Ex Parte Clark-Lindh

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 20, 2012

11063407 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 2012)

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. 11/063,407 02/22/2005 Teman D. Clark-Lindh 14917.0024US01/311267.01 8943 27488 7590 11/20/2012 MERCHANT & GOULD (MICROSOFT) P.O. BOX 2903 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-0903 EXAMINER CRAWFORD, JACINTA M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2677 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/20/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte TEMAN D. CLARK-LINDH ____________ Appeal 2010-004134 Application 11/063,407 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, DENISE M. POTHIER, and GLENN J. PERRY, Administrative Patent Judges. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-004134 Application 11/063,407 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, and 7-19. Claims 3, 4, 6, and 20 have been canceled. App. Br. 2. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. Invention Appellant’s invention relates to a write order rotation/reorientation algorithm. See Abstract. Claim 1 is reproduced below with key disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A computer-implemented method for ordering operations for graphical hardware characteristics, comprising: identifying the graphical hardware characteristics of a source display device and a target display device, the graphical hardware characteristics including at least one from a set of: a resolution, a horizontal and vertical retrace direction, a retrace rate; determining a source image orientation; determining a target image orientation; identifying a block manipulation algorithm; evaluating at least one of the identified graphical hardware characteristics, the source image orientation, the target image orientation, and the block manipulation algorithm to determine a new write order for the block manipulation algorithm, wherein the new write order for the block manipulation algorithm comprises: for a vertical trace scanning the target image to be displayed from left to right, writing the target image pixel- by-pixel starting at bottom left corner ending at top right corner from bottom to top and left to right, wherein the source image is read pixel-by-pixel starting at top left corner ending at bottom right corner by row; and displaying the target image. 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed April 1, 2009 and supplemented on January 18, 2010; (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed June 19, 2009; and (3) the Reply Brief filed August 19, 2009. Appeal 2010-004134 Application 11/063,407 3 The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability: Brooke US 5,261,030 Nov. 9, 1993 Karlov US 2005/0012752 A1 Jan. 20, 2005 The Rejections 1. Claims 1 and 7-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Karlov. Ans. 3-11. 2. The Examiner rejected claims 2, 5,2 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Karlov and Brooke. Ans. 12-13. THE CONTENTIONS Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner maps Karlov’s Figures 11A through 11B and paragraph 0072 to the recited new write order (Ans. 4-5, 14). Among other things, Appellant argues that Karlov does not “writ[e] the target image pixel-by-pixel starting at bottom left corner ending at top right corner from bottom to top and left to right while reading the source image pixel-by-pixel starting at top left corner ending at bottom right corner by row[.]” App. Br. 7. ISSUE Under § 102, has the Examiner erred by finding that Karlov discloses evaluating a target image orientation to determine a new write order for the block manipulation algorithm that includes the source image being read 2 Claim 5 is included in the § 102 rejection. Claim 5 however depends from claim 2, which was rejected under § 103. We find such an error harmless since Brooke is not relied upon to teach the recitations in claim 5 and group claim 5 accordingly. Appeal 2010-004134 Application 11/063,407 4 pixel-by-pixel starting at top left corner ending at bottom right corner by row? ANALYSIS Claims 1, 7-9, 11, and 12 Based on the record before us, we find error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1. The Examiner relies on Figure 3A through Figure 11C to show that the recited step of evaluating at least one of the identified graphical hardware characteristics, the source image orientation, the target image orientation, and the block manipulation algorithm to determine a new write order for the block manipulation algorithm. Ans. 4. As such and as indicated by the Examiner (Ans. 16 (emphasizing “at least one”), Karlov need only disclose evaluating one of these listed components to anticipate the claim. Karlov discloses a display device (e.g., 47’) that is physically orientable such that the display device is reoriented into a portrait mode using remapping. ¶¶ 0003, 0045-47. Karlov also discloses different pixel dimensions for portrait (e.g., 768 x 1024 shown in Fig. 3A) and landscape (e.g., 1024 x 768) display devices. See ¶ 0048. In order for this reorientation to occur properly, Karlov’s display device must at least evaluate the target image’s orientation to determine any new write order to manipulate blocks into the target’s image orientation. See ¶¶ 0003, 0045-48. We therefore find that Karlov discloses evaluating at least a target image orientation to determine any new write order for the block manipulation algorithm. However, we fail to find the new write order for block manipulation algorithm in paragraph 0072 of Karlov has the ability to perform the reading Appeal 2010-004134 Application 11/063,407 5 step as recited. Karlov discusses how the pixels are written to the frame buffer, but does not disclose the details of how the pixels are read from the source image. See ¶ 0072; Fig. 11A. Additionally, even assuming, without deciding, that