Ex Parte Haase et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 25, 2019

14272073 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/272,073 05/07/2014
98929 7590 03/25/2019
McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff
LLP/Google LLC
300 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3100
Chicago, IL 60606
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Chet Haase
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.
14-400 4829
EXAMINER
LE,MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2619
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/25/2019 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHET HAASE and DANIEL MARC GATAN SHIPLACOFF
Appeal2018-004359
Application 14/272,073
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1-20, i.e., all pending claims. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Google Inc. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-004359
Application 14/272,073
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the invention concerns an animation
of a virtual object in a display region of a device and adjusting the
animation's duration to conform to the display region's configuration. See
Spec. ,r,r 3---6, Abstract. 2
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 1 exemplifies the claims at issue and reads as
follows:
1. A method comprising:
determining, by one or more processors of a device, a
configuration of a display region of the device;
receiving a request to perform an animation of a virtual
object within the display region, wherein the request is
indicative of a first duration for the animation based on the
animation being performed within a first display region having
a first configuration;
comparing, by the one or more processors of the device,
the configuration of the display region of the device with the
first configuration of the first display region;
based on the comparison between the configuration of
the display region of the device and the first configuration of
the first display region, modifying the first duration to
determine an adjusted duration for the animation; and
2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: "Spec." for the
Specification, filed May 7, 2014; "Final Act." for the Final Office Action,
mailed August 8, 2017; "App. Br." for the Appeal Brief, filed November 6,
2017; "Ans." for the Examiner's Answer, mailed February 5, 2018; and
"Reply Br." for the Reply Brief, filed March 19, 2018.
2
Appeal2018-004359
Application 14/272,073
causing, by the one or more processors, the device to
perform the animation within the display region based on the
animation having the adjusted duration.
App. Br. 15 (Claims App.).
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal
As evidence ofunpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
relies on the following prior art:
Kraft et al. ("Kraft")
Brook et al. ("Brook")
Chandratillake et al.
("Chandratillake")
Hautala
Lee et al. ("Lee")
Singh et al. ("Singh")
Pais et al. ("Pais")
US 2003/0063090 Al
US 2003/0146915 Al
US 2008/0086688 Al
US 2012/0198386 Al
US 8,339,480 B2
US 2013/0346885 Al
US 2014/0118354 Al
The Rejections on Appeal
Apr. 3, 2003
Aug. 7,2003
Apr. 10, 2008
Aug.2,2012
Dec. 25, 2012
Dec. 26, 2013
May 1, 2014
Claims 1-3, 15, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Chandratillake and Hautala. Final Act. 6-14.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Chandratillake, Hautala, Kraft, and Singh. Final Act. 14--16.
Claims 5 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Chandratillake, Hautala, Brook, and Singh. Final Act. 16-17.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Chandratillake, Hautala, Brook, and Lee. Final Act. 17-18.
Claims 7, 13, 14, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Chandratillake, Hautala, and Kraft. Final Act. 19-22.
3
Appeal2018-004359
Application 14/272,073
Claims 8-12 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Chandratillake, Hautala, and Pais. Final Act. 22-29.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1-20 in light of
Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. Based on the record before
us and for the reasons explained below, we concur with Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner erred in finding that the cited portions of
Chandratillake and Hautala teach or suggest comparing different display-
region configurations as required by each independent claim.
The§ 103 Rejection of Claims 1-3, 15, 18, and 19
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 1, 15, AND 18
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 1, 15, and 18 because Chandratillake and Hautala do not teach or
suggest the following limitation in claims 1 and 18 and an almost identical
limitation in claim 15: "comparing ... the configuration of the display
region of the device with the first configuration of the first display region."
