Ex Parte White

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 19, 2009

10317957 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 19, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte IAN H. WHITE
____________

Appeal 2008-004863
Application 10/317,957
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided:1 June 19, 2009
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, PETER F. KRATZ, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the Decided Date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).

Appeal 2008-004863
Application 10/317,957

2
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-9, 23, and 25-34. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a method of making a
map or other object presenting multiple sets of information in a spatially-
related fashion. Appellant’s disclosed method includes the following steps:
[S]electing a set of spatial alignment data, such as
geographical boundaries, spatial boundaries for a living
organism, or a structural boundary of a manmade structure. A
first image is created by aligning or mapping a first set or layer
of information to the spatial alignment data, and then a second
image is created by aligning or mapping a second set or layer of
information to the same spatial alignment data. A lens sheet is
provided or fabricated with desired lens or lenticule frequency,
viewing distances, and viewing angles. Then, based on the lens
sheet configuration the first and second images are combined to
create an interlaced image including alternating strips from the
first and second images. The interlaced image is then printed
(typically on a substrate or directly on the reverse side of the
lens sheet) and a substrate is bonded to the lens sheet such that
the interlaced image is sandwiched between the lens sheet and
the substrate. In some preferred embodiments, three or more
images are provided by following similar steps to allow
viewing of three or more images simply by rotating the map or
object.
(Spec. ¶ 0006)
Claims 1, 23, and 29 are illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A method of fabricating a map or other object useful for presenting
multiple sets of information to a user in a spatially-related fashion,
comprising:

creating a first image including a first layer data set aligned to a set of
spatial alignment data comprising information defining a spatial reference
framework including coordinate points;

Appeal 2008-004863
Application 10/317,957

3
creating a second image including a second layer data set aligned to
the set of spatial alignment data;

providing a lens sheet comprising a plurality of parallel lenticules;

based on the provided lens sheet, combining the first and second
images to form an interlaced image comprising image strips from the first
and second images;

printing the interlaced image; and

bonding a substrate to the lens sheet on a side distal to the lenticules,
whereby the printed interlaced image is between the substrate and the lens
sheet.

23. A method of fabricating a map useful for presenting multiple sets
of information to a user in a spatially-related fashion, comprising:

creating a first image including a first layer data set aligned to a static
spatial reference system comprising a geographic-based framework, wherein
the spatial reference system comprises boundaries defined by geo-coded data
or geographic information systems data and wherein the framework
comprises outer boundaries of a geographical structure;

creating a second image including a second layer data set aligned to
the spatial reference system;

providing a lens sheet comprising a plurality of parallel lenticules;

based on the provided lens sheet, combining the first and second
images to form an interlaced image comprising image strips from the first
and second images; and

printing the interlaced image on the lens sheet such that the printed
interlaced image is viewable through the lenticules.

29. A method of fabricating a map or other object useful for
presenting multiple sets of information to a user in a spatially-related
fashion, comprising:
Appeal 2008-004863
Application 10/317,957

4

creating a first image including a first layer data set aligned to a set of
spatial alignment data including an outer framework, wherein the outer
framework is included in the first image;

creating a second image including a second layer data set aligned to
the set of spatial alignment data, wherein the outer framework is included in
the second image;

providing a lens sheet comprising a plurality of parallel lenticules;

based on the provided lens sheet, combining the first and second
images to form an interlaced image comprising image strips from the first
and second images;

printing the interlaced image on the lens sheet, whereby the first and
second images each including the outer framework are visible to a viewer at
first and second viewing angles, respectively, and wherein the outer
framework of the spatial alignment data is spaced apart from an outer edge
of the lens sheet.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the appealed claims:
Waly 4,094,596 Jun. 13, 1978
Brosh 5,924,870 Jul. 20, 1999
Du 6,732,120 B1 May 4, 2004

The Examiner maintains the following ground of rejection.
Claims 1-9, 23, and 25-34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Brosh in view of Waly and Du.
We reverse the stated rejection for reasons set forth in the Appeal
Brief, as explained below.
Appellant essentially argues that the Examiner’s rejection falls short
of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness because Brosh does not
Appeal 2008-004863
Application 10/317,957

5
teach the claimed alignment required in making the first and second images,
and the Examiner has not established, prima facie, that one of ordinary skill
in the art would have modified the lenticular image formation method of
Brosh in a manner that would have resulted in the claimed subject matter
based on the portions of the disclosures of Waly and Du relied upon by the
Examiner, and given the rationale proposed by the Examiner (App. Br. 5-
17).

ISSUE
Has Appellant established that the Examiner reversibly erred by not
establishing that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led, prima
facie, to a method corresponding to the claimed method based on the relied
upon teachings of Brosh, Waly, and Du and the rationale furnished by the
Examiner?

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
It is well settled that the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
non-patentability resides with the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). See
In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (quoting
In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).

Appeal 2008-004863
Application 10/317,957

6
FINDINGS OF FACT
Brosh discloses the formation of three-dimensional or action lenticular
images using a computer to interlace recorded images, which interlacing
product can be printed on a substrate, such as a lenticular lens back surface
(col. 2, ll. 11-18). The resolution of the interlaced image is matched to the
lens geometry (col. 2, ll. 18-20).
Also, Brosh discloses aligning a lenticular lens to an interlaced image
and discloses that lens accuracy is important (col. 5, l. 45- col. 6, l. 19).
The Examiner has not shown where Brosh discloses or suggests
making first and second images wherein each image includes alignment of
an image layer data set with a spatial alignment data set or a spatial
reference framework and wherein such images are combined via interlacing.
Waly discloses, inter alia, animated image presenting apparatus that
includes a lens matrix including an array of lensettes, which apparatus is
operable with an indexed micro-record to present recorded image patterns
onto a screen or the matrix, including the presentation of images at a rate
that furnishes an animated display (Abs; Figs. 1-10).
The Examiner refers to column 3, lines 27-37 of Waly, whereat Waly
discloses the provision of a micro-image system that employs a “multi-
image, interlaced micro-record which is readable by means of a reader
having a lens matrix…” as an object of the disclosed invention (Ans. 3-4;
Waly, col. 3, ll. 27-37). Additionally, the Examiner references column 8,
lines 10-17 of Waly, whereat Waly explains that the disclosed method of
representing intelligence is not limited to “letters or chemical formula terms,
but to any accepted form of symbols” , including, inter alia, maps (Ans. 3-4;
Waly, col. 8, ll. 10-17).
Appeal 2008-004863
Application 10/317,957

7
The Examiner does not show or establish where Waly discloses or
suggests forming multiple map images including alignment with a spatial
reference framework or a spatial data set and forming an interlaced image
comprising image strips from each of those map images.
Du discloses that:
Spatial data relating to positioning on the earth’s surface is
generally referred to as geographic information. Geographic
information can include relative positioning information to
locate specific locations on the earth’s surface as well as to
locate features and boundaries. Systems for the storage and
retrieval of such information are termed Geographical
Information Systems (GIS). Geographical Information Systems
are computer processes, systems, and data structures that deal
with the management and processing of geographical based
information. GIS systems generally fall into two categories,
namely, file based systems and relational database (RDB)
systems.
(col. 1, ll. 13-24).

Du discloses a method and system for organizing geographical data by
hierarchical levels and for processing and displaying geographic information
(data) in a display portion and text information in another display portion
wherein hide/show capabilities for attachment graphics on the geographical
display portion are provided (Abs., col. 2, ll. 3-63).
In the stated rejection, the Examiner refers to the disclosure at column
1, lines 64-67, column 4, lines 52-67, and column 6, lines 40-64 of Du
respecting the graphical display of an image or map with spatial reference
data or coordinates and a layered hierarchal data structure for geographic
information storage of different map areas, which allows a user to zoom in
and out with respect to the graphical area displayed, as conveyed by Du (col.
7, ll. 10 – 14; Ans. 4, 6, and 7).
Appeal 2008-004863
Application 10/317,957

8
The Examiner has not established that Du discloses a method of
forming an interlaced image comprising combining image strips from first
and second images, with the first and second images each comprising layer
data sets aligned to spatial alignment data or a spatial framework, and/or
including a step of forming a printed interlaced image therefrom employing
a lens sheet using parallel lenticules.

