Ex Parte Lau et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 29, 2018

13229695 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/229,695 09/10/2011 Bonny P. Lau
141746 7590 07/03/2018
ARENT FOX LLP& Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC
1717 K Street, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20006-5344
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
037834.00197/333756-US-NP 8010
EXAMINER
CHEN,YAHAO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2177
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07 /03/2018 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
patentdocket@arentfox.com
USDocket@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BONNY P. LAU, SONG ZOU, WEI ZHANG,
JASON D. BEAUMONT, and BRIAND. BECK
Appeal 2018-001364
Application 13/229,695 1
Technology Center 2100
Before: BRUCE R. WINSOR, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--9, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 18-25. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants' Brief ("App. Br.") identifies Microsoft Technology Licensing
LLC as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-001364
Application 13/229,695
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to "provid[ing] a library of animation
descriptions based upon various common user interface scenarios." Spec.,
Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method comprising:
receiving a user interaction associated with an application
user interface on a device, the device belonging to one class of
multiple classes of devices;
ascertaining, responsive to receiving the user interaction,
one or more affected targets;
calling an animation library to request transformation
information associated with a scenario associated with the user
interaction and pertaining to the one or more affected targets;
after calling the animation library to request the
transformation information, calling the animation library to
request an animation definition for the scenario, the animation
library configured to tailor the animation definition to the one
class of devices, the animation library being platform-agnostic to
provide a level of abstraction from rendering and composition
for the multiple classes of the devices;
receiving, from the animation library, the animation
definition for the scenario, the scenario being tailored to the one
class of devices; and
building, using the animation definition, a storyboard
configured to implement an animation associated with the
scenario on the device.
App. Br. 28 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Butler US 2003/0167334 Al Sept. 4, 2003
2
Appeal 2018-001364
Application 13/229,695
Glein
Asai
Anzures
Kwiatkowski
French
US 2006/0232589 Al Oct. 19, 2006
US 2007/0153005 Al July 5, 2007
US 2009/0007017 Al Jan. 1, 2009
US 2011/0096076 Al Apr. 28, 2011
US 2011/0167403 Al July 7, 2011
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4--9, 15, 16, and 18-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Glein, Butler, Asai, French, and
Kwiatkowski. Final Act. 2-17.
Claims 2, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §-103(a) as being
unpatentable over Glein, Butler, Asai, French, Kwiatkowski, and Anzures.
Final Act. 17-18.
ISSUES
First Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Glein and Kwiatkowski
teach or suggest "calling an animation library to request transformation
information ... " and "after calling the animation library to request
transformation information, calling the animation library to request an
animation definition," as recited in claim 1?
Second Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Glein and Butler
teach or suggest "individual respective user interface scenarios tailored to
multiple classes of devices," as recited in claim 7?
Third Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Glein and Butler teach
or suggest "an animation definition associated with a user interface scenario
associated with an application user interface of a device belonging to a
generic class of devices," and "the animation definition being configured to
3
Appeal 2018-001364
Application 13/229,695
enable the application to build a storyboard and implement an associated
animation for the generic class of devices," as recited in claim 16?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments set forth in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief. Appellants
present arguments for each of independent claims 1, 7, and 16. We are not
persuaded by Appellants' arguments. We adopt as our own (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken (Final Act. 3-18) and (2) the findings, reasons, and explanations set
forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants'
Brief (Ans. 20-25) and concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis.
First Issue-Claim 1
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds the disputed limitations are
rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Glein and Kwiatkowski.
