Ex Parte Gottesman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 4, 2013

10356739 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 4, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ASAF GOTTESMAN
and UDI BOBROVSKY
____________

Appeal 2011-002406
Application 10/356,739
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE,
and JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-002406
Application 10/356,739

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 37-61, 70, and 71. Claims 1-36 and 62-69 have been canceled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (“Br.”) filed June 28, 2010, and the Answer
(“Ans.”) mailed August 2, 2010, for the respective details. We have
considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised
in the Brief. Any other arguments which Appellants could have made but
chose not to make in the Brief are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Appellants’ Invention
Appellants’ invention involves rendered three-dimensional
environment that includes a plurality of containers 220. A container has one
or more parameters including display parameters and associated functions.
A data container’s parameters contain portions of information relating to a
result of a search or query. Data container 220 is rendered within the
environment in accordance with its display parameters (position, size, shape,
color, texture, mapped pictures/images or other messages, movement, etc.).
Movement parameters include direction, speed, direction of rotation,
rotational velocity, etc. Data container 220 may have a fixed position or
may move within the environment. For example, the containers may move
within the environment as a function of time, allowing the user to experience
the 3D environment. The user may interact with the environment by
Appeal 2011-002406
Application 10/356,739

3
selecting a polygon or container which may represent a hyperlink, or result
in numerous actions, such as enlargement or changing of data, etc. See
generally Spec. page 8, l. 2-page 9, l. 3.

Claim 37 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
37. A computer-implemented method of presenting content
on a display, the method comprising using a processor to:
obtain content from a memory;
render a data container having a display parameter
representing an image portion of said content obtained from the
memory;
produce an image on the display of a perspective view of
a three dimensional environment in which the data container is
disposed, wherein said image portion of content is part of the
image produced on the display;
update the display parameter representing the image
portion of content as a function of time;
re-render the data container in response to the updated
display parameter; and
produce an updated image on the display of a perspective
view of the three dimensional environment in which the re-
rendered data container is disposed, wherein the updated image
portion of content is part of the updated image produced on the
display.

The Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 37, 38, 40-44, 46, 48-51, 53-59, and 61
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Strasnick (US 5, 671,381,
Sep. 23, 1997). Ans. 3.
The Examiner rejected claims 39, 45, 47, 52, 60, 70, and 71 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Strasnick in view of Foley
Appeal 2011-002406
Application 10/356,739

4
(James D. Foley et al., Computer Graphics: Principles and Practice, Second
Edition in C, 741-744 (Addison-Wesley 1997)). Ans. 10.

ANALYSIS
We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the
Examiner’s Answer (see Ans. 3-16). We highlight and address specific
findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
In response to each of the arguments raised by Appellants, the
Examiner presents detailed findings and responses, which are not rebutted
by Appellants in a Reply Brief.
Appellants argue (Br. 8-9) that Strasnick does not disclose the claimed
element in independent claim 37 of “update the display parameter
representing the image portion of content as a function of time” (emphasis
ours). Appellants further argue that in their invention “[t]ime in this case is
relative to the specific 3D environment whereby display parameters of the
data containers are adjusted based on the position of the viewer within the
predetermined route or path through the 3D environment.” Br. 8 (emphasis
ours) (hereinafter “disputed feature”). Independent claims 42, 49, and 56
recite similar subject matter.
The Examiner responds that in Strasnick “change in color is
considered to read on said object having its color changed as a function of
time as without a time component (either in the hardware domain or the
operator’s domain) there would be no change.” Ans. 14. The Examiner
finds that “‘function of time’ is interpreted to read on that which is time
based.” Id. In other words, in Strasnick, the change is relative to time.
Appeal 2011-002406
Application 10/356,739

5
We agree with the Examiner’s explanation (Ans. 14) which finds that
Strasnick’s change in color meets the function of the disputed claim element
because independent claim 37 does not preclude such a reading.
Regarding adjusting display parameter “based on the position of the
viewer within the predetermined route or path through the 3D
environment,” Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate with the scope
of claim 37, because claim 37 does not recite the disputed feature.
Regarding remaining claims, while Appellants raised additional
arguments for patentability of the cited claims (Br. 12-14), we find that the
Examiner has rebutted in the Answer each and every one of those arguments
supported by sufficient evidence. Ans. 14-16. Therefore, we adopt the
Examiner’s findings and underlying reasoning, which are incorporated
herein by reference. Consequently, we find no error in the Examiner’s
rejection of the claims.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 37, 38, 40-44, 46, 48-51,
53-59, and 61 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Strasnick.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 39, 45, 47, 52, 60, 70,
and 71 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Strasnick in
view of Foley.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 37-61, 70, and 71.
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).
Appeal 2011-002406
Application 10/356,739

6

AFFIRMED

msc