Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 29, 2016

13239446 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/239,446 09/22/2011 MING CHEN
52021 7590 05/03/2016
Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC
20283 State Road 7
Ste. 300
Boca Raton, FL 33498
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.
CN920100082US l_ 8150-0111 7846
EXAMINER
HASAN, NAVEED S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2614
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/03/2016 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):
ibmptomail@iplawpro.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MING CHEN, JUN FENG LIU, and JIN XIN YING
Appeal2014-006534
Application 13/239,446
Technology Center 2600
Before JEFFREYS. SMITH, JON M. JURGOV AN, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 8-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.2
1 Appellants identify IBM Corporation as the real party in interest. App. Br.
1.
2 Our decision refers to the Specification filed September 22, 2011
("Spec."); the Final Office Action mailed Sept. 17, 2013 ("Final Act."); the
Appeal Brief filed Dec. 17, 2013 ("App. Br."); the Examiner's Answer
mailed Mar. 21, 2014 ("Ans."); and the Reply Brief filed May 13, 2014
("Reply Br.").
Appeal2014-006534
Application 13/239,446
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims are directed to dynamic partitioning of a screen display to
reduce the amount of data required to transmit a changed region of an image
in the context of application sharing among two or more computers. (Spec.
i12; Abstract.) Claim 8, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
8. A computer program product for improving application
sharing by dynamic partitioning, the computer program product
compnsmg:
a computer readable storage medium having computer
readable program code embodied therewith, the computer
readable program code comprising:
computer readable program code configured to partition a
screen display of an application into grid regions;
computer readable program code configured to, in
response to detecting that an application image in the plurality
of grid regions has changed, offset positions of the grid regions,
so that the changed portions of the application image are in
fewer grid regions; and
computer readable program code configured to transmit
image data in the offset grid regions involving the changed
portions of the application image and identifications and offset
data of the offset grid regions to an application sharing client.
REJECTIONS
Claims 8-14 stand provisionally rejected for non-statutory
obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-7 of co-pending
application No. 13/554,081 in view of Padlia et al. (US 7,203,359 Bl; Apr.
10, 2007). (Final Act. 5-7 .)
2
Appeal2014-006534
Application 13/239,446
Claims, 8, 9, 12, 15, 16, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based on Chun et al. (US 6,115,501; Sept. 5, 2000) and Padlia.
(Final Act. 8-13.)
Claims 10, 11, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Chun, Padlia, and Johnston et al. (US 2006/0012612 Al; Jan. 19,
2006). (Final Act. 13-17.)
Claims 13 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Chun, Padlia, and Bartell (US 2005/0069189 Al; Mar. 31, 2005). (Final
Act. 17-19.)
Claims 14 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Sankuratri et al. (US 2011/0141133 Al; June 16, 2011), Chun, and Liu et al.
(US 8,255,461 Bl; Aug. 28, 2012). (Final Act. 19-24.)
APPELLANTS' ARGUMENTS
Claim 8
1. Appellants argue the combination of Chun and Padlia fails to teach
or suggest the claimed "in response to detecting that an application image in
the plurality of grid regions has changed, offset positions of the grid regions,
so that the change portions of the application image are in fewer grid
regions." (App. Br. 11-13; Reply Br. 2-3 (emphasis added).) Specifically,
Appellants acknowledge that Chun teaches offsetting positions of a grid, but
argue the reference is silent regarding changed portions of an application
image.
2. Appellants argue Chun teaches the image is moving, but not
necessarily changing. According to Appellants, even assuming arguendo
Chun's image does change, Chun does not identify changed portions of the
3
Appeal2014-006534
Application 13/239,446
image, and thus cannot teach "the changed portions of the application image
are in fewer grid regions." (App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 2-3 (emphasis added).)
3. Appellants argue Chun does not teach the claimed "transmit image
data in the offset grid regions involving the changed portions of the
application image and identifications and offset data of the offset grid
regions to an application sharing client." (App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 4-5
(emphasis added).) Specifically, Appellants acknowledge Chun teaches "the
amount of the data to be stored and transmitted can be significantly
reduced," but argue Chun does not teach that this "data" includes (i) image
data in the offset grid regions and (ii) identifications and offset data of the
offset grid regions, as claimed. Appellants argue the cited passage of Chun
is silent as to exactly what data is transmitted. Appellants also argue the
Examiner's cited passage does not state that the information is sent to an
application sharing client. Appellants conclude the Examiner commits error
by mischaracterizing the scope and content of the applied prior art.
