Ex Parte Bloem et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 25, 201914285122 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2019) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation