Ex Parte Stinson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2016

13302172 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/302, 172 11/22/2011
22045 7590 08/31/2016
BROOKS KUSHMAN P,C
1000 TOWN CENTER
TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Keith Stinson
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.
CFS0108PUSA2 1036
EXAMINER
VIG,NARESH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3622
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2016 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KEITH STINSON, DAVID W. BICKFORD and
TIMOTHY J. MALLOS
Appeal2014-003756
Application 13/302,172
Technology Center 3600
Before: HERBERT C. LORIN, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.
FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
Final rejection of claims 1-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-003756
Application 13/302,172
THE INVENTION
Appellants claim a "method and apparatus for generating customized
product documentation for a furniture item having a plurality of surface
material options." (Spec. i-f 5).
Claim 1 reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A computer implemented method comprising:
storing design data defining a plurality of visual surf
ace schemes of furnishing surface materials;
associating varied elements of the design data with at
least one of a plurality of furnishing supply chain
members;
receiving one or more requests identifying (i) at least
one of the plurality of supply chain members and (ii) at
least one furnishing to which a visual surface scheme can
be applied;
responsive to the request(s), selecting at least one of
the elements of the design data associated with the
identified supply chain member and mapping at least a
portion of the selected design data onto a base image or
model of the identified furnishing to generate an image of
the furnishing having characteristics of the selected design
data; and
transmitting the generated image to an entity from
which the request( s) were received.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
2
Appeal2014-003756
Application 13/302,172
EddieBauer, Inc., pp. 38--42, and 62-24 (1998-2001),
www.archive.om:, hereinafter "EddieBauer." (Final Act. 2).
The following rejection is before us for review.
1. Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Archived web pages of Eddie Bauer, Inc. (Final
Act. 4).
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. We adopt the Examiner's findings as set forth on pages 4--7 of the
Final Action, excluding the findings made under 35 U.S.C. § 112 second
paragraph which rejection has been withdrawn (See Answer 2).
2. Page 62 of Eddie Bauer Inc. discloses an advertisement for a
"Solid Color Wrap Miraclesuit®" with a featuure to change the product
color to one of Black, Eggplant, or Cranberry:
3
Appeal2014-003756
Application 13/302,172
The above shows a graphic from Page 62 of the Edie Bauer, Inc.
advertisement for a "Solid Color Wrap Miraclesuit®" with a feature to
change the product color.
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 103 REJECTION
The Appellants argued claim 1 relying on the same arguments in
support of independent claim 9. (Appeal Br. 6, 7). Thus, claim 1 is the
representative claim for this group, and the remaining independent claim
standing or falling with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015).
Appellants argue,
Nothing in the EB reference teaches or suggests
"mapping" onto "a base image or model" to
"generate an image." Merely displaying different
images of a clothing item having varied
t. . . . t. . cuaractenst1cs is not tue same as mappmg onto a
model or mapping onto a base image or model to
generate an image. The mapping, in the claims, is
done onto a base model to generate the image.
There is absolutely nothing in the provided Eddie
Bauer reference that shows this mapping, or which
shows that anything other than varied photographs
of clothing having different patterns are displayed.
(Appeal Br. 6).
The Examiner however found that EDDIEBAUER on pages 38-42
and 62-64 discloses "mapping at least a portion of the selected design data
onto a base image or model of the identified furnishing to generate an image
of the furnishing having characteristics of the selected design data." (Final
4
Appeal2014-003756
Application 13/302,172
Act. 5).
We agree with the Examiner. Our review of the EDDIEBAUER at
these sections confirms that the advertisement for the Miraclesuit® includes
a "change product color" feature which is effected when the user clicks on
the color patch presented to the user. (FF. 2). Appellants maintain that
clicking on one of these patches merely displays different images of a
clothing. (Appeal Br. 6). But, Appellant's Specification does not
specifically define the term "map", nor does it utilize the term contrary to its
customary meaning. The ordinary and customary definition of mapping is,
"a representation usually on a flat surface of the whole or a part of an area." 1
Thus, even assuming arguendo that different color schemes in
EDDIEBAUER are merely displays of different images of a clothing with
different color schemes, we nevertheless find that this constitutes a mapped
depiction of the item. That is, within a single image, the color of the cloth is
mapped to the two dimensional outline or "base image" of the suit. The
definition of mapping only requires a representation on a surface and in
EDDIEBAUER, the representation is defined by the selected color fitted to
the base image defined by the outline of the suit.
Notwithstanding, we find in the alternative that one of ordinary skill
in the art would infer from the "click to change color" feature of the
EDDIEBAUER web advertisement (FF. 2) that a single base image is used,
over which is displayed a desired color because this would save memory
1 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/map (last visited 8/15/2016)
5
Appeal2014-003756
Application 13/302,172
space, and for a catalog as voluminous as EDDIEBAUER, this would be a
significant cost saving feature. See KSR Int'!. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 418 (2007). (In making the obviousness determination one "can take
account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would employ.")
Appellants also argue that, "Additionally, this step of mapping is
performed 'responsive to the requests' (which identify a supply chain
member and a furnishing)." (Appeal Br. 6). We disagree with Appellants
because in EDDIEBAUER, the user is a customer of the product which we
find is part of the supply chain because he/she is the end user. (FF. 2).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
We conclude the Examiner did err in rejecting claims 1-16 under 3 5
U.S.C. § 112.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-16 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED.
6