4. Appellants dispute the Examiner's finding that "Chun would be
transmitting the minimized grid positions to reduce the amount of
information transferred." (App. Br. 15-16.) Appellants contend the
Examiner's finding is speculative, that the Examiner has not presented any
evidence and/or analysis that this finding necessarily (i.e., inherently) flows
from the teachings of Chun, and that the Examiner's statement is conclusory
in nature.
5. Appellants argue Chun and Padlia fail to teach aspects of the
claimed "in response to detecting that an application image in the
plurality of grid regions has changed, offset positions of the grid regions,
so that the changed portions of the application image are in fewer grid
4
Appeal2014-006534
Application 13/239,446
regions using a computer system." (App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 5-6.) Appellants
acknowledge Padlia teaches the bolded portion and Chun teaches the
underlined portion of the claim language, but not that the performance of the
offsetting is conditional upon the detecting.
6. Appellants argue modifying Chun and Padlia does not make sense
based on their teachings. (App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 5-6.) Appellants argue the
resultant combination would involve the grids of Chun being newly created
via the process of Padlia, which would not involve offsetting existing grid
positions but instead creating new ones.
7. Appellants state the Examiner noted the benefit of the combination
is that "users can share applications and least amount of bandwidth is used."
(App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 5-6.) Appellants argue sharing applications is not
relevant to the claimed invention or proposed combination. Appellants also
argue that reduction of bandwidth is addressed by Chun, so one of ordinary
skill would not combine Padlia to provide a feature Chun already provides.
ANALYSIS
The provisional obviousness-type double-patenting rejection is not
contested by Appellants. Accordingly, we summarily affirm this rejection.
Section 103 (a) forbids issuance of a patent when "the
differences between the subject matter sought to be patented
and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to
a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject
matter pertains."
KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations
including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences
5
Appeal2014-006534
Application 13/239,446
between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in
the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary considerations.
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
Appellants present no evidence or argument concerning the level of
skill in the art under factor (3), or secondary considerations under factor (4),
of the Graham analysis. Accordingly, we assume the Specification and cited
prior art are representative of the level of ordinary skill in the art under
factor (3), and proceed in the analysis without evidence of secondary
considerations under factor (4).
Turning to factors (1) and (2) of the Graham analysis, we now
consider the scope and content of the prior art, and any differences between
the claimed subject matter and the prior art, considering Appellants'
arguments (1 )-(7).
Regarding argument ( 1 ), Appellants acknowledge that Chun teaches
offsetting positions of a grid, but argue the reference is silent regarding
changed portions of an application image. We agree with the Examiner that
the combination of Chun and Padlia teach this feature. (Ans. 2; Final Act. 8,
10.) Specifically, Chun (1:16-27) contemplates offsetting a grid to
minimize the information needed to represent a moving object in an image,
which necessarily involves changed portions of an image within the meaning
of claim 8. Moreover, Padlia (3 :22-26) teaches identifying areas of an
image changing over time. A person of ordinary skill in the art understands
an image could be generated on a computer by an application. Thus, this
argument does not establish any distinction a person of ordinary skill would
recognize between the claimed subject matter and cited references.
6
Appeal2014-006534
Application 13/239,446
Regarding argument (2), Appellants contend an image that is moving
is not necessarily changing. We disagree. If an image moves, it changes.
Appellants further argue in the claimed invention, an object in the image
changes, whereas in Chun it does not. However, the claim recites no
language commensurate in scope with Appellants' argument. Also, we
agree with the Examiner's finding that Chun moves its grid so that the
changed portion of its image is in fewer grid regions. (Ans. 2-3; Final Act.
8-9 (citing Chun 1 :6-27).) Moreover, as the Examiner notes, Padlia (3:22-
25) teaches areas of an image identified as changing over time. (Final Act.
10-11.) Thus, we are not persuaded by this argument that there is a
distinction between the claimed limitation and the cited references.
Regarding argument (3), Appellants acknowledge Chun teaches "the
amount of the data to be stored and transmitted can be significantly
reduced," but argue Chun does not teach that this "data" includes (i) image
data in the offset grid regions and (ii) identifications and offset data of the
offset grid regions, as claimed. Appellants argue the cited passage of Chun
is silent as to exactly what data is transmitted. (App. Br. 14.) We disagree.
Chun states:
As illustrated in FIG. 4, reference numeral 31 denotes an
address generation controller for moving an address start
position at which an address is generated within the range of the
X-axis and Y-axis by a predetermined distance, and reference
numeral 33 denotes an address generator for generating X-axis
and Y-axis addresses so that the image of an object can be
segmented to a unit region and sequentially outputted in
accordance with an address start position which the address
generation controller 31 generates, and reference numeral 35
denotes a memory for sequentially storing an image of an
object having predetermined shape information and segmenting
7
Appeal2014-006534
Application 13/239,446
and outputting a unit region in accordance with an address
which the address generator 33 generates.