See App. Br. 4--11; Reply Br. 1-5. Specifically, Appellants assert that "[t]he
cited portion of Chandratillake simply includes a 'graphical user interface
displaying search results to a user's query as a video wall of multiple
moving thumbnails."' App. Br. 7-8 (quoting Chandratillake ,r 12); Reply
Br. 2 (quoting Chandratillake ,r 12). Appellants' assertion concerns the
graphical user interface illustrated in Chandratillake' s Figure 2 reproduced
below:
4
Appeal2018-004359
Application 14/272,073
8
10
•CDate Relevance.,_
Content Catcgori.:er
@
Qt ..... l .... nC-NN-, ..... ,QI ace News I
QI web video !QI @CBS I
QI ll,,fo'.'t,1e,~s!Q( PODCASTS I
@
Qt-l!iB-loo_m_be~rg!©t se/fcast I
QI Yourtii)iel !~ ifilffi I
@
Ql,--Co-og-le.....,iQt GMITV I
Q1 HB0 I~ totalvidlil)
Los Ar19eles Reports on Katrino nl
afte~ the meetmg :o1 th~... b:U
!LOOKJ
Tue>
Direct Play
Figure 2 illustrates a graphical user interface with moving thumbnails
displayed in search-result area 5 and an enlarged version of one moving
thumbnail displayed in direct-play screen 13. Chandratillake ,r,r 9, 37, 42.
Referring to this interface, Appellants argue that "[t]he fact that the
thumbnails are position[ed] on a region of the interface, and the thumbnails
themselves are of a certain size is not related in any way to" comparing
different display-region configurations according to the claims. Reply Br. 2.
In addition, Appellants contend that "in Hautala, the thumbnail image
may be enlarged when selected by the user" and the enlarging "may be
accompanied by an animation" such that an "image may gradually increase
in size until it fills the whole of the display." App. Br. 10 (quoting Hautala
,r 52); Reply Br. 4--5 (quoting Hautala ,r 52). Appellants also contend that
"[t]here is no 'comparing' function described in Hautala, as recited in the
claims." App. Br. 10; see Reply Br. 4--5.
5
Appeal2018-004359
Application 14/272,073
In response, the Examiner finds that Chandratillake "shows in
Figure 2 a Direct Play Screen as a display region of the device (item 13) to
play back the relevant clips from the moving thumbnails" and "[ e Jach of the
moving thumbnails (item 5) shown as a first display region that has two or
more moving frames derived from" the original video file associated with
the moving thumbnail. Ans. 26; see Final Act. 6-8. The Examiner also
finds that "Hautala suggests 'differentiating' with thumbnail images to be
enlarged to fill substantially the whole of the displayed real-time image."
Ans. 26, 28; see Final Act. 8-9. The Examiner reasons that comparing
different display-region configurations occurs by "being described as being
displayed here or there." Ans. 28.
Based on the record before us, we agree with Appellants that the
Examiner has not adequately explained how the cited portions of
Chandratillake and Hautala teach or suggest comparing different display-
region configurations as required by claims 1, 15, and 18. Chandratillake
discloses displaying smaller and larger versions of video images. See, e.g.,
Chandratillake ,r,r 3, 6, 17, 37, 42, Figs. 1-2. Similarly, Hautala discloses
displaying smaller and larger versions of photographic images. See, e.g.,
Hautala ,r,r 41--42, 45--46, 50-52, Figs. 3---6. But the cited portions of the
references do not discuss comparing the configurations of the different
regions that display the smaller and larger versions. See Chandratillake ,r,r 3,
6, 16-17, 23, 27, 29, 37, 42, 49, Figs. 1-2; Hautala ,r,r 10, 41--42, 45--46,
50-52, Figs. 3---6. Hence, we do not sustain the§ 103 rejection of claims 1,
15, and 18.
6
Appeal2018-004359
Application 14/272,073
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 2, 3, AND 19
Claims 2 and 3 depend directly from claim 1; and claim 19 depends
directly from claim 18. For the reasons discussed for claims 1 and 18, we do
not sustain the§ 103 rejection of claims 2, 3, and 19.
The§ 103 Rejections of Claims 4-14, 16, 17, and 20
Claims 4--14 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1; claims 16 and
17 depend directly from claim 15; and claim 20 depends directly from
claim 18. On this record, the Examiner has not shown how the additionally
cited secondary references-Kraft, Singh, Brook, Lee, and Pais----overcome
the deficiency in Chandratillake and Hautala discussed above for claims 1,
15, and 18. Hence, we do not sustain the§ 103 rejections of claims 4--14,
16, 17, and 20.
Because this determination resolves the appeal with respect to
claims 1-20, we need not address Appellants' other arguments regarding
Examiner error. See, e.g., Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423
(Fed. Cir. 1984) (explaining that an administrative agency may render a
decision based on "a single dispositive issue").
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20.
REVERSED
7