Ex Parte Bloem et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 25, 2019

14285122 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/285,122 05/22/2014
21186 7590 02/27/2019
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A.
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
Craig J. Bloem
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.
F2070.70001USOO 7783
EXAMINER
CHEN,YAHAO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2177
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2019 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):
uspto@slwip.com
SLW@blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CRAIG J. BLOEM and PHILLIP M. McMANNIS
Appeal2018-003918
Application 14/285, 122 1
Technology Center 2100
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, HUNG H. BUI, and SHARON PENICK,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-26, 28-55, 57, and 58, which are all
the claims pending in the Application. Claims 27 and 56 are cancelled.
App. Br. 14, 18 (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM. 2
1 According to Appellants, Logomix, Inc. is the real party in interest. App.
Br. 2.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief filed August 23, 2017
("App. Br."); Reply Brief filed February 28, 2018 ("Reply Br."); Examiner's
Answer mailed December 29, 2017 ("Ans."); Final Office Action mailed
Appeal2018-003918
Application 14/285,122
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
According to Appellants, conventional custom image design systems
available in the market utilize raster files to create and edit computer-based
custom image designs, such as logos, text, and images, to be printed on
standard products, such as printing logos, text, and images. Spec. 2: 10-23.
However, "there many drawbacks to using raster-based images for creating
custom designs, such as, image quality loss, pixelation, and quality issues
during printing ( e.g., of a customized promotional product) or other type of
rendering (e.g., in a display, advertisement, or other media type requiring an
image rendering)." Id. at 2:23-26. In addition, "raster files may need to be
re-created by the user or resized" which make "real-time editing experiences
... not practical." Id. at 2:28-29.
Appellants' invention proposes ( 1) "using vector-based images rather
than raster files for creating and editing design images and text" and (2)
"vector-based image tools" to allow "a user to produce a design that
overcomes some of the quality issues related to using raster based images."
Id. at 2:20-23, 3: 1-3. According to Appellants, "the well-known Scalable
Vector Graphics (SVG) vector-based format [(i.e., SVG-based design
files)]" and "other vector-based format (e.g., Small Web Format (SWF),
Encapsulated Postscript (EPS), Postscript (PS), among others) may be used
for formatting designs" so that "a user [can] create a design once and the
design can be applied to any range of products without the need to be re-
edited or resized without the loss of image quality." Id. at 3: 13-22.
December 9, 2016 ("Final Act."); and original Specification filed May 22,
2014 ("Spec.").
2
Appeal2018-003918
Application 14/285,122
Claims 1 and 30 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter, as reproduced below with a disputed limitation
italicized:
1. A system for creating a custom design, the system
compnsmg:
a client system including at least one processor
operatively connected to a memory;
an interface configured to receive one or more inputs, the
one or more inputs being used to create a design, the design
including at least one vector-based design element;
wherein the memory of the client system is adapted to
store the at least one vector-based design element;
wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
automatically apply a transformation of the at
least one vector-based design element; and
generate a display of the automatically transformed
at least one vector-based design element;
a component adapted to modify the at least one vector-
based design element and store the modification in the memory
of the client system; and
a component adapted to render the modification of the at
least one vector-based design element within the interface.
App. Br. 10 (Claims App.).
EXAMINER'S REJECTIONS & REFERENCES
(1) Claims 1, 3-9, 11-14, 16-26, 28-30, 32-38, 40-43, 45-55, 57,
and 58 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being obvious over Hayes
et al. (US 2005/0268216 Al; published Dec. 1, 2005; "Hayes") and Fermin
et al. (US 2012/0259727 Al; published Oct. 11, 2012; "Fermin"). Final Act.
3-14.
3
Appeal2018-003918
Application 14/285,122
(2) Claims 2, 10, 31, and 39 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being obvious over Hayes, Fermin, and Berger et al.
(US 2015/0213625 Al; published July 30, 2015; "Berger"). Final Act. 14--
15.
(3) Claims 15 and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being obvious over Hayes, Fermin, and Shuler, Jr. (US 2005/0162670 Al;
published July 28, 2005; "Shuler"). Final Act. 16-17.