Final Act. 3-5. More specifically the Examiner finds Glein teaches the use
of "transformation information associated with a scenario associated with
the user interaction and pertaining to one or more affected targets." Final
Act. 4 (citing Glein i-fi-15, 6, 23, 24, 70-77). The Examiner also finds Glein
teaches the use of "an animation definition for the scenario." Id. (citing
Glein i155). The Examiner finds that Glein does not explicitly teach making
calls to an animation library to request the transformation information and
animation definition. Id. The Examiner finds, however, that Kwiatkowski
teaches the use of library calls to animation libraries to obtain animation
information. Id. (citing Kwiatkowski i-fi-121 and 25-27; Figs. 1, 2). The
4
Appeal 2018-001364
Application 13/229,695
Examiner finds a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined
these pertinent teachings in order to "simplify the process of developing GUI
for software application with robust user experience" as taught by
Kwiatkowski, and that it would have been obvious to have "encapsulated the
system of Glein into a library which allows client applications to call the
animation system via API in the way taught by Kwiatkowski." Id.
Appellants contend Kwiatkowski is deficient in various ways. First,
Appellants argue the claims require a specific order for calls made to the
animation library-first to request transformation information and then to
request an animation definition. App. Br. 16. Appellants contend
Kwiatkowski does not teach the first call (requesting transformation
information) because it receives a storyboard at the outset, while the claim
recites building a storyboard from the calls made to the animation library.
Id. Appellants also argue Kwiatkowski does not teach the second recited
call to the animation library because Kwiatkowski "is silent regarding a
'definition' and 'animation definition,"' and merely "describes 'sequentially
interpolat[ing] values of animation variables." App. Br. 17. According to
Appellants, the Examiner has not demonstrate how these interpolated values
correspond to the recited "animation definitions." Id. Lastly, Appellants
argue the combination of Glein and Kwiatkowski in improper and relies on
impermissible hindsight. App. Br. 17-18.
We are not persuaded by Appellants arguments for the reasons
explained in the Examiner's Answer. 2 Ans. 20-23. In particular, we first
note Appellants focus their arguments only on K wiatoswki, while the
2 Appellants do not persuasively rebut the explanations and elaborated
reasoning provided in the Answer.
5
Appeal 2018-001364
Application 13/229,695
Examiner's rejection is based on the combined teachings of Glein and
Kwiatkowski. Ans. 20 ("The rejection for these claim elements are made in
view of the combination of Glein and Kwiatkowski"). By directing their
arguments to only the teachings of Kwiatkowski, Appellants do not address
the rejection actually made by the Examiner. As the Examiner explains,
Glein teaches the disputed limitations except that it is "silent on whether the
animation system is separated from the application or not." Ans. 21. Thus,
the Examiner relies on Kwiatkowski primarily for demonstrating that it was
known in the art to use application calls to an animation library, while Glein
provides the relevant teachings regarding the details of those calls.
Appellants' arguments do not persuasively show error in the Examiner's
findings.
We also are not persuaded the Examiner erred in combining Glein and
K wiatoski. The Examiner notes "Kwiatkowski expressed the advantages of
reducing the burden for developing user interface with animations ([0001])
and enhancing application performance by delegating animation
management to an animation application program interface ([0016])." Ans.
23. We agree with the Examiner that, based on these advantages, "one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated ... to combine the
teachings of Glein with the teachings of Kwiatkowski, especially [because]
Glein and Kwiatkowski are in the exact same field of endeavor." Ans. 23.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner has erred in rejecting
claim 1, and we sustain its rejection.
Second Issue-Claim 7
In rejecting claim 7, the Examiner finds the disputed limitation of
"individual animation definition being associated with individual respective
6
Appeal 2018-001364
Application 13/229,695
user interface scenarios are 'tailored to multiple classes of devices"' taught
by the combination of Glein and Butler. Final Act. 8-9. More specifically,
the Examiner finds Glein teaches the use of "individual animation
definitions being associated with individual respective user interface
scenarios" but does not expressly teach those scenarios are "tailored to
multiple classes of devices." Final Act. 9. The Examiner finds "Butler
teaches a concept of using different stylesheets to transform the content into
an appropriate form for different client device classes, where client devices
are classified according to their technical attributes." Id. (citing Butler i-fi-17,
8, 11, 12, 21, 25, and 26). The Examiner finds the problem of rendering
content properly across different client devices was known (citing Butler i-fi-1
5-7) and consequently, it would have been obvious to have applied Butler's
classification concept to the animation system taught by Glein. Id.
