Ex Parte Smith et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 30, 2019

13830115 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/830, 115 03/14/2013
121363 7590 05/02/2019
Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.
(Adobe Inc.)
Intellectual Property Department
2555 Grand Blvd
Kansas City, MO 64108
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael James Andrew Smith
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.
3003US01/ADBS.209715 3432
EXAMINER
DASGUPTA, SHOURJO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2019 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):
IPDOCKET@SHB.COM
IPRCDKT@SHB.COM
nhensley@shb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL JAMES ANDREW SMITH,
GA VIN MURRAY PEACOCK, SETH WALKER, and
ADAMCATH
Appeal2018-005186
Application 13/830,115
Technology Center 2100
Before JUSTIN BUSCH, STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1--4 and 6-20. App. Br. 1. 2 Claim 5 is canceled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Adobe Systems
Incorporated, a corporation of the State of Delaware, United States of
America. App. Br. 4.
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Office Action ("Final Act."),
mailed January 26, 2017; the Appeal Brief ("App. Br."), filed September 19,
Appeal2018-005186
Application 13/830,115
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention displays hierarchical data using selective
colorization, which can be used in software profilers. Spec. ,r 1. A software
profiler dynamically analyzes a program to measure time complexity,
instruction use, the frequency and duration of function calls, among other
things. Id. The analysis helps the software designer optimize the program.
Id. Hierarchical data provides a particular challenge for profilers. Id.
Hierarchical data is divided into categories and sub-categories. Id. ,r 2.
Reviewing hierarchical data as plain data is difficult. Id. Also, traditional
profilers limit categorization to a few high-level categories. Id. Users,
however, may benefit from seeing additional levels of detail. Id. ,r 4.
The invention analyzes the hierarchical data and produces an
interactive visualization. Id. ,r 24. To improve the visualization, one
embodiment color-codes function calls. Id. ,r 55. For example, the
invention displays ActionScript3 function calls in blue and "Garbage
collection" calls in orange. Id. This color-coding is used consistently
throughout the user interface to help the user visualize the data. See id. ,r 51.
Claims 1, 11, and 1 7 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A computerized method of visually depicting hierarchical
data, the method comprising:
accessing hierarchical data, the hierarchical data including
data pertaining to a plurality of categories, the hierarchical data
2017; the Examiner's Answer ("Ans."), mailed February 26, 2018; and the
Reply Brief ("Reply Br."), filed April 20, 2018.
3 ActionScript is a programming language for Adobe Flash Player.
Spec. ,r 29. In particular, Adobe Flash Player is software used to view
multimedia across different platforms. Id. The multimedia files are stored
in SWF format. Id. The SWF files contain static data, such as images, and
dynamic data, such as scripts. Id. According to the Specification, those
scripts are usually written in ActionScript. Id.
2
Appeal2018-005186
Application 13/830,115
further including data pertaining to a plurality of subcategories
of at least one of the plurality of categories;
providing for display multiple different viewing regions
simultaneously, each viewing region depicting a different view
of the hierarchical data, objects displayed in each viewing region
being color-coded with a different color for each category, such
that an object corresponding to a first category in a first viewing
region is displayed in an identical color as an object
corresponding to the first category in a second viewing region,
wherein the object corresponding to the first category in the first
viewing region comprises a function call textual object and the
object corresponding to the first category in the second region
comprises a graphical object.
THE EVIDENCE
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence:
Gorelik et al.
Das
Reilly
Leonard
Ergan et al.
Milirud et al.
US 2001/0047372 Al
US 2011/0055427 Al
US 8,074,207 Bl
US 2012/0131487 Al
US 2013/0263102 Al
US 2014/0075380 Al
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner makes the following rejections:
Nov. 29, 2001
Mar. 3, 2011
Dec. 6, 2011
May 24, 2012
Oct. 3, 2013
Mar. 13, 2014
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Milirud and Gorelik. Final Act. 3---6.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Milirud and Leonard. Final Act. 6-7.
4 Claim 6 depends from canceled claim 5. For the purposes of this appeal,
we, like the Examiner, treat claim 6 as depending from claim 1. See
Final Act. 2.
3
Appeal2018-005186
Application 13/830,115
Claims 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Milirud and Ergan. Final Act. 7-10.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Milirud, Gorelik, and Leonard. Final Act. 10.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Milirud, Gorelik, and Reilly. Final Act. 10-11.
Claims 12, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Milirud, Leonard, and Reilly. Final Act. 11-12.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Milirud, Ergan, and Leonard. Final Act. 12-13.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Milirud, Leonard, Reilly, and Das. Final Act. 13-14.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER MILIRUD AND GORELIK
The Examiner's Rejection
The Examiner finds that Milirud teaches every limitation recited in
representative5 claim 1 except for the recited function-call object.
Final Act. 3--4. In concluding that the subject matter of claim 1 would have
been obvious, the Examiner cites Gorelik as teaching this feature. Id. at 4.
Appellants ' Contentions
Appellants argue that Milirud and Gorelik do not teach or suggest the
recited function-call object and associated color-coding. App. Br. 9-12;
Reply Br. 2--4. Appellants also argue that it would not have been obvious to
5 Appellants argue claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 as a group. See App. Br. 12. We
select independent claim 1 as representative of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7. See
37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
4
Appeal2018-005186
Application 13/830,115
combine Milirud and Gorelik to display color-coordinated function-call
objects. App. Br. 12-15.
Issues
Appellants' arguments for claim 1 (see App. Br. 9-12; Reply Br. 2--4)
present us with the following issues:
I. Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claim 1 by finding that Milirud and Gorelik would have taught or suggested
the recited displaying color-coordinated function-call textual objects?
II. Has the Examiner supported the obviousness conclusion with
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning?
Analysis
I.
For the reasons discussed below, we are unpersuaded that the
Examiner erred.
The disputed limitation of claim 1 calls for, in part,
objects displayed in each viewing region being color-coded with
a different color for each category, such that an object
corresponding to a first category in a first viewing region is
displayed in an identical color as an object corresponding to the
first category in a second viewing region, wherein the object
corresponding to the first category in the first viewing region
comprises a function call textual object and the object
corresponding to the first category in the second region
comprises a graphical object.
Appellants' Corrected Appendix 2 ( emphasis added).
The Specification informs our understanding of this limitation. In
particular, as to the recited function-call textual objects, the Specification
explains that viewing region 408 shows an ActionScript panel, including list
434 of function calls. Spec. ,r 55, cited in App. Br. 9 (discussing functions).
5
Appeal2018-005186
Application 13/830,115
Viewing region 408 is shown in Figure 4A, which is reproduced below in
part.
436 U Iffltw fflii:offll:!IlWtUJtl±tit±Jitl:itll±t!ttJ:tlt±±lttdlli:±J ti±:ll ... (!'_________ . -------· . -----·---- -
~I\, Aci:ionSeript I CJi,oplsyUst R~rdsnng I /d1m:,cop1 Memo,y Alk,e,Jtims ! Slage3D Re11t1aiir