Ex Parte Githens et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 30, 2012

10660143 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 30, 2012)

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.
10/660,143 09/11/2003 Steven W. Githens ROC920030276US1 4972
46797 7590 03/30/2012
IBM CORPORATION, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
DEPT 917, BLDG. 006-1
3605 HIGHWAY 52 NORTH
ROCHESTER, MN 55901-7829
EXAMINER
NUNEZ, JORDANY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2171
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte STEVEN W. GITHENS, PEICHENG JING,
CRISTINA L. LIGGETT, and RICHARD J. STEVENS
____________

Appeal 2010-002854
Application 10/660,143
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, ERIC B. CHEN, and
JENNIFER S. BISK, Administrative Patent Judges.

BISK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-002854
Application 10/660,143

2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-4 and 7-21. Claims 5, 6 and 22-47 have been cancelled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to generating graphical representations
of data. The invention uses abstract data structures and transformation rules
to allow data to be rendered as one of several types of graphical
representation (e.g., a pie chart or bar graph) in one of several graphics
rendering languages (e.g., Vector Markup Language (VML), Scalable
Vector Graphics (SVG), and Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) Image
Maps). See generally Spec. ¶¶ [0002-0025].
Claim 1 is illustrative with key disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A computer-implemented method of generating a
graphical representation of data, comprising:
generating an abstract data structure defining a plurality
of abstract attributes representing an abstract graphical
representation of the data;
providing transformation rules for transforming the
abstract data structure into a concrete data structure, the
transformation rules comprising a plurality of subsets of
transformation rules each subset describing graphical attributes
of a requested graphical representation type and being specific
to a different graphics rendering language, whereby the
transformation rules support a plurality of graphical
representation types and a plurality of graphics rendering
languages;
selecting a subset of the plurality of subsets of
transformation rules in accordance with a requested graphical
representation type; and
Appeal 2010-002854
Application 10/660,143

3
generating, on the basis of the abstract data structure and
the selected subset of transformation rules, a concrete data
structure defining a concrete graphical representation of the
data in a graphics rendering language; wherein generating the
concrete data structure is done by operation of a computer
processor.

THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 11-17, and 19-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Cox (US 2002/0156806 A1; Oct. 24, 2002) in view
of Baudel (US 6,928,436 B2; Aug. 9, 2005).
Claims 10 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Cox in view of Baudel and Koselj (US 7,027,056 B2; Apr. 11, 2006).

CLAIMS 1, 7-9, 11-17, AND 19-21
In concluding that representative claim 1 would have been obvious,
the Examiner finds that Cox discloses every recited feature of the claim,
except for supporting multiple graphics rendering languages. The Examiner
cites Baudel as teaching this feature. Ans. 4.
Appellants argue that the Examiner “has not properly characterized
the teachings of the references and/or the claims at issue.” Br. 13.
Specifically, Appellants argue that Cox fails to teach: (1) the claimed
abstract data structure (Br. 13-14); (2) transformation rules (Br. 15-16); (3)
subsets of transformation rules (id.); and (4) generating a concrete
representation of the data in a graphics rendering language using the
transformation rules (Br. 17-18). Appellants also assert that the Examiner
does not provide a sufficient rationale for combining Cox with Baudel.
Br. 21-22.
Appeal 2010-002854
Application 10/660,143

4
ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
finding that Cox discloses an “abstract data structure defining a plurality of
abstract attributes representing an abstract graphical representation of the
data.” We note that claims are given their broadest reasonable construction
in light of the disclosure. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d
1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Construing the claim terms broadly, the
Examiner finds that one of skill in the art would understand that the data
described in Cox inherently includes an abstract data structure with
attributes that are graphically represented when the data is visualized.
Ans. 8. Appellants do not point to anything in the claims or Specification
that precludes this interpretation. Br. 14-15. Thus, we do not find persuasive
Appellants’ argument that the Examiner ignores substantive limitations in
the claims. See Br. 14.
Similarly, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding that Cox teaches
“transformation rules for transforming the abstract data structure into a
concrete data structure, the transformation rules comprising a plurality of
subsets of transformation rules.” Ans. 8-9. Appellants do not dispute the
Examiner’s analogy of a graphical representation (e.g., a pie chart) to the
claimed “concrete data structure.” Furthermore, Appellants admit that Cox
teaches at least the transformation of one concrete data structure into a
second concrete data structure. Br. 16.
It thus follows from the previous finding (in Cox, the data inherently
includes an abstract data structure with attributes) that the transformation in
Cox from one graphical representation to a second graphical representation
(e.g., a bar graph to a pie chart) necessarily involves using rules to transform
Appeal 2010-002854
Application 10/660,143