Appellants argue Butler is directed to classifying client devices to
enable content to be modified for display on those devices by using
stylesheets. App. Br. 19. Appellants further argue "[ c ]lassifying for
purposes of transforming content, when added to the animation library
concept, does not teach that 'individual ... user interface scenarios' are
'tailored to multiple classes of devices,"' as claim 7 recites. App. Br. 20.
Appellants further argue the combination of Glein and Butler is improper
and relies on impermissible hindsight. Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments, and we find the
Examiner's explanation (Ans. 23-24) 3 to be reasonable, persuasive, and
unrebutted. Therein, the Examiner explains that Glein teaches an animation
3 Appellants filed no Reply Brief responding to the Examiner's additional
explanation.
7
Appeal 2018-001364
Application 13/229,695
system broadly applying to a generic computing system. Ans. 23-24. Butler
teaches the problem of cross-device consistency was known, and that it
could be addressed by using device classifications to govern the display of
content. Ans. 24 (citing Butler i-fi-15, 7, 25; Fig. 4). Therefore, a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted by Butler's teachings to
modify Glein so that the animation definitions and scenarios are tailored for
the different (i.e., multiple) classes of devices. We also are not persuaded
the Examiner has erred in making the combination. The Examiner has
identified an explicit suggestion in Butler that would have prompted such a
combination:
One of ordinary skill in the art, while working on building
animation effects for a graphical user interface, might have faced
the same problem as identified by Butler, such that some
animation effects may not work well on some devices.
Ans. 24. Thus, the Examiner has articulated reasoning with rational
underpinnings sufficient to justify the legal conclusion of obviousness. See
In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("[R]ejections on
obviousness grounds ... must ... [include] some articulated reasoning with
some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness"),
cited with approval inKSR Int'! Co v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007). Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants arguments with
respect to claim 7, and we sustain its rejection.
Third Issue-Claim 16
In rejecting claim 16, the Examiner finds Glein teaches an animation
system which builds a storyboard and implements an associated animation
for use with different kinds of devices. Final Act. 12 (citing Glein i-fi-129, 48,
59, and 65). The Examiner further finds Glein does not specifically disclose
8
Appeal 2018-001364
Application 13/229,695
the disputed limitation "belonging to a generic class of devices." Id. The
Examiner finds it would have been obvious to apply Butler's use of
stylesheets and device classification to render content for a generic class of
devices. Id. The Examiner further explains that "the animation system of
Glein still broadly applies to all computing system in general, which can be
viewed that it applies to a generic class of computing system." Ans. 25.
Appellants argue the combination of Glein and Butler does not render
the limitation obvious because "[ c ]lassifying for purposes of transforming
content, when added to the animation library concept, does not teach that an
animation definition would be configured 'to build a storyboard and
implement an associated animation' for a generic device class." App. Br.
22. Appellants further argue Glein and Butler are improperly combined and
rely on impermissible hindsight. App. Br. 23.
We are not persuaded by Appellants arguments. As noted above, the
Examiner explained in the Answer that Glein's teaching that the animation
system can be implemented within various types of systems. See, e.g., Glein
i-fi-1 29, 48), which corresponds to a "generic device class." Appellants do not
address this finding in their brief. Moreover, we agree with the Examiner
that it would have been obvious to implement a generic "catch-all" class in
the context of Butler's device classification approach because it would be
useful for situations where an unclassified device is encountered. We also
are not persuaded that Glein and Butler are improperly combined for the
same reasons we discussed in connection with claim 7. Accordingly, we are
not persuaded of Examiner error with respect to claim 16, and we sustain its
rejection.
9
Appeal 2018-001364
Application 13/229,695
Summary
Appellants do not argue for separate patentability of any dependent
claim. Accordingly, the dependent claims each fall with their respective
independent claims.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--9, 12, 13, 15, 16,
and 18-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
10