Ex Parte Ramsey

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 14, 2009

10117447 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 14, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte PAUL R. RAMSEY
____________________

Appeal 2008-2460
Application 10/117,447
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Decided: January 14, 2009
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
(2002).
We AFFIRM.

Appeal 2008-2460
Application 10/117,447

Appellant's Invention
Appellant invented a method for transferring a compressed image
from a first (local) computer system to a second (remote) computer system,
and decompressing and displaying the image on the remote computer
system. (Spec. 1, ll. 23-26.) A software application on the first computer
system compresses the image, and calls an X extension function to transfer
data including the compressed image to the second computer system
including a remote X Server. The remote X Server receives the data and
invokes an executable code corresponding to the X extension function that
controls the decompression of the compressed image. The remote X Server
then calls a standard X internal PutImage operation to display the
decompressed image on a display of the second computer system. (Spec. 1,
l. 25 to 2, l. 6.)

Claims
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention:
1. A method comprising:

executing an application on a first computer
system, wherein said executing comprises:

(a) compressing an image, and

2
Appeal 2008-2460
Application 10/117,447

(b) calling an X extension function to induce
transfer of a data stream containing the compressed
image to a remote X Server executing on a second
computer system;

the remote X Server receiving the data stream, and
invoking an executable code corresponding to the X
extension function in response to receiving the data
stream, wherein the executable code:

(c) decompresses the compressed image, and

(d) calls a standard X internal Putlmage
operation to display the decompressed image on a remote
display associated with the second computer system.

References
The Examiner relies on the following reference as evidence of
unpatentability:
Busboom US 5,485,570 Jan. 16, 1996

Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
unpatentable over Busboom.

3
Appeal 2008-2460
Application 10/117,447

Appellant's Contentions
Appellant contends Busboom does not teach: (1) a first computer
system calling an X extension function and compressing an image, (2) the X
extension function inducing transfer of a data stream containing the
compressed image to a remote X Server executing on a second computer
system, (3) the remote X Server receiving the data stream, and invoking an
executable code corresponding to the X extension function in response to
receiving the data stream, and (4) the executable code decompressing the
compressed image. (App. Br. 4.)

Examiner’s Findings and Conclusions
The Examiner found that Busboom discloses each feature of
Appellant's claim 1, and therefore anticipates the claim. (Supp. Ans. 4-5.)
In particular, the Examiner found that Busboom discloses compressing and
decompressing an image in an X Windows environment using tool kit
routines callable by application programs. (Supp. Ans. 12-13.) The
Examiner also found that Busboom discloses sending data streams in an X
Windows system between a primary and secondary processor, where the
secondary processor may be part of a remote system. (Supp. Ans. 12, 16.)
The Examiner also determined that Busboom discloses a remote X Server.
(Supp. Ans. 12.)

4
Appeal 2008-2460
Application 10/117,447

ISSUE
Did Appellant establish that the Examiner erred in determining
Busboom anticipates each feature of Appellant’s claimed invention?

FINDINGS OF FACTS (FF)
We have made the following findings of facts relevant to the
rejections under review based on a preponderance of evidence on the record:

Appellants’ Invention
1. Appellant invented a method for transferring a compressed
image from a first computer system to a second computer system, then
decompressing the image and displaying the image on a display of the
second computer system. (Spec. 1, ll. 23-26.)
2. A software application resident in a first computer system
compresses an image, then calls an X extension function in order to transfer
data including the compressed image to the second computer system that
includes a remote X Server. (Spec. 1, ll. 25-28; 4, ll. 9-28.)
3. The remote X Server in the second computer system receives
the data and decompresses the compressed image using an executable code
corresponding to the X extension function. (Spec. 2, ll. 2-4; 5, ll. 3-30.)
4. The remote X Server then calls a standard X internal PutImage
operation to display the decompressed image on a display of the second
computer system. (Spec. 2, ll. 3-6; 5, ll. 5-30.)

