Ex Parte Schaerges et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2018

14305239 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/305,239 06/16/2014
32864 7590 09/27/2018
FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. (SAP)
PO BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hans-Peter Schaerges
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.
22135-0235001/130534US01 9511
EXAMINER
BORJA, ROBERTO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2173
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2018 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):
P ATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HANS-PETER SCHAERGES and HEINZ WILLUMEIT
Appeal2018-000323
Application 14/305,239 1
Technology Center 2100
Before THU A. DANG, SCOTT E. BAIN, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-20, which constitute all claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify SAP SE as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-000323
Application 14/305,239
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Claimed Invention
Appellants' invention relates to graphical mapping in software
applications. Spec. ,r 1. Specifically, the invention "improves lucidity" and
reduces a display's visual clutter resulting from a "large number of
mappings" (e.g., lines) between database elements, business or process
models, ERP scenarios, and the like. Id.; Abstract. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are
independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and the subject matter
of the appeal, and reads as follows:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
determining a connection type and initial visual settings
for a connection associated with a graphical mapping;
for the connection type:
define one or more visual appearance functions to change
the connection's visual appearance based upon the configuration
of an adjustment mechanism; and
define a Z-order function to determine a Z-order value of
the connection type, wherein the Z-order value defines an
overlap behavior of the connection type in relation to other
connection types along a Z-axis in relation to the graphical
mapping;
determining that the adjustment mechanism configuration
has been changed; and
adjusting the connection, by operation of a computer,
according to a value of the one or more visual appearance
functions based on a value of the adjustment mechanism
configuration.
App. Br. 16 (Claims App 'x) ( emphasis and formatting added).
2
Appeal2018-000323
Application 14/305,239
The Re} ections on Appeal
Claims 1, 2, 5-9, 12-16, and 18-20 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § I02(a) as being anticipated by Galloway et al. (US
2014/0046983 Al; published Feb. 13, 2014) ("Galloway"). Final Act. 4--18.
Claims 3, 4, 10, 11, and 17 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Galloway and Bollacker et al.
(US 2005/0049986 Al; published March 3, 2005) ("Bollacker"). Final Act.
18-24.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellants could
have made but did not make in the Brief are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). On the record before us, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth
in the rejections from which the appeal is taken and in the Examiner's
Answer, and provide the following discussion for highlighting and emphasis.
Rejection Under Pre-AJA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Galloway discloses
defining a "Z-order function to determine a Z-order value of the connection
type, wherein the Z-order value defines an overlap behavior of the
connection type in relation to other connection types along a z-axis," as
recited in claim 1.2 App. Br. 11-13 (emphasis added); Reply Br. 2-5.
Specifically, Appellants argue that Galloway's disclosure of filtering
2 Appellants argue claims 1, 2, 5-9, 12-16, and 18-20 (i.e., all the claims
rejected as anticipated by Galloway) as a group, and we choose claim 1 as
representative of the group. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(iv).
3
Appeal2018-000323
Application 14/305,239
connections using a "disk" with a "selected connection cutoff value" is not
determining a "Z-order value of the connection type," and that Galloway's
association of values defining overlap behavior are not "in relation to other
connection types," both as required by the claim language. App. Br. 11-13.
For the following reasons, however, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred.
As the Examiner finds, Galloway (like Appellants' invention)
discloses a method and system of "decluttering" a user interface by reducing
or filtering connections among "nodes" on the screen. Galloway ,r,r 325-
336. According to the disclosure in Galloway, a (software-represented)
"disk" is inserted between planes on the screen (i.e., planes at particular
depths, on the Z-axis ), and the disk is controlled by various user controls so
as to reduce or block "connections" among screen elements from the view of
the user. Id. Embodiments are shown in Galloway Figures 8A, 8B, and 8C,
reproduced below.
831. 1
_, :;,- sr,ow :ioo-es
832 ; :> Sh<>W :;:1ks
s- St,,.J._.,,, :~be-!~
833 . L,nk ()psd,:, ..
;_o.ao
834
:Lir-k Cot-ott
:&oo
835,
;·.,: