Ex Parte Carlsen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 26, 2017

14004424 (P.T.A.B. May. 26, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/004,424 09/11/2013 Ingwer-Curt Carlsen 2011P00196WOUS 8024
24737 7590 05/31/2017
PTTTT TPS TNTFT T FfTTTAT PROPFRTY fr STANDARDS
EXAMINER
465 Columbus Avenue ELL, MATTHEW
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2172
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/31/2017 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):
marianne. fox @ philips, com
debbie.henn @philips .com
patti. demichele @ Philips, com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte INGWER-CURT CARLSEN,
SEBASTIAN PETER MICHAEL DRIES, ROLAND JOHANNES OPFER,
ARVID RANDAL NICOLAAS, and
ROBBERT CHRISTIAAN VAN OMMERING
Appeal 2016-008286
Application 14/004,424
Technology Center 2100
Before JASON V. MORGAN, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—9, 11, 12, and 14—20. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is the
KoninklijkePhillips N.V. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-008286
Application 14/004,424
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ “invention relates to displaying a set of interrelated
objects.” Spec. 12.
Claim 1 is reproduced below (emphasis and bracketed material
added).
1. A system for displaying a set of interrelated objects,
comprising:
one or more display devices;
one or more computers configured to:
identify a plurality of interrelated objects;
select a first subset of the plurality of interrelated objects
for display based on a first information filter setting;
control the one or more display devices to display the first
subset of the plurality of interrelated objects on a first
display area;
select a second subset of the plurality of interrelated
objects for display based on a second information filter
setting;
control the one or more display devices to display the
second subset of the plurality of interrelated objects on a
second display area;
a user interface configured to enable a user to select any region
including a plurality of objects of the first display area for
enlargement by visually indicating the selected region in the first
display area, [LI] wherein the user can select the region
independently of individual locations of the displayed objects in
the first display area;
2
Appeal 2016-008286
Application 14/004,424
wherein the second information fitter setting is configured to
select objects corresponding to the selected region with an
increased level of information detail compared to the first
information filter setting.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1—3, 6—9, 12, 14—16, and 19, under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as obvious over Litoiu et al. (US 2004/0088678; May 6,
2004) and Good et al. (US 7,707,503 B2; Apr. 27, 2010). Final Act. 2-8
(Sept. 23,2015).
The Examiner rejects claims 4, 5, 17 and 18, under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as obvious over Litoiu, Good, and Zaman et al.
(US 2010/0077304 Al; Mar. 25, 2010). Final Act. 9-10.
The Examiner rejects claim 11, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as obvious
over Litoiu, Zaman, and Alsafadi (US 2008/0097733 Al; Apr. 24,
2008). Final Act. 10-13.
The Examiner rejects claim 20, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as obvious
over Litoiu, Good, and Alsafadi. Final Act. 13—14.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1—9, 12, and 14—20
The Examiner rejects claims 1—9, 12, and 14—20 as obvious over
Litoiu, Good, and other references in some instances. The Examiner finds,
in relevant part, that Good teaches or suggests the ability to “select the
region independently of individual locations of the displayed objects,” as
recited in limitation LI. Ans. 3. Independent claim 14 recites
3
Appeal 2016-008286
Application 14/004,424
commensurate limitations, and the Examiner similarly finds Good meets
these limitations. Id. at 8.
We observe at the outset that the Examiner and Appellants disagree
on the meaning of the phrase “to select any region including a plurality of
objects” recited in claim 1. The Examiner interprets this phrase as requiring
not the “the ability to select any region, but only the ability to select regions
including multiple objects.” Ans. 3. Appellants contend the Examiner
construes this phrase too narrowly and urges the phrase broadly
encompasses the ability to select any region, regardless of the individual
locations of objects within the region. App. Br. 10—11. Regardless of the
correct scope of the limitation, however, Appellants agree with the Examiner
that Good discloses the ability “to select any region including a plurality of
objects” because “the user can select any region in Good.” Reply Br. 3.
