Ex Parte S.Download PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 23, 201411776345 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 23, 2014) Copy Citation 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. 11/776,345 07/11/2007 Archana S. S 1 6595 74402 7590 04/23/2014 IP Legal Services 1500 East Lancaster Avenue, Suite 100 P.O. Box 1027 Paoli, PA 19301 EXAMINER BRIER, JEFFERY A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2613 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/23/2014 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 ARCHANA S. Appeal 2011-004174 Application 11/776,345 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before CARL W.WHITEHEAD JR., ERIC S. FRAHM, and ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-17, and 19-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention is directed to a device is capable of displaying an image. The device includes a memory having a first memory portion for receiving a set of image data. A display has a viewport for displaying the set of image data in an image that fits within and Appeal 2011-004174 Application 11/776,345 2 fills the viewport. A processor is programmed for executing computer program instructions for receiving a zoom factor selected by a user; applying a zoom transformation to a first subset of the image data corresponding to points in a first region of the image that are displayed within the viewport after magnifying the first region based on the zoom factor; and displaying the zoom transformed first subset of the image data so as to fill the viewport, while a second subset of the image data representing points outside the first region have not been transformed. See Spec. 13, Abstract of the Disclosure. Claim 1 is illustrative, with key disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A method for displaying an image, comprising: receiving, from memory, a set of image data for displaying an image that fits within and fills a viewport of a device; receiving a zoom factor selected by a user; applying, by a processor, a zoom transformation to a first subset of the image data corresponding to points in first region of the image that are displayed within the viewport of the device after magnifying the first region based on the zoom factor, displaying, on the viewport, the zoom transformed first subset of the image data so as to fill the viewport, while maintaining a second subset of the image data representing points outside the first region have not been transformed in a portion of the memory, the second subset of image data corresponding to a subsequent zoom- transformed image portion for display in the viewport, wherein the zoom transformation is not applied to any data representing points outside the first region until a panning signal or a scrolling signal is received. Appeal 2011-004174 Application 11/776,345 3 The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability: Rasmussen et al. US 2005/0270311 A1 Dec. 8, 2005 THE REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-17, and 19-25 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as anticipated by Rasmussen. Ans. 4-12.1 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s contentions in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 11-12) and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 4-5) that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Ans. 4-12), and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (Ans. 12-14). We highlight and amplify certain teachings and suggestions of the references as follows. With respect to the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-17, and 19-25 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Rasmussen, Appellant relies on the limitations of claim 1 and does not provide substantive arguments for separate patentability for any other claim within this group. Accordingly, we will decide the appeal of these claims on the basis of claim 1 alone. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.67(c)(1)(vii). 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed September 18, 2010; the Examiner’s Answer mailed November 2, 2010; and, the Reply Brief filed November 16, 2010. Appeal 2011-004174 Application 11/776,345 4 Appellant argues that Rasmussen fails to anticipate the claimed invention by virtue of a failure to disclose “zoom-transforming only a subset of the data and displaying it, while a second subset of the data is not zoom- transformed.” App. Br. 11. The Examiner finds Appellant’s argument is not persuasive, noting that Claim 1 merely recites that only the displayed region of data is zoom- transformed. Ans. 13. The Examiner further finds that Rasmussen teaches a tile grid and zooming a first region of tiles which correspond to the portion displayed in the viewport, while not zooming the remaining tiles. Id. at 14. We find the Examiner’s position persuasive. The cited portion of Rasmussen (¶ [0120]) relied upon by the Examiner recites “[s]econd, for i between 1 and n-l: (a) the tiles needed for the final frame are scaled by a factor of s'(n-i).” We find the positive recitation that the tiles “needed for the final frame are scaled” clearly implies that the tiles which are not needed for the final frame are not scaled. “An anticipatory reference . . . need not duplicate word for word what is in the claims. Anticipation can occur when a claimed limitation is ‘inherent’ or otherwise implicit in the relevant reference.” Standard Havens Prods., Inc. v. Gencor Indus. Inc., 953 F.2d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (citing Tyler Refrigeration v. Kysor Indus. Corp., 777 F.2d 687, 689 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Consequently, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1- 7, 9-11, 13-17, and 19-25 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Rasmussen. Appeal 2011-004174 Application 11/776,345 5 CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-17, and 19- 25 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b). ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-17, and 19-25 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). AFFIRMED cdc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation