Ex Parte Hao et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 16, 2010

10941114 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 16, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte MING C. HAO, UMESHWAR DAYAL, KLAUS WURSTER,
and PETER WRIGHT
____________________

Appeal 2009-006795
Application 10/941,1141
Technology Center 2600

____________________

Before MARC S. HOFF, CAROLYN D. THOMAS,
and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL2

1 The real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.
2 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or filing a request for rehearing, as
recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper
delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode)
shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-006795
Application 10/941,114

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-4, 7-36, 40, and 42-45. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants’ invention relates to a graphical production system that
produces pixel bar charts. The pixel bar chart may include multiple bars
with substantially equal widths and potentially variable heights to enable
visual data analysis. A bar may include a number of pixel units
corresponding to a volume of data records represented within the bar.
Selected visual indicators are displayed within the pixel units of the bar,
where a selected visual indicator represents a value of an attribute of a data
record. The pixel units may be ordered within a bar in a particular sequence
(e.g., ascending, descending or some other order). Further, the bar width is
determined to minimize the amount of padding. A visual indicator scale is
displayed to indicate values associated with each visual indicator (Spec. ¶¶
[0015]-[0018]).
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method comprising:
constructing, by one or more processing elements, a pixel bar chart for
output on a display device, the pixel bar chart including multiple bars with
substantially equal widths and potentially variable heights to enable visual
data analysis, wherein a particular bar of the multiple bars includes a number
of pixel units corresponding to a volume of data records represented within
the particular bar, and wherein selected visual indicators are displayed
within the pixel units of the particular bar, and wherein a selected visual
indicator represents a value of an attribute of a data record represented by
the pixel unit;
adding, by the one or more processing elements, at least one padding
pixel unit to a row of the particular bar if the volume of data records is not
2
Appeal 2009-006795
Application 10/941,114

equal to a multiple of a number of pixel units defining the width of the
particular bar; and
determining, by the one or more processing elements, the width of the
particular bar to result in a reduction of a number of padding pixel units in
the particular bar.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Daniel A. Keim et al., “Pixel bar charts: a visualization technique for very
large multi-attributes data sets,” Information Visualization, 2001 pp. 1-14.

Claims 1-4, 7-9, 17-26, 36, and 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement.
Claims 24, 40, 42-43, and 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claims 1-4, 7-36, 40, and 42-45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Keim.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Appeal Brief (filed April 30, 2008), the Reply Brief
(filed October 29, 2008), and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed August 29,
2008) for their respective details.

ISSUES
Regarding the § 112, first paragraph rejection, Appellants contend the
Specification clearly does not require that the pixel units be included in just
the top or last rows of the bars (App. Br. 13). As such, Appellants assert that
the Specification supports that claim limitation of “adding, by the one or
more processing elements, at least one padding pixel unit to a row of the
3
Appeal 2009-006795
Application 10/941,114

particular bar” (App. Br. 13). Appellants argue that the Specification
provides adequate support for the bar width being determined so that a
minimum number of padding pixel units are included in the top rows of the
bar (App. Br. 14, FF 3).
Regarding the § 112, second paragraph rejection, Appellants contend
that the claim language of the parent claim 17 does not require that the pixel
unit corresponds to only a single data record; rather, it indicates that the
pixel unit corresponds to at least one data record (App. Br. 15). Appellants
argue further that the recitation in claim 40 to the padding pixel units being
provided to fill incomplete portions of a bar defines the location of the
padding pixel units (Reply Br. 4). Appellants assert that for the other claim
limitation of claim 40 specifies that the one or more processing elements are
set at a width of the bar as a function of a number of padding pixel units that
are included in the pixel bar chart (Reply Br. 4). Accordingly, Appellants
contend that both of these phrases can be satisfied without contradiction
(Reply Br. 4).
Regarding the § 103 rejection, Appellants assert that the Examiner has
not established a prima facie case of obviousness since the Examiner has
cited no evidence that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the
art to modify Keim (App. Br. 16). Appellants assert that Keim does not
provide any teaching or hint of one or more processing elements determining
the width of a bar to result in a reduction of a number of padding pixel units
in the bar (App. Br. 17).
Appellants argue further that Keim does not disclose the “assigning,
by the one or more processing elements, a visual indicator for display by the
at least one padding pixel unit, wherein the visual indicator assigned to the at
4
Appeal 2009-006795
Application 10/941,114

