Ex Parte Kang et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 5, 2012

11188776 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 5, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte HYUN-JOO KANG, SUNG-WOO KIM, JOO-KYUNG WOO,
JOON-HO OK, and JUNG-BONG LEE

___________

Appeal 2009-012982
Application 11/188,776
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, ERIC B. CHEN, and BRUCE R. WINSOR,
Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-012982
Application 11/188,776

2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-30, all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to a three-dimensional motion graphic
user interface that includes a first polyhedron component which exists in a
first space, and a second polyhedron component which exists in a second
space. The first polyhedron component includes identification information
that identifies the second polyhedron component. If an information object
selected by a user is located inside the first polyhedron component, the
information object is moved inside the second polyhedron component using
the identification information. (Abstract.)
Claims 1 and 28 are exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A computer program product for enabling a computer to
implement a graphic user interface, the computer program product
comprising:
software instructions for enabling the computer to implement
the graphic user interface; and
a computer-readable medium bearing the software instructions;
the graphic user interface comprising:
a first polyhedron component which exists in a first
space; and
a second polyhedron component which exists in a second
space,
wherein the first polyhedron component includes
identification information that identifies the second polyhedron
component, and
if an information object selected by a user is located
inside the first polyhedron component, the information object is
Appeal 2009-012982
Application 11/188,776

3
moved inside the second polyhedron component using the
identification information.
28. A computer program product for enabling a computer to
implement a graphic user interface, the computer program product
comprising:
software instructions for enabling the computer to implement
the graphic user interface; and
a computer-readable medium bearing the software instructions;
the graphic user interface comprising:
a polyhedron component in which event activation
information is set; and
an information object in which an event is generated,
wherein the event is generated according to the event
activation information if the information object is located inside
the polyhedron component.
Claims 1-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Iwamura (U.S. Patent No. 5,602,564, Feb. 11, 1997) and Takeda (U.S.
Patent No. 5,301,268, Apr. 5, 1994).
Claims 28-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Takeda and Iwamura.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-27
Claim limitation – “polyhedron component”
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 16-17; see
also Reply Br. 4) that the combination of Iwamura and Takeda would not
have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the disputed
limitation “polyhedron component.”
The Examiner found that the 3D window 1702 of Iwamura
corresponds to the claimed “first polyhedron component” and that the 3D
Appeal 2009-012982
Application 11/188,776

4
window 1703 of Iwamura corresponds to the claimed “second polyhedron
component.” (Ans. 3; Iwamura, col. 17, ll. 61-63.) We agree with the
Examiner.
Iwamura relates to a graphic data processing system including “a
planar map [that] is displayed, and as the visual point shifts in a horizontal
direction, a three-dimensional scene image is generated and displayed from a
map.” (Abstract.) Figure 17 of Iwamura illustrates an application of a
building management system (col. 5, ll. 15-17) that includes a 3D
window 1702 (i.e., the claimed “first polyhedron component”) and a 3D
window 1703 (i.e., the claimed “second polyhedron component”) (col. 17,
ll. 61-63) both with “a three-dimensional parallelepiped” geometry (col. 3,
ll. 61-64). In other words, Iwamura teaches or suggests a “polyhedron
component,” as recited in claim 1.
Appellants argue that “[t]he 3D window disclosed by Iwamura is not a
component or otherwise part of any polyhedron.” (App. Br. 17.) In
particular, Appellants argue that “the 3D window according to Iwamura is a
2D screen projection of 3D graphic data displayed inside the 3D window”
and thus, “the 3D window according to Iwamura is not a polyhedron
component but rather a 2D screen projection.” (Reply Br. 4.) However,
under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
Specification, we agree with the Examiner that Iwamura teaches a
“polyhedron component.” The Specification explains that “[a] polyhedron is
a three-dimensional figure having at least four faces” (Spec. ¶ [48]) and that
such polyhedrons are displayed on a “digital device . . . examples of which
may include a computer, . . . personal digital assistant (PDA), a mobile
phone, . . . a digital projector, . . . a digital TV broadcast receiver, [or] a
Appeal 2009-012982
Application 11/188,776

5
digital satellite broadcast receiver . . . (Spec. ¶ [56]). In other words,
according to the Specification, a “polyhedron” is interpreted as a two-
dimensional representation (e.g., as displayed on a digital device) of “a
three-dimensional figure having at least four faces.”
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Iwamura and Takeda would have rendered obvious independent claim 1,
which includes the disputed limitation “polyhedron component.”
Claim limitation – “wherein the first polyhedron component includes
identification information that identifies the second polyhedron component”
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 18-19; see
also Reply Br. 5-6) that the combination of Iwamura and Takeda would not
have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the disputed
limitation “wherein the first polyhedron component includes identification
information that identifies the second polyhedron component.”
The Examiner found that the 3D window 1702 and the 3D window
management table illustrated in Figure 26 of Iwamura collectively
correspond to the disputed limitation. (Ans. 3; Iwamura, fig. 26.) We agree
with the Examiner.
Figure 26 of Iwamura illustrates a 3D window management table
(col. 17, ll. 22-24) that includes a window number 2601 and window
superposition information 2606. “There is the possibility that when a 3D
window is generated, it overlaps with other 3D window[s]” and “any
interference between the 3D windows is checked by comparing the display
coordinates of the window relative to the reference scene coordinate system
Z1.” (Col. 17, ll. 26-31.) In other words, because Iwamura teaches that two
overlapping 3D windows will be displayed with window superposition
Appeal 2009-012982
Application 11/188,776