DISCUSSION
In support of the § 103 rejection of independent claim 1 and,
similarly, claim 30, the Examiner finds Hayes teaches most aspects of
Appellants' claimed "system for creating a custom design," shown in
Figures 1-2, including:
a client system including at least one processor
operatively connected to a memory;
an interface configured to receive one or more inputs, the
one or more inputs being used to create a design, the design
including at least one vector-based design element;
wherein the memory of the client system is adapted to
store the at least one vector-based design element;
a component adapted to modify the at least one vector-
based design element and store the modification in the memory
of the client system; and
a component adapted to render the modification of the at
least one vector-based design element within the interface.
Final Act. 3--4 (emphasis omitted) (citing Hayes ,r,r 18-19, 22, 24--28, 31,
31,35-38,42,47,55-56)
Hayes' Figure 2 is reproduced below:
4
Appeal2018-003918
Application 14/285,122
,..-120
t
............ ,. ............. ·'"·· ........................................ ... L __ -- -.
170 190
110 CUSTOM GRAPHICS
\ IMAGE DATABASE I DAT.ABASE t'
··············•·········· 105
--L-LLL-LL-LLL LLLLLLLLLLLL
~ FORMS GRAPHICS ENGINE ENGINE ' 115 140 150
CLIENT WEB SERVER
S'YSrEM
--------------'
CUSTOMER IMAGE
DATABASE TEMPLATE DATABASE
FIG.2
SERVER SYSTEM
Hayes' Figure 2 shows a client system 110 for allowing a user to access
custom design system (server system) 120, via network 105, and select,
create, and order custom image designs from image templates stored in
130
180
database 180 using, for example: (1) vector-based images (i.e., Scalable
Vector Graphics (SVG) files), (2) bitmap images, and (3) any desired text.
Hayes ,r,r 2-3, 28, 32-34.
Hayes also teaches that (1) image templates contain both vector-based
and bitmap formatted graphics (id. ,r 30); (2) vector-based images can be
easily scaled to the desired proportion (size or dimension) without loss of
quality, whereas bitmap images are resolution dependent, do not scale and
may lose quality if stretched or resized (id. ,r,r 32-33); and (3) vector
graphics generation software run by graphics engine 150 to allow the user to
convert bitmap images submitted into vector-based images so that the image
can be cropped or resized for a visual display on the final custom design
(Hayes ,r,r 49, 54).
5
Appeal2018-003918
Application 14/285,122
The Examiner then relies on Fermin to teach Appellants' claimed
"processor" configured to "automatically apply a transformation of the at
least one vector-based design element;" and "generate a display of the
automatically transformed at least one vector-based design element" in the
context of "image warping [i.e., image scaling] and transformation" to
support the conclusion of obviousness. Final Act. 4 ( citing Fermin ,r,r 39-
47, Figs. 3A-3D, 4).
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's factual findings regarding
Hayes. Instead, Appellants present several arguments against the
combination of Hayes and Fermin. First, Appellants argue neither Hayes
nor Fermin teaches "automatically apply a transformation of the at least one
vector-based design element" because (i) "Hayes utilizes bitmaps to produce
images" and (ii) "modifying Hayes in view of Fermin's technique would
have resulted in a system for generating bitmap images that allows a user to
warp the images." App. Br. 3--4. Second, Appellants argue "[i]t is
technological and legal error to apply bitmap functions to vector based
images" and, as such, "modifying Hayes'[] system with Fermin' s
transformation would not have been obvious because doing so would have
changed the principle of operation of Hayes or rendered it inoperable." Id.
at 4. According to Appellants,
the proposed modification would have required the additional
steps of converting a vector-based image to a bitmap image and
to convert the modified bitmap image back to a vector-based
image, which would have rendered Hayes' s system
computationally inefficient and change the disclosed principle
of operation.
Id. at 5.
Third, Appellants argue "[r] esizing of bitmap images cannot be
6
Appeal2018-003918
Application 14/285,122
applied to vector-based image[s]" and "there is no support in the art of
record that bitmap-based transformations can be applied to vector-based
images." Id. at 5-6. Fourth, Appellants acknowledge Fermin describes "a
method for transforming images called 'perspective warp', which allows a
user to move the comers of an image and warp the image accordingly." Id.
at 6 (citing Fermin ,r 39). However, Appellants argue Fermin's
transformation is not applied "automatically," as required in the disputed
limitation, but is rather "manual." Id. Lastly, Appellants argue the
Examiner has not shown that (i) "the warping operation taught by Fermin,
which is designed for bitmap images, can be applied to the vector-based
images taught by Hayes" and (ii) "Fermin's 'designer' is an entity separate
from the customer." Reply Br. 3-9 ( emphasis omitted).