least one padding pixel unit is equal to the visual indicator assigned to one of
the pixel units that represent a corresponding data record” (App. Br. 19). In
particular, Appellants assert that the Examiner incorrectly construes that
Figs. 4a-4b and 13 of Keim to show the last row of the pixel bar having
uncompleted pixel units that are displayed in the same color as the pixels
corresponding to data records (App. Br. 19). Appellants argue that Keim
shows that the last row of each of the bars is completely filled with pixel
units that are assigned the same colors as neighboring pixel units (App. Br.
19).
Appellants assert that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
understand from Keim's teaching that the last row will not be completely
filled with pixels and that no visual indicators are assigned to the unfilled
positions in the bar (App. Br. 20). Appellants further assert that one skilled
in the art would not understand that a visual indicator is assigned to each of
the pixel units according to an aggregate of the data records associated with
the corresponding pixel unit (App. Br. 20).
Appellants’ contentions present us with the following issues:
1. Is there adequate support in the Specification for the claim
limitation: “adding, by the one or more processing elements, at least one
padding pixel unit to a row of the particular bar”?
2. Is there adequate support in the Specification for the claim
limitation: “determining by the one or more processing elements, the width
of the particular bar to result in a reduction of a number of padding pixel
units in the particular bar”?
3. Is there antecedent support in claim 17 for “the pixel unit
corresponds to multiple data records” recited in claim 24?
5
Appeal 2009-006795
Application 10/941,114

4. Is there enabling support in claim 40 for the claim limitations: “one
or more processing elements to set a width of the bar as a function of a
number of padding pixel units that are included in the pixel bar chart” and
“wherein the padding pixel units are provided to fill incomplete portions of
the bar”?
5. Does Keim disclose “determining, by the one or more processing
elements, the width of the particular bar to result in a reduction of a number
of padding pixel units in the particular bar”?
6. Does Keim disclose “assigning, by the one or more processing
elements, a visual indicator for display by the at least one padding pixel unit,
wherein the visual indicator assigned to the at least one padding pixel unit is
equal to the visual indicator assigned to one of the pixel units that represent
a corresponding data record”?
7. Does Keim disclose “assigning, by the one or more processing
elements, a visual indicator to each of the pixel units according to an
aggregate of the data records associated with the corresponding pixel unit”?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
The Invention
1. A pixel bar chart having bars with substantially the same widths
and potentially different heights is referred to as an “equal width pixel bar
chart.” The term “equal-width,” however, does not mean that the widths are
strictly equal in that they may vary by a small number of pixels (Spec. ¶
[0020]).
6
Appeal 2009-006795
Application 10/941,114

2. A pixel "visual indicator attribute" is a type of value (e.g., a
particular field within a data record) that may be represented by distinct
visual indicators displayed in conjunction with pixel units. The visual
indicators may be a set of colors (e.g., a set of contiguous colors (i.e.,
gradually changing colors) within a contiguous color scale or another set of
non-contiguous colors. In the alternative, the visual indicator could be used,
including sets of static or dynamic grey-scale intensities, patterns, images,
and combinations thereof. (Spec. ¶ [0022]).
3. The bar width is represented as a number of pixel units that
compose one row of the bar. As disclosed in Figure 1A, at block 406, bar
width 120 is illustrated to be six pixel units. “In an embodiment, the bar
width is determined so that a minimum number of padding pixel units are
included in the top rows of the bars.” In other embodiments, other criteria
may be used to determine the bar width, such as the bar width may
automatically be calculated depending on how many bars are present within
the pixel bar chart. In another embodiment, the bar width may depend on
bar chart parameters specified by a user or other parameters. In yet another
embodiment, the bar width is substantially the same for all of the bars
displayed (Figs. 1A, 6, and 7; Spec. ¶ [0076-77]).
Keim
4. Keim discloses that the dense display constraint requires that all
pixel rows (columns) except the last one be completely filled with pixels.
When the bar chart includes bars of equal width, the width w of the bars is
fixed. The pixel bar chart includes dividing attributes that determine how
the data records corresponding to the pixel units are separated relative to the
bars of the bar chart. As illustrated in Figures 4a, 4b and 13, the last row is
7
Appeal 2009-006795
Application 10/941,114

