11136648 (B.P.A.I. May. 29, 2012)

Ex Parte Kimoto et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMay 29, 2012

11136648 (B.P.A.I. May. 29, 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. 11/136,648 05/24/2005 Hiroyuki Kimoto JP920040084US1 5500 71474 7590 05/29/2012 Steven E. Bach Attorney at Law 10 Roberts Road Newtown Square, PA 19073 EXAMINER MA, TIZE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2628 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/29/2012 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 HIROYUKI KIMOTO, TAKAMASA KOIKE, and NOBUTAKA HONMA __________ Appeal 2009-014925 Application 11/136,648 Technology Center 2600 __________ Before JAMESON LEE, SCOTT R. BOALICK, and STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges. SIU, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The disclosed invention relates generally to multi-window displays (see, e.g., Spec. 1). Claim 1 reads as follows: 1. A system for displaying a plurality of windows having different resolutions on a single display screen using a drawing Appeal 2009-014925 Application 11/136,648 2 facility for drawing a window specified by a drawing command from an application program with a resolution selected from a plurality of resolutions, the system comprising: registration means for registering windows to be displayed in a list; and drawing control means for determining a resolution of a window to be drawn by accessing the list in response to the drawing command from the application program, and instructing the drawing facility to draw the window with the determined resolution. The Examiner rejects claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,650,323 B2 (“Naegle”). ISSUE Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-18? PRINCIPLE OF LAW In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). ANALYSIS Claim 1 recites determining a resolution of a window to be drawn. Appellants argue that while Naegle discloses “a window ID to specify the number of samples per pixel,” Naegle does not disclose “determining a resolution of a window to be drawn” (App. Br. 12). Appellants also argue Appeal 2009-014925 Application 11/136,648 3 that “[t]he Examiner appears to conclude in error that sampling rate is the same as a resolution” (id.). As the Examiner points out (Ans. 8-10), Naegle discloses “different windows . . . to be displayed using different sample modes” (col. 5, ll. 47- 49) and that “a greater number of samples . . . [produces] greater resolution . . . [while] a lesser number of samples . . . [produces] lesser resolution” (col. 30, ll. 38-42). In other words, Naegle discloses displaying windows at different sample modes with corresponding differences in resolution. By determining a sample mode of a window in Naegle, the resolution of the window is also determined. Appellants have not adequately demonstrated a difference between the determination of a resolution of Naegle and the determination of a resolution as recited in claim 1. Claims 6, 7, 12, 13, and 18 recite similar features. With regard to the issue discussed above, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 6, 7, 12, 13, and 18 or of dependent claims 2-5, 8-11, and 14-17. Claim 11 recites that drawing data are converted into drawing data with which the window is drawn with the determined resolution. Appellants argue that Naegle discloses “changing a sampling mode” but fails to disclose “converting drawing data into drawing data with which the window is drawn with the determined resolution” (App. Br. 14). Appeal 2009-014925 Application 11/136,648 4 We agree with the Examiner that Naegle discloses switching between a default sampling mode to a different sampling mode1 (Ans. 13). We also agree with the Examiner that switching from drawing a window at one sampling mode or resolution to another would require a conversion of instructions that are accomplishing such a task since without such a “conversion,” the window would not be able to be drawn at the other (desired) sampling mode or resolution. In other words, if the instructions in Naegle were not converted, the default sampling mode (or resolution) would continue to be used and a window drawn at an undesired sampling mode or resolution would result. We therefore agree with the Examiner that Naegle discloses “converting” data to change the sampling mode or resolution. Claims 5 and 17 recite similar features. The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 5, 11, or 17. Claim 2 recites that the list contains only information of each window having a first resolution among all the windows to be displayed. The Examiner finds that Naegle discloses this feature because, according to the Examiner, Naegle “is silent about windows not being listed” (Ans. 11). Naegle discloses “a window ID associated with each window” (col. 5, ll. 53-54) associated with a sample mode and a table that “may maintain other information about each window such as filter mode, color attributes, and source attributes” (col. 5, l. 66 – col. 6, l. 1). Hence, Naegle discloses a 1 “The default mode is used for the whole display unless another sample Appeal 2009-014925 Application 11/136,648 5 table containing window IDs corresponding to information on the sample mode or resolution of different windows. The Examiner has not indicated that Naegle also discloses that the window IDs are only information of each window having a first resolution, as recited in claim 2. Rather, Naegle appears to disclose that windows that have different resolutions (or sample modes) are represented in the list. We also disagree with the Examiner that Naegle is “silent about windows not being listed” (Ans. 11). Instead, Naegle discloses that “the window ID information for each window may be associated with each sample, each bin, or each pixel depending on the desired granularity” (col. 5, ll. 57-59) indicating that in Naegle, windows of different resolutions (or sample mode) are included in the list rather than “only” information of each window having a first resolution, as recited in claim 2. Claims 8 and 14 recite similar features. For the above reasons, the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2, 8, and 14. CONCLUSION We conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 3-7, 9-13, and 15-18 but the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2, 8, and 14. mode is specified for a particular window” (Naegle, col. 6, ll. 17-19). Appeal 2009-014925 Application 11/136,648 6 DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 9-13, and 15-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) but reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 8, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). 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-IN-PART