5
the graphical attributes of the data as claimed. See Ans. 9. And the Examiner
explicitly makes this finding: “one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand that what actually happens is that the underlying data stored in
the database is reprocessed so that a different visualization (e.g., a pie chart)
is displayed instead of the original one (e.g., a bar graph).” Ans. 10.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that this
reasoning misconstrues the claims. See Br. 15-16.
Appellants further argue that Cox fails to teach the recited “subsets of
transformation rules.” Br. 15-16. However, we agree with the Examiner’s
finding because Cox discloses that a user can change the graphical
representation of a set of data, this necessarily discloses multiple
transformation rules of which each graphical representation rule is a subset.
Ans. 9; Advisory Action, Feb. 20, 2009, at 2.
Appellants also admit that a display output may be a result of
rendering according to a graphics rendering language. Br. 18. Thus, we
agree with the Examiner’s finding that because Cox discloses a display
output (e.g., the display of a pie chart or bar graph), Cox therefore teaches
“generating . . . a concrete data structure defining a concrete graphical
representation of the data in a graphics rendering language.” Ans. 13-15.
Finally, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the
Examiner does not properly articulate a rationale for combining the Cox and
Baudel references. The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to combine the two references based on
Baudel’s express statement that “it would . . . be[] desirable . . . to provide a
simple but flexible . . . user interface for accessing an available
visualization.” Ans. 5, 16 (citing Baudel col. 1, ll. 41-43). Appellants do not
Appeal 2010-002854
Application 10/660,143

6
dispute that Cox discloses a flexible user interface. Instead, Appellants argue
that the Examiner does not demonstrate “how the references will be
combined/modified” or give “any specific explanation of how the references
would synergistically interoperate to produce the claimed invention.” Br. 22.
We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. The relevant
inquiry is whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to
those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of the
references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). “Combining
the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their
specific structures.” In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973).
Appellants do not argue that combining Baudel’s suggestion of using
multiple graphic rendering languages (Baudel col. 3, ll. 22-27) with Cox’s
system of using data visualization objects for displaying text (Cox Abstract)
would be “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the
art” at the time of Appellants’ invention. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-
Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). We therefore, find no error with the
Examiner’s finding that one of skill in the art would have been motivated to
combine Cox and Baudel.
For these reasons, Appellants have not shown error in the obviousness
rejections of representative claim 1 or claims 7-9, 11-17, and 19-21, which
were not argued separately.

CLAIMS 2-4
The Examiner also finds that Cox discloses every recited feature of
representative claim 2, which depends from claim 1, except for supporting
Appeal 2010-002854
Application 10/660,143

7
multiple graphics rendering languages. As described above, the Examiner
cites Baudel as teaching this feature. Ans. 4.
Appellants argue that Cox does not disclose the limitation “abstract
data structure templates, each . . . associated with a specific graphical
representation type” as recited in claim 2. Br. 16-17.

ANALYSIS
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding that “‘one of
ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that raw data is needed to
generate a bar chart, and that the bar chart view object [of Cox] uses the raw
data to generate display instructions to a display device, said display device
ultimately displaying the bar chart.’” Br. 16-17 (quoting Advisory Action,
Feb. 20, 2009, at 2); Ans. 12. Instead, for the same reasons as discussed with
regards to representative claim 1, Appellants assert that the Examiner
misconstrues the claims by finding that Cox’s data inherently includes an
abstract data structure. Br. 16-17. As explained above, Appellants do not
address why the Examiner’s broad interpretation of the claim terms is
incorrect. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
representative claim 2, and claims 3 and 4, which have not been separately
argued.

CLAIMS 10 AND 18
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 10
and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Cox in view of Baudel and
Koselj. Ans. 6-7. Appellants rely on the same arguments previously
presented for representative claim 1 to demonstrate that Cox, Baudel, and
Appeal 2010-002854
Application 10/660,143

8
Koselj collectively fail to teach all the limitations of claims 10 and 18. As
discussed above, we do not find these arguments persuasive.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-4 and 7-21 under
§ 103(a).

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-4 and 7-21 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).

AFFIRMED

babc