filled with pixels displaying the same color or intensity as the neighboring
pixels (Figs. 4a, 4b, and 13; Definition of pixel bar charts, pp. 4-5 and Dense
display constraint, p. 5).
5. Keim discloses the pixel bar chart also includes coloring
attributes that define pixel coloring, wherein, for multi-pixel bar charts,
different attributes are assigned to colors in different bar charts to enable the
user to relate to different coloring attributes and detect partial relationships
among them. As illustrated in Figure 12a, a multi-pixel bar chart of 405,000
multi-attribute web sales transactions is divided into a plurality of bars using
dividing attribute Dx. The ordering attributes are the number of visits and
dollar amount, Ox and Oy. The colors C in the different bar charts represent
the attributes dollar amount, number of visits, and quantity (Figs. 12a and
13; Definition of pixel bar charts, p. 4-5 and Sales transaction analysis, p.
10).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Enablement
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, “[t]he test of enablement
is whether one reasonably skilled in the art could make or use the invention
from the disclosures in the patent coupled with information known in the art
without undue experimentation.” United States v. Telectronics, Inc., 857
F.2d 778, 785 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Indefiniteness
The function of claims is (1) to point out what the invention is in such
a way as to distinguish it from the prior art; and (2) to define the scope of
protection afforded by the patent. In re Vamco Machine & Tool, Inc., 752
8
Appeal 2009-006795
Application 10/941,114

F.2d 1564, 1577 n.5 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The legal standard for definiteness is
whether a claim reasonably apprises those of skill in the art of its scope. In
re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The inquiry is merely
to determine whether the claims do, in fact, set out and circumscribe a
particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity. In re
Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235. The definiteness of the language employed
must be analyzed -- not in a vacuum, but in light of the teachings of the prior
art and of the particular application disclosure as it would be interpreted by
one possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art. Id.
Obviousness
On the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court has stated that “the
obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the
words teaching, suggestion, and motivation.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). Further, the Court stated “[t]he combination of
familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when
it does no more than yield predictable results.” Id. at 416.

ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 1-4, 7-9, 17-26, 36, and 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement
We select claim 1 as representative of this group of claims, pursuant
to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Representative claim 1 recites “adding, by the one or more processing
elements, at least one padding pixel unit to a row of the particular bar.”
Independent claim 17 recites a similar claim limitation. Independent claim
36 recites “fill an uncompleted row of the bar with one or more padding
pixel units.”
9
Appeal 2009-006795
Application 10/941,114

We consider Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive to show
Examiner error. Although the Examiner finds that adding a padding pixel to
“a row of the particular bar” is not enabled by Appellants’ Specification,
which discloses that a padding pixel is added to the top row or the last row
of the particular bar, we agree with Appellants that the Specification enables
the language of claim 1 (Ans. 3, App. Br. 13, FF 3). Specifically, we also
agree with Appellants’ contention that the Specification does not require that
the pixel units be included in just the top or last rows of the bars (App. Br.
13).
We do not consider Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive to show
Examiner error with respect to claim 1’s recitation of “determining by the
one or more processing elements, the width of the particular bar to result in a
reduction of a number of padding pixel units in the particular bar,” or claim
45’s recitation of “wherein the width being selected as the function of the
number of padding pixel units is to achieve a minimum number of padding
pixel units in the bar.”
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that, according to Appellants’
Specification, the bar width is automatically calculated depending on how
many bars are present within the pixel bar chart and that the bar width may
depend upon bar chart parameters (Ans. 3, FF 3). Specifically, the
Specification discloses that "in an embodiment, the bar width is determined
so that a minimum number of padding pixel units are included in the top
rows of the bars" (FF 3).
We also agree with the Examiner’s finding that the bar width is
determined by the pixel bar chart parameters specified by the user and the
bar width may be automatically be calculated based upon the number of bars
10
Appeal 2009-006795
Application 10/941,114

present in the pixel bar chart (Ans. 3-4; FF 3). Although the Specification
and the claim disclose that the bar widths are substantially equal (FF 1), all
the drawings of the Specification show that the bar widths are equal (FF 3).
The Specification includes no illustration where the bar widths differ. More
particularly, the Specification discloses that a pixel bar chart having bars
with substantially the same widths and potentially different heights is
referred to as an “equal width pixel bar chart” (FF 1). Although the
Specification does disclose that the term “equal-width” does not mean that
the widths are strictly equal, in that they may vary by a small number of
pixels, there is no illustration showing that the widths differ nor is there any
disclosure in the Specification to support how the bar width is chosen such
that a minimum number of padding pixel units are include in the top rows of
the bars (FF 1). Therefore, we find that the Specification lacks enabling
support for representative claim 1 and dependent claims 2-4, 7-9, and 45.
Appellants’ contentions have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
§ 112 rejection of independent claims 17 and 36. Therefore, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 17 and 36 as well as that of
dependent claims 18-26.
Appellants’ arguments, however, have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph. Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
representative claim 1 and dependent claims 2-4, 7-9, and 45.

