Ex Parte Greenawalt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 25, 2017

13315981 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2017)

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.
13/315,981 12/09/2011 Jean E. Greenawalt 11-1783 (1547.199US1) 1610
85851 7590 04/27/2017
Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner / Raytheon
P.O. Box 2938
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
NUNEZ, JORDANY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2171
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/27/2017 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):
uspto@slwip.com
SLW @blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEAN E. GREENAWALT
and JAMES W. NELSON
Appeal 2016-007331
Application 13/315,9811
Technology Center 2100
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—12, 15, and 17—22, which constitute all the
pending claims. Final Act. 2—13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Raytheon Company. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-007331
Application 13/315,981
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to analyzing multi-dimensional data with
visual and aural attributes. Abstract; Spec. Tflf 13—15; Figs. 1, 3. Claim 1 is
exemplary of the matter on appeal (disputed limitations emphasized):
1. A system comprising:
one or more of a computer processor and a computer storage
device configured to:
store a multidimensional data set;
map the multi-dimensional data set to one or more visual
attributes and aural attributes',
display a subset of the multidimensional data set on a display
unit',
display an avatar on the display unit, wherein the avatar is
configured to select a field of view of the displayed subset;
receive input from a user, the user input relating to an
additional dimension of the multidimensional data set that is not
displayed in the subset',
generate one or more of the visual attribute and the aural
attribute relating to the additional dimension as a function of the input
from a user, thereby conveying information relating to the additional
dimension on the display unit; and
continuously receive user input, and continuously alter one or
more of the visual attribute and the aural attribute, while maintaining
the display of the subset of the multidimensional data set on the
display unit, thereby permitting the user to view, compare, and
analyze a plurality of additional dimension subsets on the display unit
without generating an additional display of a second subset of data on
the display unit.
App. Br. 2 (Claims Appendix2) (filed Jan. 8, 2016).
2 Corrected section from previously submitted Appeal Brief filed on
September 21, 2015. This corrected section is in response to Notice of Non-
Compliant Appeal Brief.
2
Appeal 2016-007331
Application 13/315,981
REJECTIONS3
Claims 1—12, 15, and 17—22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which
the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the
invention. Final Act. 2-4.
Claims 1—12, 15, and 17—22 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jones (US 2009/0282369 Al; pub. Nov.
12, 2009) in view of Dobbins et al. (US 2009/0213114 Al; pub. Aug. 27,
2009) (“Dobbins”). Final Act. 4~11.
ANALYSIS
The § 112, second paragraph, rejection
The Examiner finds “[cjlaim 1 recites: ‘display a subset of the
multidimensional data’ (line 6) and ‘display of a second subset of data’
(last line)” and “[i]t is unclear whether the recited subsets of data are
completely the same, completely different, or have some elements that are
common and some that are different.” Final Act. 2. The Examiner states
“[f]or the rest of the Office Action, Examiner will interpret the subsets of
data as completely different.” Id. The Examiner finds independent claims
18 and 20 suffer from the same issue and any claim dependent on an
3The Examiner identifies 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, issues in the
Final Action (page 2) and subsequently states “that no rejection is made
under 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph” and “[tjhus, Examiner respectfully
points out that it seems that this matter is not to be decided by the PTAB.”
Ans. 4. Based on the record before us, we do not address 35 U.S.C. § 112,
sixth paragraph, issues as there is no existing rejection.
3
Appeal 2016-007331
Application 13/315,981
indefinite claim is also rejected for inheriting the indefiniteness of the parent
claim. Id.
The Examiner additionally finds the claims:
recite a “subset of the multidimensional data” and a “second subset of
data.” Thus, the claims seems to have multiple recitations of the term
“data” (e.g., the first data recitation being “the multidimensional data”,
the second recitation being the data of which a “second subset” is
recited) which seems to introduce indefmiteness to the claim. Further,
the term “data” in the recited “second subset of data” seems [to] belong
to a number [of] possible data, one of which is the “multidimensional
data” previously recited, another possibility being not the previously
recited “multidimensional data”, or a combination.
Ans. 3—A.
Appellants argue the “subset of the multidimensional data” and the
“second subset of data” are claimed as different elements and, therefore, the
subsets are different in some way and cannot be completely the same. App.
Br. 8; Reply Br. 1. Appellants further argue the claims do not recite that the
subsets are completely different and this limitation “cannot be read into the
claims.” App. Br. 8.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments and agree, instead,
with the findings of the Examiner. Appellants provide insufficient evidence
that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claimed subsets
meet Appellants’ proffered definition.
Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), second
paragraph, rejection of claims 1—12, 15, and 17—22.