Karlov reads from the source image in the same manner that the pixels are written to the frame buffer, Karlov still fails to disclose that the pixels would be read by row as recited. That is, Karlov states that pixels are placed in the frame buffer from left to right 3 in bands (i.e., narrow vertical columns) running from top to bottom and arranged from left to right as shown in Figure 11A. See id. Because any possible read operation discussed in paragraph 0072 occurs in columns rather than rows, Karlov fails to disclose “the source image is read pixel-by-pixel starting at top left corner ending at the bottom right corner by row” (emphasis added) as recited. For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has persuaded us of error in the rejection of: (1) independent claim 1; (2) independent claim 10 which recites commensurate limitations; and (3) dependent claims 7-9, 11, and 12 for similar reasons. Claims 13-18 We reach the opposite conclusion for independent claim 13. Notably and in contrast to independent claims 1 and 10, claim 13 does not recite the source image is read pixel-by-pixel starting at the top left corner and ending at the bottom right corner by row. Thus, we disagree that claim 13 has “a similar recitation” to claim 1 (App. Br. 7) and find this argument concerning Karlov failing to disclose the source image being read pixel-by-pixel starting 3 Karlov mistakenly uses the homonym “write” for “right.” Appeal 2010-004134 Application 11/063,407 6 at top left corner ending at bottom right corner by row (see id.) is not commensurate in scope with claim 13. Additionally, claim 13 recites no evaluating step, and any arguments addressing Karlov failing to disclose determining a new write order based on evaluating graphical hardware characteristics (see App. Br. 9) are likewise not commensurate in scope with claim 13. Claim 13 does recite a writing operation, but differently from claim 1. That is, this claim recites writing the graphic of the second type of orientation pixel-by-pixel at a third predetermined location ending at a fourth predetermined location in another orthogonal order that includes one of two possible techniques. One technique is similar to claim 1 (i.e., writing the graphic of the second type orientation pixel-by-pixel starting at bottom left corner ending at top right corner from bottom to top and left to right), and the other writes the target image pixel-by-pixel starting at the bottom left corner and ending at the top right corner left to right in a predetermined number of horizontal bands. The Examiner refers to Figure 11B and paragraph 0072 to disclose this recited write operation. Ans. 10. Karlov states and shows in Figure 11B a write operation of pixels in a portrait-oriented display device starting from the bottom left corner and ending at the top right corner from bottom to top within each band and left to right. ¶ 0072, ll. 7-13; Fig. 11B. Thus, Karlov discloses at least writing the target image pixel-by-pixel starting at the bottom left corner and ending at the top right corner left to right in a predetermined number of horizontal bands as recited. Also, as broadly as recited and within each band, Karlov further discloses writing the graphic of Appeal 2010-004134 Application 11/063,407 7 the second type orientation pixel-by-pixel starting at bottom left corner ending at top right corner from bottom to top and left to right. Claim 13 further recites identifying graphical hardware characteristics found similarly in claim 1 (App. Br. 9), which includes at least one of resolution, a scan type, and a retrace rate. Thus, to anticipate claim 13, Karlov need only disclose one of these three characteristics, such as a resolution. As the Examiner notes and as previously stated (Ans. 4, 16), Karlov discloses in Figure 3A the pixel dimensions for a display device that is physically reorientable from portrait (i.e., 768 pixels x1024 pixels) to landscape (i.e., 1024 pixels x768 pixels). ¶¶ 0046-48. We further agree with the Examiner that, because the number of pixels (e.g., pixel dimensions) relates to a display’s resolution (Ans. 16), Karlov discusses a recited graphical hardware characteristic of the source and target display devices. Also, during the reorientation process from a portrait to a landscape position, Karlov must identify these different resolutions in order to reorient the graphics on the device properly. ¶¶ 0046-48. Despite Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 9), Karlov thus discloses identifying a source and target display devices’ graphical hardware characteristics as recited in claim 13, which includes a resolution. For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the rejection of independent claim 13 and claims 14-18 not separately argued with particularity. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION Claims 2 and 19 depend from independent claims 1 and 13 respectively, and claim 5 depends from claim 2. The Examiner finds that Appeal 2010-004134 Application 11/063,407 8 Karlov and Brooke teach all the limitations in claims 2 and 19. Ans. 12-13. The Examiner has not relied on Brooke to cure the above-noted deficiencies of claim 1. See id. Because we reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 1, we likewise will not sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 5. However, because we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 13 and Appellant has not shown error in the rejection based on Karlov and Brooke, we likewise will sustain the rejection of claim 19. CONCLUSION Under § 102, the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 7-12 but did not err in rejecting claims 13-18. Under § 103, the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2 and 5 but did not err in rejecting claim 19. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5, and 7-19 is affirmed-in-part. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART kis