Ex Parte Linder et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 17, 2013

10103123 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 17, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/103,123 03/22/2002 James Darrow Linder 2002P57006 US 4479
45113 7590 04/17/2013
Siemens Corporation
Intellectual Property Department
170 Wood Avenue South
Iselin, NJ 08830
EXAMINER
ALHIJA, SAIF A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2128
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/17/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JAMES DARROW LINDER and XUQIANG WU
____________

Appeal 2011-011861
Application 10/103,123
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and JAMES B. ARPIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This application returns to us after another panel of this Board1
affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of then-pending claims 1-44 in part. Ex
parte Linder, No. 2008-003899 (BPAI June 25, 2009). Prosecution was
reopened after that decision, and Appellants now appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a) from the Examiner’s subsequent rejection of claims 18-24 and 37-
42. Claims 1-17, 25-36, 43, and 44 have been cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).2 We affirm.

1 The panel for this appeal is the same as the earlier appeal except that Judge
Arpin replaces then-Judge Barrett.
2 An oral hearing scheduled for June 11, 2013 has been vacated. See Order
Vacating Scheduled Oral Hearing mailed Mar. 15, 2013.
Appeal 2011-011861
Application 10/103,123

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention describes products in an electronically-
accessible format by receiving descriptions of geometric and non-geometric
aspects of a product portion, as well as a product attribute display instance,
and storing this data in an electronically-accessible format. Product attribute
descriptions are displayed adjacent a product geometry display based on the
instance. See generally Spec. 1-4. Claim 18 is illustrative:
18. A method of describing products in an electronically-accessible
format, the method comprising:

receiving a product geometry description to describe the geometry of
a portion of a product;

receiving a product attribute description to describe a non-geometric
attribute of the portion of the product;

receiving a product attribute display instance to describe how the
product attribute description is to be displayed;

storing the product geometry description, the product attribute
description, and the product attribute display instance in an electronically-
accessible format; and

basing a display of the product attribute description adjacent a product
geometry display on the product attribute display instance.

Appeal 2011-011861
Application 10/103,123

3
THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 18-22 and 37-39 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Schwalb (US 6,256,595 B1; issued July 3,
2001) and Nagata (US 6,014,503; issued Jan. 11, 2000). Ans. 2-5.3
2. The Examiner rejected claims 23, 24, and 40-42 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Schwalb, Nagata, and Han (US 2002/0052807
A1; published May 2, 2002; filed June 26, 2001). Ans. 5-7.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER SCHWALB AND NAGATA
The Examiner finds that Schwalb discloses every recited element of
representative claim 18 including receiving a (1) “product geometry
description,” namely dimensional information in Figure 6, and (2) “product
attribute display instance” which is said to correspond to not only displaying
a textual description of an entity target to facilitate selection, but also a 2-D
model for a part that includes orthographic views. Ans. 3, 7. Despite
finding that Schwalb displays non-geometric attributes, such as bend lines
and part identifiers (Ans. 8), the Examiner nonetheless acknowledges that
Schwalb does not explicitly recite a “product attribute description” to
describe a non-geometric product portion attribute. Ans. 3. The Examiner,
however, cites Nagata as teaching this feature, namely (1) texture
information in Figure 18a, and (2) graphical part information in Figure 3.
Ans. 3, 7-8.

3 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed October
1, 2010 (“Fin. Rej.”); (2) the Appeal Brief filed February 22, 2011 (“App.
Br.”); (3) the Examiner’s Answer mailed May 11, 2011 (“Ans.”); and (4) the
Reply Brief filed July 7, 2011 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2011-011861
Application 10/103,123

4
The Examiner also finds that not only does Schwalb teach storing the
recited descriptions, but also teaches basing a display of the product attribute
description adjacent a product geometry display on the product attribute
display instance in Figure 7. Ans. 3, 8. Based on these collective teachings,
the Examiner concludes that claim 1 would have been obvious. Ans. 3, 7-8.
Appellants argue, among other things, that Schwalb does not teach or
suggest the recited product attribute display instance. App. Br. 16-22; Reply
Br. 15-19. According to Appellants, Schwalb’s bend line and dimensional
information are geometric attributes, and, therefore, Schwalb does not
describe how to display a product attribute description for non-geometric
product attributes, as claimed. App. Br. 16-22; Reply Br. 15-19. Appellants
add that Schwalb does not store the recited descriptions and instance. App.
Br. 22-24. Although Appellants acknowledge that Schwalb displays textual
descriptions in Figure 7, Schwalb does not describe how a product attribute
description is to be displayed, let alone base such a display adjacent a
product geometry display on a product attribute display instance as claimed.
App. Br. 19-25; Reply Br. 16-19. Appellants add that there is no reason to
combine Nagata with Schwalb as the Examiner proposes to solve a problem
already solved by Schwalb. App. Br. 26-27; Reply Br. 19-20. Appellants
also argue various other limitations summarized below.

