Ex Parte Hauttecoeur et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 26, 2014

11547812 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte PHILIPPE HAUTTECOEUR and HERVE ROSTAN ____________ Appeal 2011-012411 Application 11/547,8121 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Application filed October 6, 2006 claiming benefit of PCT/FR05/00857 filed April 8, 2005. The real parties in interest are Philippe Hauttecoeur and Herve Rostan. Appeal 2011-012411 Application 11/547,812 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1-8 and 11-20. Claims 9 and 10 have been canceled. (Br. 4.)2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appellants’ Invention The invention at issue on appeal concerns systems and methods for displaying an image utilizing objects and associated descriptors. (Spec. 1:5- 19; 2:11-8:2; Abstract.) Representative Claim 1 Independent claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention: 1. A method of constructing an image suitable for being displayed on a display system from a plurality of objects, comprising: associating each object with one descriptor which contains advanced parameters describing the object, each descriptor being associated with one object; constructing the image line-by-line directly from the advanced parameters contained in the descriptor of each object during each video frame of the display system, by carrying out the following steps: - for each line of the display system, this line is constructed instantly, retrieving and storing, in real time, in at least one line buffer, all the pixels relating to the objects 2 We refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”) filed Oct. 6, 2006 and Appeal Brief (“Br.”) filed March 31, 2011. We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed May 16, 2011. Appeal 2011-012411 Application 11/547,812 3 intended to be displayed on said line; the retrieving step comprising following steps: - extracting variables from the descriptor during a preparation step, - taking into account a depth level for each object to hierarchize the order with which the objects will be processed, - independently identifying each object that must be present on this line according to the variables; - determining for each object thus identified a useful zone corresponding to the considered line; and - converting raw data from said useful zone into pixels compatible with the display format, - these pixels are sent to the display system according to a pixel sequence, such that the image is formed only on said display system; the line construction mechanism being line- and frame-synchronized with the display system; wherein when writing a pixel in a line buffer, as this pixel is intended to be displayed on a given position on a line of the display system, firstly the position of this pixel in the considered line is determined, and a blender is applied between this first pixel and a second pixel currently stored in the line buffer at said same given position, the blender being applied proportionally to the level of transparency of said first pixel so as to achieve complex transparency. Rejections on Appeal 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1-8, 11-14, 16, 17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,745,095, issued Apr. 28, 1998 (“Parchem”).3 3 The Appellants incorrectly list the ground of rejection as 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) instead of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). (Br. 10.) We find this typographical error to be harmless. Appeal 2011-012411 Application 11/547,812 4 2. The Examiner rejects claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Parchem and U.S. Patent No. 6,181,300 B1, issued Jan. 30, 2001 (“Poon”). 3. The Examiner rejects claims 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Parchem and U.S. Patent No. 6,608,630 B1, issued Aug. 19, 2003 (“MacInnis”). ISSUE Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellants’ contentions, and the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the pivotal issue before us follows: Does the Examiner err in finding that Parchem discloses “associating each object with one descriptor which contains advanced parameters describing the object, each descriptor being associated with one object” and “constructing the image line-by-line directly from the advanced parameters contained in the descriptor of each object during each video frame of the display system” within the meaning of Appellants’ claim 1 and the commensurate limitations of claim 17? FINDINGS OF FACT We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Answer and the Final Office Action mailed October 14, 2010, as our own, except as to those findings that we expressly overturn or set aside in the Analysis that follows. Appeal 2011-012411 Application 11/547,812 5 ANALYSIS Based on Appellants’ arguments (Br. 11-16), we select independent claim 1 as representative of Appellants’ arguments and groupings with respect to claims 1-8 and 11-20. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2004). We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Ans. 5-22), and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 22-28) in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner, and we provide the following for emphasis. The § 102 Rejection of Claims 1-8, 11-14, 16, 17, and 19 Appellants contend that Parchem do not disclose the disputed features of claim 1. (Br. 11-13.) Specifically, Appellants contend “the screen descriptor of Parchem does not concern one object but all segments of all objects to be displayed” (Br. 11), Parchem’s “Span Descriptor 112 concerns not just a single object, but multiple objects” (Br. 12), the claim requires “[e]ach object [to be] independent from the screen” and “[i]n Parchem, the on-the-fly construction is made from descriptors in which all objects are already partitioned according to the screen” (Br. 12), and “[t]he present claim 1 requires that one object be defined in one descriptor. The line-by- line construction is made in real time during the video frame” (Br. 12) and “[t]he ‘on-the-fly-construction’ . . . is made directly from each descriptor which contains one object” (Br. 13). We initially note that the “descriptor” argued by Appellants fails to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art either structurally or functionally. Specifically, the recited feature argued by Appellants - Appeal 2011-012411 Application 11/547,812 6 “associating each object with one descriptor which contains advanced parameters describing the object” (claim 1) - essentially consists of non- functional descriptive material - i.e., data. Appellants do not affirmatively recite how the descriptor is associated with the object, or how the image is constructed from the descriptor. Rather, Appellants seemingly attempt to distinguish the claim based on the data itself (“the screen descriptor of Parchem does not concern one object but all segments of all objects to be displayed” (supra)). However, the content of the descriptor (data) does not change the functionality of the claimed process (method). The recited functionality of the claim elements - “associating” each object with one descriptor (with data) and constructing the image directly from the advanced parameters contained in the descriptor (the data) - remain the same regardless of what the data constitutes, how the data may be named, or the relationship among the data and do not further limit the claimed invention either functionally or structurally. The informational content of the data thus represents non-functional descriptive material, which “does not lend patentability to an otherwise unpatentable computer-implemented product or process.” Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1889 (BPAI 2008) (precedential). See Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272, 1274 (BPAI 2005) (informative) (Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 2006-1003), aff’d, (Rule 36) (June 12, 2006) (“wellness-related” data in databases and communicated on distributed network did not functionally change either the data storage system or the communication system used in the claimed method). See also In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. Appeal 2011-012411 Application 11/547,812 7 2004); Nehls, 88 USPQ2d at 1887-90 (discussing non-functional descriptive material). Even if we arguendo ascribe some patentable weight to the descriptor in these limitations, Appellants argue features not recited in the claim. Nothing in the claim requires that each object be associated with only a single descriptor (or that no overlap occurs between objects). Further, as pointed out by the Examiner (Ans. 23-25), it appears that Appellants misconstrue Parchem. Parchem describes a “Span Descriptor” that contains parameters describing an associated object, and also describes “on-the fly” image construction, i.e., “constructing the image line-by-line directly from the advanced parameters contained in the descriptor” (claim 1). (Ans. 5, 23-25 (citing Parchem, col. 6, ll. 30-39; col. 7, ll. 37-41; col. 8, ll. 22-58; Fig. 5).) Further, Appellants failed to file a Reply Brief rebutting the findings and responsive arguments made by the Examiner in the Answer. Thus, for all the reasons supra, Appellants do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of representative independent claim 1. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of representative claim 1, independent claim 17 containing limitations of commensurate scope, and dependent claims 2-8, 11-14, 16, and 19 (dependent on claims 1 and 17, respectively) not separately argued with particularity (Br. 13-15). The § 103 Rejection of Claims 15, 18, and 20 With respect to claim 15 rejected over the combination of Parchem and Poon (Ans. 18-19) and claims 18 and 20 rejected over the combination Appeal 2011-012411 Application 11/547,812 8 of Parchem and MacInnis (Ans. 19-22), Appellants do not separately argue either rejection, or claims 15, 18, and 20 with particularity (Br. 15-16). Instead, Appellants merely state that the claims are allowable as being dependent on an allowable base claim (see discussion of claim 1, supra). (Br. 15-16.) Therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 15, 18, and 20 for the same reasons as claim 1 (supra). CONCLUSIONS Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-8, 11-14, 16, 17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 15, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-8 and 11-20. 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 rwk