ANALYSIS
In maintaining the obviousness rejection before us, the Examiner
basically takes the position that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the claimed
subject matter based on a combination of identified selected teachings taken
from Brosh, Waly, and Du. See generally the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.).
More particularly, the Examiner relies on Brosh for teaching a method
for forming a lenticular image that includes, inter alia, the provision of a
lens sheet, the combination of first and second images to form an interlaced
image, and printing (Ans. 3 and 5). The Examiner takes the position that
Brosh does not disclose some of the method limitations required by
independent claims 1, 23, and 29 that relate to the alignment of layer data
sets with a spatial alignment references system or a spatial alignment data
set. In this regard, Appellant requires making first and second images that
include alignment of first and second layer data sets with a spatial alignment
data set in each image as specified in claims 1 and 29 or requires the
alignment of each image layer data set with a spatial reference system in
forming the first and second images as specified in the method steps of claim
23. The Examiner does not reference all of the claim language and
Appeal 2008-004863
Application 10/317,957

9
limitations required by any of the rejected claims in setting forth how
specific teachings of the references are applicable in laying out the rejection
(Ans. 3 and 5).
The Examiner turns to Waly for allegedly teaching “interlaced image
for maps” as being equivalent to many other interlaced images and refers to
col. 3, ll. 27-37 and col. 8, ll. 10-17 of Waly in so doing (Ans. 3-6). The
Examiner asserts that:
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made to form the interlaced
image for any images such as letters, chemical formulas,
symbols, holograms, interference patterns, fingerprints, music
notes, maps, pictures, or drawings, wherein the maps would
includes map coordinates data as disclosed by Waly in the
method of Brosh et al to form lenticular image from any images
or data, which are all equivalents.

Ans. 4 and 6.

Moreover, the Examiner maintains that “Brosh et al as modified by
Waly is silent as to the map includes spatial reference framework including
spatial reference system, geo-coded data, or geographic information system
data” (id.). The Examiner turns to Du and the Examiner maintains that Du
teaches “a method of processing and displaying geographic data”, which
method includes providing “spatial references for particular points or
coordinate points within the map display region” (id.). Based on the
teachings at column 4, lines 52-67 and column 1, lines 64-67 of Du, the
Examiner further maintains that:
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made to provide map
image with spatial data, which provides spatial references for
particular points or coordinate points within the map display
Appeal 2008-004863
Application 10/317,957

10
region as disclosed by Du in the method of Brosh et al as
modified by Waly to provide a faster and easier Geographic
Information System to maintain the data management system.
Ans. 4 and 7.
However, the Examiner’s articulated reasoning for combining Brosh’s
method with Waly and Du so as “to provide a faster and easier Geographic
Information System to maintain the data management system” has not been
shown by the Examiner to reasonably result in the claimed method and/or to
bear a rational relationship to the lenticular image formation method of
Brosh so as to have led one of ordinary skill in the art to act on such a
rationale, as argued by Appellant (App. Br. 12-13).
As for the Examiner’s assertions with respect to the lenticular
geometry and image interlacing method discussed by Brosh, we agree with
Appellant that the Examiner has not established that the referred to
disclosure of Brosh regarding interlacing images using masks is directed to
and teaches or suggests the required first and second image formation steps
specified in appealed independent claims 1, 23, and/or 29 (Ans. 8- 9; App.
Br. 8-13; Brosh, col. 5, l. 1 –col. 6, l. 19).
On this record, the Examiner has not carried the burden of presenting
a coherent rationale in support of the proposed combination of the cited
references’ teachings in the stated rejection that establishes a prima facie
case of obviousness for the claimed subject matter.

CONCLUSION
Appellant has established that the Examiner reversibly erred by not
establishing that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led, prima
facie, to a method corresponding to the claimed method based on the relied
Appeal 2008-004863
Application 10/317,957

11
upon teachings of Brosh, Waly, and Du and the rationale furnished by the
Examiner.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-9, 23, and 25-34 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brosh in view of Waly and Du is
reversed.

REVERSED

PL Initial:
sld

MARSH, FISCHMANN & BREYFOGLE LLP
8055 EAST TUFFS AVENUE
SUITE 450
DENVER, CO 80237