ISSUES
I. Under § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Schwalb and
Nagata collectively would have taught or suggested:
(1) (a) receiving a (i) product geometry description to describe the
geometry of a product portion; (ii) product attribute description to describe a
Appeal 2011-011861
Application 10/103,123

5
non-geometric attribute of the portion; and (iii) product attribute display
instance to describe how the product attribute description is to be displayed;
(b) storing the descriptions and instance in an electronically-accessible
format; and (c) basing a display of the product attribute description adjacent
a product geometry display on the product attribute display instance, as
recited in claim 1?
(2) changing the product geometry display while maintaining the
display of the product attribute description, as recited in claim 19?
(3) receiving a second product attribute description to describe a
second non-geometric attribute of the product portion, and storing that
description in the electronically-accessible format, as recited in claim 20?
II. Is the Examiner’s combining the teachings of Schwalb and Nagata
supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion?

ANALYSIS
Claims 18 and 37
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 18. First,
we see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Schwalb’s receiving a
“product geometry description,” not only in the form of a part’s geometric
dimensions that are used to develop 2-D models, but also the dimensional
information in Figure 6. Ans. 7; Schwalb col. 1, ll. 35-52; Fig. 6.
Appellants’ arguments to the contrary (App. Br. 17-19; Reply Br. 13-14) are
unavailing and not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Nor are we persuaded of error in the Examiner’s reliance on Nagata
and Schwalb for teaching a product attribute description to describe a non-
Appeal 2011-011861
Application 10/103,123

6
geometric attribute of a product portion, as claimed. According to
Appellants’ Specification, a “product attribute description may describe a
finish, an assembly, a weld, a tolerance, a constituent material, a texture, or a
color of the portion of the product.” Spec. 3:9-11 (emphasis added). Accord
Spec. 1:8-12 (listing similar examples of non-geometric attribute
information). We emphasize “may” here, for while this description informs
our construction of the term “product attribute description,” this term is
hardly limited to these examples.
Given the breadth of this term, we see no error in the Examiner’s
reliance on Schwalb’s bend lines and part identifiers as teaching the recited
“product attribute description.” Ans. 8 (citing Schwalb, col. 1, l. 52; col. 20,
ll. 1-20). Even assuming, without deciding, that a bend line describes
geometric attributes as Appellants contend (Reply Br. 15-16), that does not
preclude a bend line from also describing non-geometric attributes as well,
such as information indicating the act of bending. Schwalb’s part identifiers
likewise describe non-geometric product attributes, as the Examiner
indicates. Ans. 8 (citing Schwalb col. 20, ll. 1-20). Although Nagata is
technically cumulative to Schwalb in this regard, we nonetheless see no
error in the Examiner’s reliance on Nagata for teaching the recited product
attribute description (Ans. 3, 7-8), for both figures describe non-geometric
product attributes, namely graphical legends for various constituent
materials in Figure 3 and texture information in Figure 18a. See also
Nagata, col. 6, ll. 14-28; col. 10, ll. 46-67.
Nor are we persuaded of error in the Examiner’s reliance on the
functionality in connection with Schwalb’s Figure 7 for teaching receiving a
product attribute display instance to describe how the product attribute
Appeal 2011-011861
Application 10/103,123

7
description is to be displayed. Ans. 3, 7 (citing Schwalb col. 8, ll. 33-50). In
this passage, Schwalb discusses a feature to aid in selecting a desired target
entity or dimension by displaying a “marker” (text description of the target)
as the user moves the cursor around the screen. Schwalb, col. 8, ll. 39-47;
Fig. 7. The clear import of this discussion is that these textual descriptions
are displayed based on the cursor’s position relative to particular targets.
Accord Ans. 3 (noting that “the text [of a target in Schwalb] is displayed
upon a cursor[’]s position related by the user on the screen”; bolding
omitted). Thus, Schwalb at least suggests (1) receiving some sort of product
attribute display instance to describe how to display these textual product
descriptions based on the user’s cursor movement relative to the targets, and
(2) displaying those descriptions adjacent a product geometry display based
on that instance.
Leaving aside the fact that these displayed target textual descriptions
in Schwalb’s Figure 7 themselves fully meet a “product attribute
description” given its breadth, we nonetheless see no reason why Schwalb’s
fundamental teaching of applying a received product attribute display
instance could not be used as a basis to display other non-geometric
descriptions adjacent a product display geometry, including those identified
by the Examiner in Nagata and Schwalb as corresponding to the recited
product attribute descriptions noted above. This enhancement predictably
uses prior art elements according to their established functions, and involves
a creative step well within the skill level of ordinarily skilled artisans. See
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417, 421 (2007) (“A person of
ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”).
Appellants’ arguments regarding the impropriety of combining Nagata with
Appeal 2011-011861
Application 10/103,123

