Ex Parte Helie et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 25, 2012

11107433 (B.P.A.I. May. 25, 2012)

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.
11/107,433 04/15/2005 Martin Helie G&C 30566.355-US-01 5732
55895 7590 05/25/2012
GATES & COOPER LLP - Autodesk
HOWARD HUGHES CENTER
6701 CENTER DRIVE WEST, SUITE 1050
LOS ANGELES, CA 90045
EXAMINER
PAN, YONGJIA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2171
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/25/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MARTIN HELIE and ALAIN COMPAGNAT
____________

Appeal 2009-011964
Application 11/107,4331
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
CAROLYN D. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is Autodesk, Inc.
Appeal 2009-011964
Application 11/107,433

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1-33, which are all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The present invention relates to a method, apparatus, and article of
manufacture for conducting clip operations as part of a group. See (Spec.,
1: ¶ [0001].)
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A computer-implemented method for displaying
information in a procedural renderer comprising:

(a) displaying, in a procedural renderer of an audio/video
processing application, on a display device, a schematic view of
a flow of clip image data, wherein a node in the schematic view
represents an operator performed on a particular layer of the
clip image data;

(b) selecting two or more nodes;

(c) grouping the two or more selected nodes into a group;
and

(d) altering the schematic view displayed in the
procedural renderer on the display device to reflect the
grouping of the selected nodes.

Appellants appeal the following rejection:

Claims 1-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ichikawa,
et al., “Visual Programming - Toward Realization of User-Friendly
Programming Environments”, 1987, EEE Computer Society Press,
Proceedings of the 1987 Fall Joint Computer Conference on Exploring
Appeal 2009-011964
Application 11/107,433

3
technology: today and tomorrow, Pages 129-137. (HI-VISUAL) and
Klingler (US 5,404,316, Apr. 4, 1995).
Appellants’ arguments in the Brief with respect to the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection presents us with at least the issue: Did the Examiner
err in finding that the combined teachings of HI-VISUAL and Klingler teach
and/or suggest a procedural renderer, as claimed?
We find that, on this record, the preponderance of the evidence
supports the Examiner’s conclusion that the subject matter of each
representative claim is unpatentable over the combination of HI-VISUAL
and Klingler. We refer to, rely on, and adopt the Examiner's findings and
conclusions set forth in the Answer. Our discussions here will be limited to
the following points of emphasis.
Appellants’ Specification defines a “procedural renderer” as “an
application that provides the ability to edit operators in a schematic view.”
(See Spec., 6: ¶ [0022].) Similarly, HI-VISUAL discloses an iconic concept
that includes both an icon image and the functional description associated
with it, such as a program code and a data value. (See HI-VISUAL,
131:3.1.) In addition, HI-VISUAL discloses a sequence of combinations of
a “function icon” which describes an image processing routine. (See HI-
VISUAL, 132:4.1; see also Fig. 4.) In other words, HI-VISUAL illustrates
that objects, algorithms, and data structures are visualized and edited by
means of an icon, a data flow graph, and a spatial placement of icons. (See
HI-VISUAL, 132:4.1; see also Fig. 4.) In addition, Klingler discloses “a
data flow architecture which enables the system to capture and reproduce all
operations (or steps) in the creation of a movie.” (See Klingler, col. 4, ll. 59-
62.)
Appeal 2009-011964
Application 11/107,433

4
As such, we find that the combined teachings of HI-VISUAL and
Klingler teach and/or suggest a “procedural renderer” that is consistent with
Appellants’ definition of the same, as the combined teachings illustrate the
ability to edit operators in a schematic fashion.
In addition, we emphasize that “[a]s long as some motivation or
suggestion to combine the references is provided by the prior art taken as a
whole, the law does not require that the references be combined for the
reasons contemplated by the inventor.” In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312
(citations omitted).
Here, the Examiner has found actual teachings in the prior art and has
provided a rationale for the combination. (See Ans. 5.) The teachings
suggest that the combination involves the predictable use of prior art
elements according to their established functions. Accordingly, we find that
the Examiner has provided sufficient motivation for modifying HI-VISUAL
with the teachings of Klingler.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-33 for
the reason set forth in the Answer, which we incorporate herein by
reference.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

Vsh