6
information 2606, Iwamura teaches or suggests “wherein the first
polyhedron component includes identification information that identifies the
second polyhedron component,” as recited in claim 1.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Iwamura and Takeda would have rendered obvious independent claim 1,
which includes the disputed limitation “wherein the first polyhedron
component includes identification information that identifies the second
polyhedron component.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 2-9 depend from independent claim 1 and
Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments with respect to
these claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2-9 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent
claim 1.
Independent claims 10, 18 and 27 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellants have not
presented any substantive arguments with respect to these claims. We
sustain the rejection of claims 10, 18 and 27, as well as claims 11-17 and 19-
26, which depend from claims 10 and 18, for the same reasons discussed
with respect to claim 1.
Claims 28-30
Claim limitation – “in which event activation information is set”
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 19-20; see
also Reply Br. 6-7) that the combination of Iwamura and Takeda would not
have rendered obvious independent claim 28, which includes the disputed
limitation “in which event activation information is set.”
Appeal 2009-012982
Application 11/188,776

7
The Examiner found that the demand for the transfer of data (e.g., the
word “TEXT”) of Takeda corresponds to a first window 41 “in which event
activation information is set.” (Ans. 8, 13; Takeda, col. 7, ll. 24-27.) We
agree with the Examiner.
Takeda relates to an information transferring system for “exchanges
of data between two or more windows respectively operating on different
window systems.” (Abstract.) Figure 5 of Takeda illustrates an example in
which “a demand has been made for the transfer of data.” (Col. 7, ll. 21-23.)
A display screen 11 includes a window 41 of a first window system and a
window 42 of a second window system. (Col. 7, ll. 24-26; fig. 5.) “The first
window 41 shows a message ‘This TEXT is being transferred to the second
window . . .’.” (Col. 7, ll. 26-27.) In other words, Takeda teaches that
“TEXT” is being transferred from the first window 41 and thus, the demand
for the transfer of text is positioned and therefore, “set” in the first
window 41.
Appellants argue that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would
understand that selecting a command is not the same as setting information”
and “[n]o setting is performed simply by selecting the copy command.”
(App. Br. 20; see also Reply Br. 6-7.) However, the claim language “in
which event activation information is set” is broad enough to encompass
selecting a demand for the transfer of data.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Iwamura and Takeda would have rendered obvious independent claim 28,
which includes the disputed limitation “in which event activation
information is set.”
Appeal 2009-012982
Application 11/188,776

8
Claim limitation – “the event is generated according to the event activation
information”
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 20-21) that
the combination of Iwamura and Takeda would not have rendered obvious
independent claim 28, which includes the disputed limitation “the event is
generated according to the event activation information.”
The Examiner found that the demand for the transfer of data (e.g., the
word “TEXT”) from a first window 41 to a second window 42 in Takeda
corresponds to the claimed “event activation information” (Ans. 8; Takeda,
col. 7, ll. 21-23) and that the data (e.g., the word “TEXT”) corresponds to
the claimed “information object” (Ans. 8; Takeda, col. 7, ll. 24-28). We
agree with the Examiner.
As discussed previously, Figure 5 of Takeda illustrates an example in
which “a demand has been made for the transfer of data” (i.e., the claimed
“event activation information”). (Col. 7, ll. 21-23.) Also discussed
previously, the display screen 11 includes the window 41 of the first window
system and the window 42 of the second window system such that “[t]he
first window 41 shows a message ‘This TEXT is being transferred to the
second window . . .’.” (i.e., the claimed “information object”). (Col. 7,
ll. 24-28; fig. 5.)
Appellants argue that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would
understand that copying a word to the clipboard is not the same as
generating an event according to the event activation information.” (App.
Br. 19.) However, the Examiner found that the demand for the transfer of
data corresponds to the claimed “event activation information” (Ans. 8),
rather than only the step of copying “TEXT.”
Appeal 2009-012982
Application 11/188,776

9
Appellants also argue that “[e]ven assuming, arguendo, that a word is
an information object . . . an event is not generated in the word.” (App.
Br. 20.) In addition to finding that data (e.g., the word “TEXT”)
corresponds to the claimed “information object,” the Examiner found that
the demand for the transfer of data from the first window 41 to the second
window 42 corresponds to the claimed “event activation information.”
(Ans. 8.) Thus, the demand for transfer (i.e., the claimed “event activation
information”) is performed using the word “TEXT” (i.e., the claimed
“information object”).
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Iwamura and Takeda would have rendered obvious independent claim 28,
which includes the disputed limitation “the event is generated according to
the event activation information.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 28 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Independent claims 29 and 30 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 28, and Appellants have not
presented any substantive arguments with respect to these claims. We
sustain the rejection of claims 29 and 30 for the same reasons discussed with
respect to claim 28.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-30 is affirmed.
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).

Appeal 2009-012982
Application 11/188,776

10
AFFIRMED

ke