8
Schwalb, as proposed, to solve a problem allegedly already solved by
Schwalb (App. Br. 26-27; Reply Br. 19-20) are, therefore, unavailing,
particularly given the limited purpose for which Nagata was cited. See Ans.
3, 7-8. Accordingly, the Examiner’s combining the teachings of Schwalb
and Nagata is supported by articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion.
Lastly, we are unconvinced of error in the Examiner’s reliance on
Schwalb for at least suggesting storing the recited descriptions and instance.
Ans. 3, 8 (citing Schwalb, col. 6, ll. 50-60; col. 19, ll. 45-50). Leaving aside
the fact that this data must be stored to be operated on,4 we nonetheless see
no error in the Examiner’s reliance on these teachings in connection with the
recited storing limitation.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 18, and claim 37 not separately argued with
particularity.

Clams 19 and 39
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 19
reciting changing the product geometry display while maintaining the
display of the product attribute description. Despite Appellants’ arguments
to the contrary (App. Br. 28-29; Reply Br. 22-25), Appellants do not
persuasively rebut the Examiner’s position that dimensional changes to a
product geometry display do not affect associated displayed textural

4 Cf. Bd. Dec. 11 (noting this fact in connection with geometry descriptions,
design rule, and product attribute descriptions as part of product definition
data in Han).
Appeal 2011-011861
Application 10/103,123

9
information (i.e., product attribute description). Ans. 8 (citing Schwalb, col.
8, ll. 9-16 and Nagata). Appellants’ arguments regarding Schwalb’s
shortcomings in this regard (App. Br. 28-29; Reply Br. 22-25) are
unavailing, for the Examiner’s rejection is not based solely on Schwalb, but
rather the collective teachings of Schwalb and Nagata—references which we
find reasonably combinable as noted above.

Claims 20-22
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 20
reciting receiving a second product attribute description to describe a second
non-geometric attribute of the product portion, and storing that description in
the electronically-accessible format. We see no error in the Examiner’s
reliance on Schwalb’s teaching of selecting two model entities in this regard.
Ans. 4, 9 (citing Schwalb, col. 3, ll. 33-37).
Appellants do not dispute this plural entity selection, but rather
contend that the cited passage says nothing about corresponding names.
App. Br. 31. But this entity selection is reasonably tied to the entity
selection discussed in Schwalb’s Figure 7 noted previously, where textual
target descriptions (names) are displayed on the screen in connection with
selecting corresponding entities. See Schwalb, col. 8, ll. 33-67; Fig. 7.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 20, and claims 21 and 22 not separately argued with
particularity.

Appeal 2011-011861
Application 10/103,123

10
Claim 38
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 38 reciting a
computer readable medium including instructions causing a processor to
receive a definition of a non-geometric attribute of a product portion from a
user. Although the Examiner cites Han in connection with this rejection in
the Final Rejection, the Examiner nonetheless acknowledges that this
citation was a typographical error and should have instead cited Nagata in
view of the rejection’s heading (Ans. 9)—an error which was corrected in
the Answer’s Ground of Rejection section. Compare Fin. Rej. 5 (citing Han,
¶ 71, in connection with claim 38) with Ans. 4-5 (citing Nagata, Figs. 3,
18a).
We deem this error harmless on this record. Not only did the Final
Rejection specify that claim 38 was rejected over Schwalb and Nagata in the
statement of the rejection (Fin. Rej. 3) as the Examiner indicates, Appellants
also acknowledge this error in the Reply Brief, and provide additional
arguments based on the Examiner’s clarification. Reply Br. 28-29.
Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments pertaining to Han in the opening brief
(App. Br. 32-33) are inapposite to the Examiner’s corrected ground of
rejection articulated in the Answer.
Turning to this rejection, Appellants (Reply Br. 31-32) do not
persuasively rebut the Examiner’s reliance on the collective teachings
Nagata and Schwalb for teaching receiving a definition of a non-geometric
attribute of a product portion from a user, essentially for the reasons noted
above and by the Examiner. Ans. 4-5, 9. To the extent that Appellants’
argument is based on whether these definitions are received from a user as
claimed, we find that distinction to be without a meaningful difference here.
Appeal 2011-011861
Application 10/103,123