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive because these arguments are
based on (i) a misreading of the teachings of Hayes and Fermin, and (ii)
claim limitations not recited in Appellants' claims 1 and 30. Instead, we
find the Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellants'
arguments supported by evidence. Ans. 16-19. As such, we adopt the
Examiner's findings and explanations provided therein, as discussed below.
Id. For example, Hayes is not limited to "bitmaps to produce images" and
does not "apply bitmap functions to vector based images" as Appellants
argue. App. Br. 3--4 ( emphasis omitted). As correctly recognized by the
Examiner, Hayes teaches (1) designing and displaying vector-based images
because vector-based images are scalable (Hayes ,r,r 3-5); (2) the use of
vector graphics tools (software) to allow a user to create, edit, and scale
vector-based images (id. ,r,r 9-10, 30); (3) the use of a graphics engine to
convert bitmap images into vector-based images (Hayes ,r,r 11, 49, 54); and
7
Appeal2018-003918
Application 14/285,122
( 4) Fermin' s image warping and transformation corresponds to Appellants'
claimed "transformation of the at least one vector-based design element"
(Fermin ,r,r 35--47, Figs. 3A-3D, 4). Ans. 17-18.
We note claim terms are given their broadest reasonable interpretation
("BRI") consistent with the Specification. In re Am. A cad. of Sci. Tech Ctr.,
367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under the broadest reasonable
interpretation, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning,
as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of
the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257
(Fed. Cir. 2007).
The term "transformation" as applied to the "vector-based design
element" recited in Appellants' claims 1 and 30 is not explicitly defined by
Appellants' Specification; rather, "transformation" is described in
Appellants' Specification in the context of ( 1) "using vector-based images
[such as SVG vector-based format] rather than raster [bitmap] files for
creating and editing design images" and (2) "vector-based image tools" to
allow a user to create, edit, scale a custom image to any size, or crop and
resize the custom image. Spec. 2:20-23; 3:1-3, 13-22.
Based on Appellants' Specification, the term "transformation" can be
broadly, but reasonably, interpreted to encompass (1) user's ability to scale
"vector-based images to the ... desired proportions without loss of quality"
as described by Hayes (i-fi-f 32, 54), or alternatively (2) Fermin's "image
warping and transformation," as implicitly recognized by the Examiner.
Final Act. 4 (citing Fermin ,r,r 36-37)
Having determined the meaning of the term "transformation," we note
that Hayes teaches all limitations of Appellants' claims 1 and 30. A
8
Appeal2018-003918
Application 14/285,122
disclosure that anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102 also renders the claim
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for 'anticipation is the epitome of
obviousness."' Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1549 (Fed.
Cir. 1983) ( quoting In re Fracalossi, 681 F .2d 792 (CCP A 1982)).
For these reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
independent claims 1 and 30 and respective dependent claims 3-26, 28, 29,
31-55, 57, and 58, which Appellants do not argue separately.
Dependent Claims 2 and 31
Claim 2 depends from claim 1, and further recites ( emphasis added):
wherein the component adapted to modify the at least one
vector-based design element and store the modification in the
memory of the client system and the component adapted to
render the modification of the at least one vector-based design
element within the interface are executed at the client system
through a browser-based interface.
Claim 31 depends from claim 30, and recites similar limitations.
The Examiner further relies on Berger to teach the limitations recited
in claims 2 and 31 to support the conclusion of obviousness. Final Act. 14
(citing Berger ,r,r 17, 23-25, 36, 65).
Appellants argue Berger only teaches a client render engine to
perform image transformation, and does not teach "the use of a web-based
interface to modify and render the modification of the at least one vector-
based design element." App. Br. 9.
We disagree. As recognized by the Examiner, Berger "'image editor
170 may be integrated with, or be part of a network-enabled application
(e.g., web browser)"' and may be configured to execute within a web
9
Appeal2018-003918
Application 14/285,122
browser for the user to create and edit images. Ans. 19 ( citing Berger ,r,r 23,
26, 27, 46, 86, 87, 90, 94--95). In addition, Hayes also teaches the use of
Internet browser 115 at client system 110, shown in Figures 1-2, to allow a
user to create, edit, and scale a custom image design at any size without the
loss of image quality. See Hayes ,r,r 30, 32-33, 49, 54.
For these reasons, we also sustain the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of dependent claims 2 and 31.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not
demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-26, 28-55, 57, and
58 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-26, 28-
55, 57, and 58 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
10