Ex Parte Engle et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 6, 2015

11130257 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 6, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JESSE C. ENGLE, JONATHAN M. LITOFSKY,
JASON W. KICHLINE, and FRANCIS P. LUKESH
____________________

Appeal 2012-011082
Application 11/130,257
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants
1
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–34. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
2

1
The real party in interest is Armstrong World Industries, Inc.
2
Our Decision refers to the Appeal Brief filed Nov. 25, 2011 (“App. Br.”),
the Examiner’s Answer mailed May 25, 2012 (“Ans.”), the Reply Brief filed
July 25, 2012 (“Reply Br.”), and the Specification filed May 17, 2005
(“Spec.”).
Appeal 2012-011082
Application 11/130,257

2
CLAIMS SUMMARY
The claims are directed to network-based collaborative design using a
digital image. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A networked system for collaborative design using a digital
image, comprising:
a web server for hosting a web-based collaborative
design application for modifying a design set forth in a digital
image, and published on a web site hosted by the web server as
a designed image; and
a database accessible by the web server, for storing
information published on the web site;
wherein the collaborative design application is accessible
by a first user to post the designed image for storage in the
database, and is accessible via the Internet by a second user to
create changes to the designed image for storage in the database
as a redesigned image, and wherein the designed image
presents at least one of perspective and scale for an image
surface depicting a selected commercial product, the web
server including a view-details hyperlink to link a commercial
product selected via a client computer from among a group of
commercial products.

The emphasized portions of claim 1 set forth the “perspective” and “view-
details hyperlink” features disputed by Appellants and the Examiner in this
Appeal. Independent claims 11 and 21 contain similar “view-details
hyperlink” features. “Perspective” features are recited in claims 33 and 34,
which depend from respective claims 11 and 21. The remaining claims
depend from independent claims 1, 11, and 21.

Appeal 2012-011082
Application 11/130,257

3
REJECTION
Claims 1–34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) based on
McArdle (US 2002/0049847 A1; published Apr. 25, 2002). Ans. 4–5.

ANALYSIS
1. The “Perspective” Feature
Appellants argue McArdle discloses only scaling of superposed
images and provides an interior designer no ability or option to address “at
least one of perspective and scale” of images (App. Br. 5–8; Reply Br. 1–3).
Specifically, Appellants argue paragraph 71 of McArdle pertains to creating
or editing audio or video storyboards (App. Br. 7). Regarding paragraphs
140 and 141 of McArdle, Appellants argue these are directed to
landscape/interior design based on collaborative displays of furniture in a
room, but not collaborative design wherein the designed image presents at
least one of perspective and scale for an image surface depicting a selected
commercial product (App. Br. 7).
The Examiner finds McArdle discloses the “perspective” feature in
paragraphs 71, 140, and 141 (Ans. 5). The Examiner interprets the claim to
require a designed image presenting only one of perspective or scale, and
notes Appellants conceded McArdle teaches the scaling feature (Ans. 9).
The Examiner further notes McArdle discloses uploading a picture of the
user’s current living room with the perspective of the user in mind (id.).
According to the Examiner, the claims do not require editing or changing the
perspective, but simply require the designed image to “present at least one of
a perspective and scale for an image surface depicting a selected commercial
product” (id.). The Examiner also finds McArdle discloses a selected
Appeal 2012-011082
Application 11/130,257

4
commercial product that a user can drag-and-drop (DnD – see McArdle ¶ 6)
onto the image. The Examiner quotes McArdle as follows:
Since each element is on its own layer and may be modified
independently, a user may DnD an image of a couch and make
the image bigger, smaller, rotated, flipped horizontal or vertical,
re-colored, etc. Then the user may select another element, such
as a chair, and modify the element by scaling, rotating, flipping
or re-coloring that element. A user may continue to add
elements, remove elements and modify elements until the
desired appearance and symmetry is achieved.
McArdle ¶ 140.
The Examiner finds the quoted section of McArdle teaches the image layer
containing the commercial product can be scaled (making the image bigger
and smaller) and its perspective modified (flipping and rotating) (Ans. 9–
10).
We agree McArdle discloses the “perspective” feature for the reasons
set forth by the Examiner. As noted by Appellants, “perspective” of an
image takes into account dimensioned changes due to a commercial product
being displayed into the depth of the image (Reply Br. 2). In other words,
the perspective of the commercial product displayed is three-dimensional
(3D). McArdle clearly discloses manipulation of images containing arrays
of elements in 3D (see McArdle ¶¶ 5, 8, 58, and 156). Specifically,
McArdle discloses manipulation of 3D elements in an array to make it
bigger, smaller, rotated, flipped horizontal or vertical, re-colored, etc. (see
McArdle ¶ 156). The disclosure in McArdle is in the context of science,
engineering, design, etc. The terms “flipping” and “rotating” are also used
in the interior design context as used in paragraphs 140 and 141 of McArdle.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner the “perspective” feature is disclosed
by McArdle.
Appeal 2012-011082
Application 11/130,257

5
Although our Decision references sections of McArdle not cited by
the Examiner, Appellants are responsible for reading and understanding all
that is disclosed by the collective teachings of the cited references. See In re
Zenitz, 333 F.2d 924, 926 (CCPA 1964) (“This court has held in a number of
decisions that a United States patent speaks for all it discloses as of its filing
date, even when used in combination with other references.”). Also, our
reviewing court has stated: “[t]he use of patents as references is not limited
to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems
with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art,
relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1333 (Fed. Cir.
1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009 (CCPA 1968)).
2. The “View-Details Hyperlink” Feature
Appellants argue McArdle does not disclose a “view-details
hyperlink” to link a commercial product to view product details during a
collaborative design process (App. Br. 6). According to Appellants,
McArdle describes a link for product to sales information (i.e., pricing
information) in the shopping cart of a website, but this does not constitute a
view-details hyperlink for commercial product details, such as floor board
width, composition, hardness, stain color, and so forth (App. Br. 6–7).
Appellants also argue McArdle does not address commercial products, so
there is no disclosure of a hyperlink for viewing details of a selected
commercial product (App. Br. 8).
The Examiner finds McArdle discloses that a user selects pieces of
furniture, changes the perspective, scale and allows the user to add, modify
or remove elements (i.e., view details) using his/her computer (Ans. 10–11).
After making the desired changes, the user can purchase the pieces of
Appeal 2012-011082
Application 11/130,257

6
furniture after viewing all of the details from a commercial site (id. citing
McArdle ¶ 140).
Appellants’ Specification repeatedly describes the “view-details
hyperlink” as linking to a commercial product web site (see Spec. ¶¶ 18, 31,
and 36), similarly to the way the McArdle reference does (see McArdle ¶
140). We find implicit in the McArdle reference that product details are
displayed for view in purchasing selected pieces of furniture via a commerce
site, as is also implied by Appellants’ Specification. The scope of the
claimed “view-details hyperlink,” when read in light of Appellants’
Specification, encompasses linking to a commercial product web site as
disclosed by McArdle. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
regarding the “view-details hyperlink”.
3. Conclusion
We sustain the rejection of claims 1, 11, 21, 33, and 34. No separate
arguments are presented for the remaining dependent claims and therefore
we sustain the rejection for the reasons previously stated with respect to their
independent claims.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–34 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED
Kme