Rejection of claims 24, 40, 42, 43, and 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph
Dependent claim 24 recites “wherein the pixel unit corresponds to
multiple data records.”
11
Appeal 2009-006795
Application 10/941,114

We consider Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive to show that the
Examiner erred in finding a lack of antecedent basis for the limitation “the
pixel unit corresponds to multiple data records” (see Ans. 5). Specifically,
we find that although lines 8-9 of parent claim 17 recite “wherein the pixel
unit corresponds to the data record,” line 2 of parent claim 17 recites “a pixel
intensity assignment for a data record of a set of multiple data records”
(emphasis added). Therefore, antecedent basis exists for the claim
limitation, “wherein the pixel unit corresponds to multiple data records.”
Independent claim 40 recites “the one or more processing elements to
set a width of the bar as a function of a number of padding pixel units that
are included in the pixel bar chart, wherein the padding pixel units are
provided to fill incomplete portions of the bar.”
We consider Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive to show that the
Examiner erred in finding a lack of antecedent basis for the recitation
“wherein the padding pixel units are provided to fill incomplete portions of
the bar” (see Ans. 6). Specifically, we agree with Appellants that the two
claim limitations do not contradict one another (Reply Br. 4). Specifically,
we find that setting the width of the bar as a function of the number of
padding pixel units included in the entire bar chart does not conflict with a
further recitation that the padding pixel units fill incomplete portions of a
bar.
Appellants’ contentions have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 24 and 40. Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s § 112,
second paragraph rejection of claims 24 and 40, as well as that of dependent
claims 42, 43, and 45.
12
Appeal 2009-006795
Application 10/941,114

Rejection of claims 1-4, 7-9, 36, 40, and 42-45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
We select claim 36 as representative of this group of claims, pursuant
to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).3
Representative claim 36 recites “fill[ing] an uncompleted row of the
bar with one or more padding pixel units.” Independent claim 40 requires
that “the one or more processing elements to set a width of the bar as a
function of a number of padding pixel units that are included in the pixel bar
chart, wherein the padding pixel units are provided to fill incomplete
portions of the bar.”
We do not consider Appellants’ arguments supra to be persuasive to
show Examiner error. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Keim
discloses that “the dense display constraint requires that all pixel rows
except the last one are completely filled with pixels" such that the last row
has the uncompleted filled pixels which are equivalent to the definition of
“padding” described in Appellants’ Specification (Ans. 8-9; FF 3 and 4). As
illustrated in Figures 4a, 4b, and 13 of Keim, the last row is filled with pixels
displaying the same color or intensity as the neighboring pixels (FF 4).
Therefore, Keim discloses filling “an uncompleted row of the bar with one
or more padding pixel units.”
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that it would have been
obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to have added padding pixels to

3 Appellants purport to argue separately for the patentability of claims 40,
42, and 43 as a group, as well as claim 45 individually. Appellants’ remarks
with respect to claims 40, 42, and 43 are directed to limitations addressed
with respect to the § 103 rejection of claim 1. With respect to claim 45,
Appellants merely restate the content of the claim, rather than present
argument(s) why the claim is patentable.
13
Appeal 2009-006795
Application 10/941,114

the last row of the bars in the pixel bar chart, since Keim teaches or suggests
the claim limitation of "padding pixels" (Ans. 10, FF 4).
Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 36 and independent 40
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of representative claim 36 and independent 40 and that of dependent claims
42-44. Further, as noted supra, we affirm the rejection of claims 1-4, 7-9
and 45.