Appellants thus proceed to argue: (i) “Good does not describe that selectable
region affords the user the feel’ of a virtual ‘magnifying glassand (ii)
“When the user selects (i.e., clicks) the particular area around the word
‘Food,’ the display essentially conforms to the boundary of the clicked area
so that the user cannot select the region independently of individual locations
of the displayed objects in the first displayed area.” Id. 3^4.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Appellants’ first
argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Nothing in the
claim language requires that the “selectable region affords the user the ‘feel’
of a virtual ‘magnifying glass.’” To the extent Appellants identify portions
of the Specification describing this ‘feel’, the claim language is not
commensurate with this ‘feel’ and we do not read into the claim language
4
Appeal 2016-008286
Application 14/004,424
exemplary, non-limiting statements from the Specification. In re Am. Acad.
ofSci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Similarly, Appellants’ second argument is not persuasive because it is
not responsive to the Examiner’s findings and the scope of the claims. The
cited portion of Good states in relevant part, “If the user selects the
particular area by, for example, clicking in the particular area, the particular
area is zoomed in.” Good, 4:67—5:2. Appellants concede the particular area
can be chosen from any region. Reply Br. 3 (“the user can select any region
in Good”). Nothing in the cited portions of Good limits the user to selecting
only objects within the particular area. Whether the resulting zoomed area
“essentially conforms to the boundary of the clicked area” as Appellants
contend is of no moment to whether “the user can select the region
independently of individual locations of the displayed objects” as recited in
limitation LI. The Examiner finds, and we agree, “The user in Good does
not have to select a displayed object to zoom, they can select anywhere
within the highlighted box, thus this selection of a region including multiple
objects occurs independently of the locations of the displayed objects.”
Ans. 4.
With regard to dependent claim 2, Appellants contend the Examiner
errs in rejecting this claim because “the user of the Litoiu system can only
see the objects in the first display (i.e., Hierarchical view 305) and the
enlarged region (i.e., Zoomable view 300), but cannot a [sic] second subset
of a plurality of interrelated objects is being displayed on a second display
area.” Reply Br. 4. We agree with Appellants. The Examiner identifies the
first display area as “the right portion of Fig. 3” and the second display area
as “the left portion of Fig. 3” but fails to identify selection of a further region
5
Appeal 2016-008286
Application 14/004,424
of the first display area (i.e. the right portion of Fig. 3) for enlargement.
Ans. 5—6.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3—9, 12,
and 14—20. We do not sustain, however, the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 2.
Claim 11
Claim 11 recites in relevant part: “as the selected region is dragged
over the first display area,. . . applying the second filter setting to select
objects corresponding to the dragged selected region with the increased level
of detail compared to the first filter setting.”
The Examiner rejects claim 11 over the combination of Litoiu,
Zaman, and Alsafadi and finds Zaman’s dragging of magnified view 260
meets the disputed limitation by suggesting to similarly drag Litoiu’s
magnification 210. Final Act. 12 (citing Zaman Fig. 2; abst.).
Appellants contend:
Zaman discloses that the user must click different areas of the
window 240 to access different areas thereof (e.g., the empty
region 280, the magnified text 260, the normal-sized text 270,
and the like). As discussed above in regards to claim 1, the
present claims provide selectable region affords the user the
‘feel’ of a virtual ‘magnifying glass’, i.e., so that a user does not
have to waste time clicking through different nodes of a tree.
Reply Br. 5—6; see also App. Br. 22—23. As with independent claims 1 and
14, nothing in independent claim 11 requires that the “selectable region
affords the user the ‘feel’ of a virtual ‘magnifying glass,”’ and we do not
read into the claim language exemplary, non-limiting statements from the
Specification. In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech Ctr., 367 at 1369.
6
Appeal 2016-008286
Application 14/004,424
Appellants further contend “there is no new detail shown in [Zaman’s]
magnified portion [260] of the text[; but rather] only the selected text is
magnified.” App. Br. 21. Id. The argument is unpersuasive because, as
clarified by the Examiner’s Answer, Litiou is cited as teaching this claim
feature. Ans. 6 (citing Final Act. 11).
Finally, Appellants argue:
Even if. . . the magnification capabilities of Zaman (e.g., shown
in Figure 8) were combined with Fitiou (e.g., shown in Figures
2A—2C), the magnified portion of Fitiou (i.e., node 210) would
have to take up the entire display in order to show all the
information contained in node 210. In other words, subnodes
108—114 (shown in Figure 2A) would be covered by node
210. Thus, the user would not be able to select any other portions
on the display (e,g., subnodes 108—114).
App. Br. 24 (emph. added); see also Reply Br. 5. This argument is
unpersuasive because it is not responsive to the Examiner’s findings. The
cited portions of Fitiou do not indicate Fitiou’s magnification “would have
to take up the entire display in order to show all the information contained in
node 210.” App. Br. 24. Rather, Fitiou confirms the magnification can be
ceased before the resulting expansion of node 210 consumes the display.
Fitiou 129 (“zooming can be stopped at any magnification by the user”).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11.
7
Appeal 2016-008286
Application 14/004,424
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 2.
We affirm the Examiner’s decisions rejecting claims 1, 3—9, 11, 12,
and 14—20.
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-IN-PART
8