5
Appeal 2008-2460
Application 10/117,447

Busboom Reference
5. The Examiner found that Busboom discloses every element in
Applicant’s claim 1. (Supp. Ans. 4-5.)
6. Specifically, the Examiner found that Busboom discloses:
executing an application (application 30) on a first
computer system (host 12, fig.l or Processor 44, fig. 3),
wherein said executing comprises:
(a) compressing an image (images are compressed
col.4, lines 43-62 and col. 8, lines 15-23), and
(b) calling an X extension function to induce
transfer of a data stream containing the compressed
image to a remote X Server (X server 18, and fig. 3, 48)
executing on a second computer system (output
generated by application 30 is transmitted b [sic] Xlib
to X server for execution col. 4,1ines 14-31 and col.
7,1ines 13-59);
the remote X Server corresponding to the receiving
the data stream, and invoking an executable code X
extension function in response to receiving the data
stream (col. 7, lines 5-19 and col. 31-59), wherein the
executable code:
(c) decompresses the compressed image (image
processing such as image decompression is executed on
the secondary processor 48 col.4, lines 43-62 and col. 8,
lines 15-23), and
(d) calls a standard X internal PutImage operation
(inherent function in X windows and Xlib) to display
the decompressed image on a remote display associated
with the second computer system (col. 7, lines 31-59
and col. 8, lines 13-61).
(Supp. Ans. 4-5.)
6
Appeal 2008-2460
Application 10/117,447

7. In particular, the Examiner found that Busboom discloses
compressing and decompressing an image in an X Windows environment
using tool kit routines callable by application programs. (Supp. Ans. 12-13.)
8. The Examiner found that Busboom discloses processing of
images (windows) and compressing and decompressing images by a
secondary processor. (Supp. Ans. 12-13, 15-16).
9. The Examiner also determined Busboom discloses sending data
streams in an X Windows system between a primary and secondary
processor, where the secondary processor may be part of a remote system.
(Supp. Ans. 12, 14, 16.)
10. The Examiner further found that Busboom discloses a remote X
Server. (Supp. Ans. 12.)
11. Busboom describes a first computer system (host, central
processor). (Col. 4, ll. 3-15; col. 5, ll. 35-39; Fig. 1, element 12; Fig. 3,
element 44.)
12. Busboom describes executing an application on the first
computer system. (Col. 4, ll. 16-41; col. 6, ll. 22-28; Fig. 1, element 30; Fig.
3, element 60.)
13. Busboom describes compressing and decompressing images.
(Col. 4, ll. 58-62 and col. 8, ll. 19-22.)
14. Busboom discloses that an application on the first computer
system makes procedure calls to an Xlib (library of software routines) and/or
tool kits that compress (decompress) images in an X Windows environment.
(Col. 4, ll. 42-62 and col. 8, ll. 13-22.)
7
Appeal 2008-2460
Application 10/117,447

15. Busboom describes a second computer system (X display
station, secondary processor). (Col. 3, ll. 24-45; col. 5, ll. 35-49; Fig. 1,
element 10; Fig. 3, element 48.)
16. Busboom describes how the second computer system, in
particular the secondary processor, may be a remote system separate from
the first computer system. (Col. 3, ll. 24-45; col. 8, l. 49 to col. 9, l. 26.)
17. Busboom discloses an X Server resident in the second computer
system. (Col. 3, ll. 38-56; Fig. 1, element 18.)
18. Busboom’s X Server receives inputs and controls the display of
images. (Col. 3, l. 38 to col. 4, l. 2.)
19. Busboom discloses that an application on the first computer
system makes procedure calls to the Xlib and/or tool kits that induce transfer
of a data stream to the second computer system in an X Windows
environment. (Col. 4, ll. 42-62 and col. 8, ll. 13-22.)
20. Busboom discloses calling an X extension function to induce
transfer of a data stream that may contain a compressed image to a remote X
Server executing on a second computer system.
21. Busboom discloses that the second computer system, in
particular the X Server, receives a data stream from the first computer
system, and processes the data to produce a displayed image in an X
Windows environment. (Col. 4, ll. 42-62; col. 7, ll. 5-19; and col. 7, l. 31 to
col. 8, l. 62.)

8
Appeal 2008-2460
Application 10/117,447

22. Busboom describes making procedure calls to the Xlib and/or
tool kits on the second computer system to execute code or software
(corresponding to an X extension function) that decompresses an image.
(Col. 8, ll. 13-22).
23. The Examiner found that Busboom also discloses a system
supporting multiple graphic sessions on networked X Windows devices.
(Supp. Ans. 17)
24. The Examiner also determined that Busboom discloses calling
an X extension function to transfer a second data stream including a second
compressed image to a second X Server on the first computer system.
(Supp. Ans. 18)
25. Busboom describes a system that supports multiple networked
X display stations (X Windows compatible display stations). (Col. 2, ll.
29-36; col. 8, l. 37 to col. 9, l. 26.)
26. Busboom discloses that an application on one computer system
may make procedure calls to the Xlib and/or tool kits to induce transfer of a
data stream to another computer system. The second system may then return
a data stream to the first computer system. The data transfers occur within
an X Windows environment. (Col. 4, ll. 42-62; col. 6, ll. 7-65; and col. 8, ll.
13-22.)

9
Appeal 2008-2460
Application 10/117,447

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Burden on Appeal
Appellant has the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate error
in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir.
2006). “[W]hen the PTO shows sound basis for believing that the
products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the
burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed.
Cir. 1990). See also In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977).

Anticipation
Anticipation is a question of fact. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473,
1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] claim is anticipated only
if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly
or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros.,
Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987); see
Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
(citation omitted). However,
[t]he law of anticipation does not require that the
reference ‘teach’ what the subject patent teaches.
Assuming that a reference is properly ‘prior art,’ it
is only necessary that the claims under attack, as
construed by the court, ‘read on’ something
disclosed in the reference, i.e., all limitations of the
claim are found in the reference, or ‘fully met’ by
it.”
10
Appeal 2008-2460
Application 10/117,447

Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In an
appeal from a rejection for anticipation, the Appellants must explain which
limitations are not found in the reference. See Gechter v. Davidson, 116
F.3d 1454, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[W]e expect that the Board’s anticipation
analysis be conducted on a limitation by limitation basis, with specific fact
findings for each contested limitation and satisfactory explanations for such
findings.”).

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues claims 1-8 and 11-21 together as a group. Appellant
relies on the same arguments for each of the grouped claims. Accordingly,
we confine our discussion to appealed claim 1, which contains the claim
limitations representative of Appellant’s arguments. Further, we address the
other claims only to the extent that Appellant has argued them separately
pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). This opinion considers only those
arguments that Appellant presented in the Briefs. Arguments that Appellant
could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Lack of Method Limitations
Claim 1
Appellant asserts Busboom does not teach all the limitations of his
claimed method. In particular, Appellant argues that Busboom fails to teach:
(1) a first computer system calling an X extension function and compressing
11
Appeal 2008-2460
Application 10/117,447

an image, (2) the X extension function inducing transfer of a data stream
containing the compressed image to a remote X Server executing on a
second computer system, (3) the remote X Server receiving the data stream,
and invoking an executable code corresponding to the X extension function
in response to receiving the data stream, and (4) the executable code
decompressing the compressed image. (App. Br. 4.)
The Examiner properly found that each limitation of Appellant’s
claim 1 was disclosed by Busboom. (FF 5-10.) Busboom discloses each
step of Appellant’s claimed method. Busboom discloses a first computer
system that calls an X extension function and compresses an image in an X
Windows environment. (FF 11-14.) Busboom discloses a second computer
system including a remote X Server. (FF 15-17.) Busboom discloses the X
extension function inducing transfer of a data stream to the remote X Server
executing on the second computer system. (FF 19.) The X server controls
the display of images and accordingly a compressed image may be
transferred to the X Server. (FF 18, 20.) Busboom discloses that the remote
X Server receives the data stream, and invokes an executable code
corresponding to the X extension function to decompress the compressed
image. (FF 21-22.) Thus, the Busboom describes and discloses each of
Appellant’s claimed limitations. Appellant provides no persuasive evidence
supporting his arguments that Busboom fails to disclose each limitation of
Appellant’s claims.

12
Appeal 2008-2460
Application 10/117,447

Claims 9-10
Appellant reiterates his previous arguments, and asserts one additional
basis for the patentability of claims 9-10 that Busboom does not teach
compressing a second image on the second computer system and calling an
X extension function to transfer the compressed image to a second X Server
on the first computer system. (App. Br. 7.) As explained previously,
Busboom anticipates Appellant’s independent claim 1. Appellant’s
dependent claims 9 and 10 stand or fall with claim 1. Even so, the Examiner
correctly determined that Busboom discloses compressing a second image
on the second computer system and calling an X extension function to
transfer the compressed image to a second X Server. (FF 23-24.) Busboom
discloses that its system supports multiple X display stations. (FF 25.)
Busboom also discloses a first computer system may transfer data to a
second computer system that may then return data to the first computer
system all within an X Windows environment. (FF 26.) It is apparent that
such a display station could be part of a first (host) computer system, and
thus, the second X Server could be resident on the first computer system.
Accordingly, Busboom discloses each of Appellant’s claimed limitations.
Appellant provides no persuasive evidence supporting his arguments that
Busboom fails to disclose each limitation of Appellant’s claims.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Appellant did not establish the Examiner erred in determining that
Busboom anticipates each feature of Appellant’s claimed invention.
13
Appeal 2008-2460
Application 10/117,447

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-21.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

pgc

MHKKG/SUN
Meyertons, Hood, Kivlin, Kowert & Goetzel, P.C.
P.O. Box 398
Austin, TX 78767-0398
14