant presents several arguments directed to the rejection of
independent claims 1, 8, and 15, for which the dispositive issue presented by
these arguments is whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Wong and Sponeman teaches determining an order of links to be connected
to said side of said node involved in said editing interaction by sorting the
identified links based on coordinates of one or more of a bend point and an
opposite end point of said identified links. App. Br. 6- 7. In response to
2
Appeal2014-008574
Application 12/871,481
Appellant's arguments, the Examiner finds that Sponeman teaches ranking
edges using Algorithm 5.7, which meets the claimed ordering of the links.
Answer 5, 6 (citing Sponeman page 32). We disagree with the Examiner,
and we do not find that the cited disclosure of Sponeman teaches ranking
links to the side of a node based upon coordinates of bend points or the
opposite end of the link as claimed. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 8, 15, and the clams which
depend thereupon.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1through21.
REVERSED
1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated January 14,
2014, the Reply Brief dated August 6, 2014, the Final Office Action mailed
September 23, 2013, and the Examiner's Answer mailed on June 13, 2014.
3