(Chun 9:35--47.) Thus, as the Examiner finds, Chun teaches the X-
axis and Y-axis addresses identify particular unit regions, and thus
may be considered the claimed "identifications." (Final Act. 8-9.)
Moreover, Chun teaches determining and outputting the X-axis and
Y-axis position corresponding to the grid position having the
minimum number of unit regions, i.e., the claimed "offset." (Final
Act. 8-9 (citing Chun 12: 17-27).) As the Examiner further notes,
Chun teaches:
coding the image of the object with respect to the minimum
number of unit regions, and generating the motion information,
thus achieving a higher compaction rate, whereby the amount of
the data to be stored and transmitted can be significantly
reduced.
(23:55-67.) Thus; we agree with the Examiner Chun teaches the claimed
features.
Regarding argument ( 4), Appellants dispute the Examiner's finding
that "Chun would be transmitting the minimized grid positions to reduce the
amount of information transferred." (App. Br. 15-16.) Appellants contend
the Examiner's finding is speculative; that the Examiner has not presented
any evidence and/or analysis that this finding necessarily (i.e., inherently)
flows from the teachings of Chun; and that the Examiner's statement is
conclusory in nature.
For reasons previously explained, we disagree with Appellants'
arguments. As the Examiner indicates, Chun teaches detecting the number
of unit regions in which the image of an object exists, moving the grid
8
Appeal2014-006534
Application 13/239,446
position so that the object of an image exists in a minimum number of unit
regions, and coding the image of the object existing in the detected unit
regions so as to minimize the amount of information. (Ans. 6 (citing Chun
5: 10-16).) Chun also teaches the purpose of its method is to reduce the
amount of data to be stored and transmitted. (Chun 23:55-67.) Thus, we
find these arguments unpersuasive.
Regarding argument ( 5), Appellants contend Chun and Padlia do not
teach that the performance of offsetting positions of the grid regions is
conditional upon detecting that an application image in the plurality of grid
regions has changed. However, Padlia teaches identifying areas of an image
that change over time on a screen of a first digital device for the purpose of
refreshing a screen of a second digital device. (Final Act. 10 (citing Padlia
3 :22-27).) A person of ordinary skill, considering Chun and Padlia, would
understand such refreshing would involve determination of offset of the grid
position in response to identifying areas of an image that change over time,
thus teaching the claimed limitation.
Regarding argument ( 6), Appellants contend the combination resulting
from modifying Chun and Padlia would involve the grids of Chun being
newly created via the process of Padlia, which would not involve offsetting
existing grid positions but instead creating new ones. (App. Br. 17.) We
find no evidence in Chun or Padlia that necessitates Appellants' conclusion.
Instead, the person of ordinary skill considering the cited references would
realize that detection of a change in the image should be performed before
determining offsets of grid positions and the number of grid regions
minimizing data transfer. "A person of ordinary skill in the art is a person of
ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR at 420-21.
9
Appeal2014-006534
Application 13/239,446
Regarding argument (7), Appellants state the Examiner noted the
benefit of the combination is that "users can share applications and least
amount of bandwidth is used." (App. Br. 17.) Appellants argue sharing
applications is not relevant to the claimed invention or proposed
combination. However, claim 8 recites "[a] computer program product for
improving application sharing .... " Thus, we disagree with Appellants that
sharing applications is not relevant to what is claimed.
Appellants also argue that reduction of bandwidth is addressed by
Chun, so one of ordinary skill would not combine Padlia to provide a feature
Chun already provides. We do not agree with this argument. A person of
ordinary skill considering the problem of reducing transmission bandwidth
when sharing applications would appreciate the features of both Chun and
Padlia can be applied to solve that problem.
Accordingly, considering factors (1)-(3) of the Graham analysis
together, we find there are no significant differences between the
combination of Chun and Padlia and what is claimed, taking into account the
level of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's
finding of obviousness for claim 8.
Appellants present the same arguments for the remaining claims,
which we find unpersuasive for the reasons explained.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue the Examiner did not address
arguments made by Appellants in the Appeal Brief. (Reply Br. 2, 4, 6.) In
view of the substantial overlap between the arguments, we are satisfied the
Examiner adequately responds to all of Appellants' arguments, and that
Appellants' arguments do not show error in the Examiner's rejections.
10
Appeal2014-006534
Application 13/239,446
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims
8-21.
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
11