The § 103(a) rejection
Appellants argue the Examiner errs by finding Jones teaches the claim
1 limitation, map the multi-dimensional data set to one or more visual
4
Appeal 2016-007331
Application 13/315,981
attributes and aural attributes. App. Br. 9 (citing Jones 113, 139); Reply
Br. 1. According to Appellants, “[paragraph [0113] only relates to
displaying data as a point cloud, a cube, a panorama, a triangular pyramid, or
a stack of planes” and “states that each pixel in a plane or node can have
color information associated with it.” App. Br. 9. Appellants argue
paragraph 139 of Jones relates to creating a node structure from a directory
of documents and “neither of these paragraphs [113 and 139] discloses the
claimed feature of mapping a multidimensional data set to visual or aural
attributes.” Id. Appellants further argue “that the display of Jones’s data
may include visual attributes (such as a panorama or a particular pixel color;
indeed, what data display does not include a visual aspect?) does not mean
that subsets of the data are mapped to visual or aural attributes.” Id.
According to Appellants, “the visual display of data in Jones is not a
‘mapping’ of data; it is only a display of data.” Reply Br. 1. Appellants
argue “[a] mapping requires some sort of data structure in computer memory
to connect and associate the data to the visual or aural attribute” and “[a]
simple display of data on a computer display device does not require such a
connection and association in computer memory.” Id.
The Examiner finds Jones’s teachings of a point cloud, a cube, a
panorama, a triangular pyramid, or a stack of planes contain visual attributes
mapped from Jones’s data, as well as a subset of that data and “Jones teaches
that a Quantum Matrix Qube may be displayed [as] a planar stack, with each
item of the planar stack making reference to papers or documents.” Ans. 5
(citing Jones 1113). The Examiner finds a person of ordinary skill in the art
would readily understand the papers or documents to be the subsets of data
upon which the Quantum Matrix Qube is built, with the data in papers or
5
Appeal 2016-007331
Application 13/315,981
documents being mapped, through a process, to the visual attribute seen in
Figure 3 of Jones. Id. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not
confuse a point cloud with a cube, or with a triangular pyramid, etc., because
the visual attributes of each display would sufficiently distinguish them from
each other and would also not confuse two side-by-side point clouds made
up of different data obtained from different papers or documents. Id. The
Examiner finds
[t]hat Jones multidimensional subsets of data are mapped to
visual attributes is the same as saying that Jone[s]’s
multidimensional data is used to generate different interactive
displays representing the data, and each interactive display
would clearly have different visual attributes that are mapped
from each subset of data, because, although each display may be
based on the same subsets of data, it is the different visual
attributes that make each interactive display look different.
Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument and agree, instead,
with the Examiner’s findings that Jones teaches the mapping limitation.
Claim terms in a patent application are given the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification, as understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Appellants argue Jones does not teach the limitation continuously
receive user input, and continuously alter one or more of the visual attribute
and the aural attribute, while maintaining the display of the subset of the
multidimensional data set on the display unit. App. Br. 9—11. According to
Appellants, Jones teaches clicking on a node and mining down further into
the data via that node. Id. at 9 (citing Jones 1 73). Appellants further argue
Jones teaches navigation by a user through its matrix and this navigation can
6
Appeal 2016-007331
Application 13/315,981
alter the structure of the presentation of nodes or a clipping of nodes to
reveal an internal structure. Id. 9-10 (citing Jones 1 82). Appellants then
argue Jones alters the display of its matrix upon receiving navigational input
from a user and “[c]aim 1 in contrast recites that the subset of data is
maintained on the display unit while a visual and/or aural attribute is
altered.” Id. at 10
Appellants argue the Examiner errs by finding Jones, paragraph 112,
teaches this limitation because “permitting a user to select a node and
display the data associated with that node as in paragraph [0112] of Jones is
not a disclosure of Appellant’s claimed feature” as “[t]here is simply no
disclosure or teaching in Jones of maintaining a display of its matrix node as
is, and then displaying additional data in some other manner (i.e., some
visual or aural manner), as is recited in claim 1.” Id. (emphasis added).
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding Jones’s controlling a
camera and changing the scene slowly has the effect of maintaining the
display of the subset of images because “Jones does not disclose a subset of
images in relation to controlling a camera.” Id. at 10. Moreover, even if a
subset of images was disclosed, moving a camera changes the field of view
of the camera, changes the data recorded by the camera and, therefore, “a
dataset is not maintained by the slow movement of a camera.” Id. 10—11.
The Examiner finds Jones teaches moving a Quantum Matrix Cube in
three axes (x, y, z) and rotating in three axes (roll, pitch, yaw) and teaches
that the user is able to view the various data and documents held at the nodal
points of the Quantum Matrix Qube and to access the data visually. Ans. 6
(citing Jones 1112, Fig. 2). In particular, the Examiner finds Jones teaches a
user can continuously provide input to move and rotate the Quantum Matrix
7
Appeal 2016-007331
Application 13/315,981
Qube and correspondingly continuously alter a visual attribute, such as the
Qube’s roll, pitch, and yaw, while maintaining the display of any subset of
the multidimensional data, such as the various data and documents, set on
the display unit. Id.
Regarding Jones altering the display of its matrix, the Examiner finds
the subset of data, such as the various data and documents, is maintained on
the display unit while a visual attribute, such as a roll, pitch, and yaw, is
altered. Id. at 7. Further, the Examiner finds Jones teaches maintaining
display of a subset of various data and documents making up one of the six
sides of a Qube at all times, while displaying an additional dimension of the
multidimensional dataset via visual attributes, for example, displaying at
least one of the remaining five sides of the Qube while still maintaining the
display of the original side, by changing the roll, pitch, and yaw, of the
Qube. Id. 7—8. The Qube can continuously alter its visual attributes as a
function of continuous rotational input from a user, all at the same time
maintaining the display of the original data subset, the one of the six sides of
a Qube originally displayed. Id. at 8.
Regarding whether Jones discloses a subset of images in relation to
controlling a camera, the Examiner finds a controlled camera is likely to be
panned, as a common function of a camera. Ans. 9. The Examiner further
finds “moving a camera slowly changes the field of view of the camera and
only changes some of the items being viewed, while maintaining in view
other items (e.g., a dataset is indeed maintained by the slow movement of a
camera).” Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments and agree, instead,
with the Examiner’s findings. Moreover, the limitation does not recite
8
Appeal 2016-007331
Application 13/315,981
“maintaining a display of its matrix node as is” as argued by Appellants; the
limitation recites “maintaining the display.” See App. Br. 10 (emphasis
added). Regarding the limitation without generating an additional display
of a second subset on the display unit, we are not persuaded of error as
Appellants’ argument is conclusory. See id.
Appellants present no persuasive argument that the claim terms
should be limited to exclude the combined teaching of the cited references
and present no persuasive argument that the Examiner’s findings and claim
interpretations are unreasonable or overbroad. Claim terms in a patent
application are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
the specification, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re
Crish, 393 F.3d at 1256.
As stated by the Supreme Court, the Examiner’s obviousness rejection
must be based on:
“[S]ome articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning
to support the legal conclusion of obviousness” .... [Hjowever,
the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can
take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.
KSRInt’l. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and
independent claims 18 and 20 which recite the disputed limitations. We also
sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2—12, 15, 17, 19, and 22 as these
claims are not argued separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
9
Appeal 2016-007331
Application 13/315,981
Appellants argue the Examiner errs by finding Jones teaches
dependent claim 214 which recites discrete values of [an] icon are
represented by a static feature of the icon and continuous values of the icon
are represented by varying features of the icon. App. Br. 11 (citing Jones
11 172, 288, 339); see also Reply Br. 2. According to Appellants, paragraph
172 only mentions a multidimensional structure of nodes, paragraph 288
only relates to how drawings and photographs can be associated with such
nodes, paragraph 339 only relates to how a multidimensional structure of
nodes can be associated with broadcast and video entertainment services,
and none of the cited paragraphs makes any mention of this limitation. App.
Br. 11.
The Examiner finds Jones teaches that data represented by nodes may
be both static and dynamically changing; that a node may display static,
discrete content such as photographs, drawings, etc.; or live, varying content
such as video of a construction site and, therefore, Jones teaches displaying
discrete values of a node, for example, a node displaying a static photo and
continuously varying camera feed of a construction site. Ans. 9 (citing
Jones H 172, 288, 339, 318). The Examiner finds
[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would readily reasonably
interpret one of the sides of six sides of a Qube, which include
multiple of the aforementioned nodes, as being an icon which has
some static features and some varying features, the variability or
steadiness of the displayed nodes of the displayed side
corresponding to whether the underlying data with which the
node is associated is changing or not.
4 Claim 21 depends from dependent claim 11, which recites wherein the
display of the subset of multidimensional data comprises a data icon and
depends from claim 1, discussed supra. Claims Appendix 3, 5.
10
Appeal 2016-007331
Application 13/315,981
Id. at 10.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments and agree,
instead, with the Examiner’s findings. See also In re Crish, 393 F.3d
at 1256; KSRInt’l. Co., 550 U.S. at 418.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 21.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—12, 15, and 17—22
under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—12, 15, and 17—22
under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
11