Rejection of claims 10-26 and 32-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
We select claim 10 as representative of this group of claims, pursuant
to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Representative claim 10 recites “assigning, by the one or more
processing elements, a visual indicator for display by the at least one
padding pixel unit, wherein the visual indicator assigned to the at least one
padding pixel unit is equal to the visual indicator assigned to one of the pixel
units that represent a corresponding data record.” Independent claims 17
and 32 recite a similar claim limitation.
We do not consider Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive to show
Examiner error. We agree with the Examiner’s finding (and Appellants’
admission) that Keim discloses in Figures 4a, 4b, and 13 that the last row of
each of the bars is completely filled with pixel units that are assigned the
same colors as neighboring pixel units (Ans. 70; App. Br. 20; FF 4).
Specifically, the Specification discloses that visual indicator attribute is a set
of colors (FF 2). We agree with the Examiner that that the unfilled pixels
disclosed in Keim are assigned the same colors as neighboring pixel units;
14
Appeal 2009-006795
Application 10/941,114

thus, Keim discloses that a visual indicator is assigned to such a padding
pixel unit equal to the visual indicator assigned to one of the pixels that
represent a corresponding data record (Ans. 70; FF 5).
Therefore, we find that the Examiner has established the prima facie
obviousness of the claims, because Keim discloses assigning a visual
indicator to “at least one padding pixel unit is equal to the visual indicator
assigned to one of the pixel units that represent a corresponding data
record.” As a result, we will sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of
representative claim 10 and that of independent claims 17 and 32 and
dependent claims 11-16, 18-26, and 33-35.

Rejection of claims 27-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
We select claim 27 as representative of this group of claims, pursuant
to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Representative claim 27 recites “assigning, by the one or more
processing elements, a visual indicator to each of the pixel units according to
an aggregate of the data records associated with the corresponding pixel
unit.”
We do not consider Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive to show
Examiner error. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Keim discloses
utilizing the ordering attributes to place the data records in a particular bar of
the pixel bar chart such that the data records are placed to correspond to a
subgroup of pixels having the same visual indicator (color) (Ans. 71; FF 5)
Specifically, Keim illustrates in Figures 12a and 13b that for a subgroup of
pixels, pixels are assigned having the same color within a bar. Keim
discloses assigning a color to each subgroup of pixels in a particular bar and
15
Appeal 2009-006795
Application 10/941,114

that each subgroup of pixels represents an aggregate of the data records in
the particular bar (FF 5).
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Keim discloses
that a color is assigned to each subgroup of pixels according to an aggregate
of the data records associated with the corresponding pixel unit (Ans. 71-
72). Specifically, as illustrated in Figure 12a, a multi-pixel bar chart of
405,000 multi-attribute web sales transactions is divided into a plurality of
bars using dividing attribute Dx (FF 5). The ordering attributes are the
number of visits and dollar amount, Ox and Oy (FF 5). The colors C in the
different bar charts represent the attributes dollar amount, number of visits,
and quantity (FF 5). Thus, we find that Keim discloses that a color is
assigned to each subgroup of pixels according to an aggregate of the data
records associated with the corresponding pixel unit.
We therefore find that the Examiner has established the prima facie
obviousness of the claims. As a result, we will sustain the Examiner’s § 103
rejection of representative claim 27 and that dependent claims 28-31.

CONCLUSIONS
1. There is adequate support in the Specification for the claim
limitation: “adding, by the one or more processing elements, at least one
padding pixel unit to a row of the particular bar”.
2. There is inadequate support in the Specification for the claim
limitation: “determining by the one or more processing elements, the width
of the particular bar to result in a reduction of a number of padding pixel
units in the particular bar.”
16
Appeal 2009-006795
Application 10/941,114

3. There is antecedent basis in claim 17 for “the pixel unit corresponds
to multiple data records” recited in claim 24.
4. Enabling support is found in claim 40 for both claim limitations:
“one or more processing elements to set a width of the bar as a function of a
number of padding pixel units that are included in the pixel bar chart” and
“wherein the padding pixel units are provided to fill incomplete portions of
the bar.”
5. Keim discloses “determining, by the one or more processing
elements, the width of the particular bar to result in a reduction of a number
of padding pixel units in the particular bar.”
6. Keim discloses “assigning, by the one or more processing elements,
a visual indicator for display by the at least one padding pixel unit, wherein
the visual indicator assigned to the at least one padding pixel unit is equal to
the visual indicator assigned to one of the pixel units that represent a
corresponding data record.”
7. Keim discloses “assigning, by the one or more processing elements,
a visual indicator to each of the pixel units according to an aggregate of the
data records associated with the corresponding pixel unit.”

ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 7-9, 17-26, 36, and 45 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is reversed. The Examiner’s rejection of
claims 24, 40, 42, 43, and 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is
reversed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 7-36, 40, and 42-45 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
17
Appeal 2009-006795
Application 10/941,114

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

ELD

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION
3404 E. HARMONY ROAD
MAIL STOP 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528

18