11
As the earlier Board panel noted in connection with a similar issue, the term
“user” is not defined in the claims, and since any person or entity entering
information is a “user,” the definition in the Schwalb/Nagata would be
received from a user as claimed. Cf. Bd. Dec. 10 (noting that any person or
entity entering information in product definition data is a “user”) (emphasis
added).
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 38.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER SCHWALB, NAGATA, AND HAN
Claim 23
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 23 reciting
displaying a lead line between the product attribute description and product
portion. As Appellants indicate (App. Br. 35-36; Reply Br. 31-32), the
Examiner refers to the ability of Han’s markup tool 44-6 to enable a user to
apply a label to a graphical rendering, but does not show where in the
reference such a lead line appears, or that it is displayed between the product
attribute description and product portion, as claimed. See Ans. 5, 10 (citing
Han ¶ 0056). Rather, the Examiner asserts that “a lead line is an obvious
way to present respective information for a part in a CAD design.” Ans. 10.
The Examiner, however, notes that this allows “presentation of user
knowledge about a part.” Ans. 10 (citing Schwalb, col. 2, ll. 25-27).
Although Appellants argue that the cited references fail to teach or
suggest the recited lead line (App. Br. 36; Reply Br. 31-32), Appellants do
not squarely rebut the Examiner’s position that lead lines would nonetheless
have been an obvious way to present information for a part in a CAD design.
Appeal 2011-011861
Application 10/103,123

12
Notably, Appellants do not dispute that lead lines are known graphical
elements that are disposed between illustrated pieces of information to
graphically associate that information, such as reference numerals and
corresponding elements in patent figures. Indeed, the very figure associated
with the Examiner’s cited paragraph 0056 in Han—Figure 5—has a number
of lead lines between reference numerals and corresponding elements,
including the lead line between numeral “44-6” and the corresponding
markup tool which enables the labelling upon which the Examiner relies.
See, e.g., Han ¶¶ 0051, 0056; Fig. 5. Based on the well-known usage of lead
lines to graphically associate illustrated information, we see no reason why
such an enhancement could not be applied to associate a product attribute
description and product portion as the Examiner proposes, for such an
enhancement predictably uses prior art elements according to their
established functions—an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 23.

Claims 24 and 40
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 24
reciting displaying the status of a product portion. Despite Appellants’
arguments to the contrary (App. Br. 37-38; Reply Br. 33), we see no error in
the Examiner’s reliance on Han’s warning that is generated for
impermissible combinations of individual parts or products. Ans. 5-6, 10
(citing Han ¶ 0088). Leaving aside the fact that a product portion can be the
product itself (Spec. 3:14-15), nothing in the claim precludes Han’s warning
message that indicates the status of particular product portions (e.g., part
Appeal 2011-011861
Application 10/103,123

13
protrusions, indentations, etc.), at least to the extent that these portions were
attempted to be improperly combined with other incompatible portions
under certain inter-product rules. See Han ¶¶ 0086-88; Figs. 9C(1)-9C(2).
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 24, and claim 40 not separately argued with
particularity.

Claim 41
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 41 reciting
instructions causing the processor to display an indicator to indicate that the
product portion is complete. We see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on
Han’s closing a specific Request for Quote (RFQ) by assigning it a purchase
order (PO) via an RFQ close web page 303-6, for this assignment occurs
upon completing the RFQ. See Ans. 6; citing Han ¶ 0102. Notably, this
completion triggers appropriate notifications to various parties (Han ¶ 0094;
Fig. 10C) which at least suggests displaying some sort of indicator to
indicate completion. We therefore see no error in the Examiner’s combining
this teaching with the Schwalb/Nagata system to teach displaying an
indicator to indicate product portion completion as claimed. It is well settled
that where, as here, a technique has been used to improve one device
(displaying an indicator indicating completion), and an ordinarily skilled
artisan would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same
way (displaying an indicator indicating product portion completion), using
the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her
skill. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.

Appeal 2011-011861
Application 10/103,123

14
Claim 42
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 42 reciting
instructions causing the processor to display an indicator to indicate that the
product portion is inactive. We see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on
Han’s warning that indicates that a part violates certain inter-product rules as
noted above is “inactive” at least to the extent that these portions were
attempted to be improperly combined with other incompatible portions
during a drag and drop operation under certain inter-product rules. See Han
¶¶ 0086-88; Figs. 9C(1)-9C(2). The Examiner’s finding that Han’s system
would not permit the part to be dropped (“placed”) under these
circumstances (thus rendering the part “inactive”) is not persuasively
rebutted. That a product portion can be the product itself (Spec. 3:14-15) as
noted previously only bolsters the Examiner’s position that rendering a part
“inactive” due to its incompatibility under inter-product rules likewise
renders its portions inactive as well.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 18-24 and 37-42 under
§ 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 18-24 and 37-42 is
affirmed.

Appeal 2011-011861
Application 10/103,123

15
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