Ex Parte Floyd et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 30, 201713751937 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/751,937 01/28/2013 Joseph F. Floyd B86918 1200US.1 (0043.2) 1091 128836 7590 02/17/2017 Wnmhle Parlvle SanHriHae Rr Rioe T T P EXAMINER Attn: IP Docketing P.O. Box 7037 GARMON, BRIAN Atlanta, GA 30357-0037 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2176 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/17/2017 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): ipdocketing @ wcsr. com patentadmin @ B oeing. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOSEPH F. FLOYD, STEPHEN P. MILLER, BRENT L. HADLEY, PATRICK J. EAMES, AND KYLE M. HADLEY Appeal 2016-004792 Application 13/751,9371 Technology Center 2100 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1—18, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. 1 Appellants identify The Boeing Company as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2016-004792 Application 13/751,937 THE INVENTION The disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a panoptic visualization of elements of a complex system using a model viewer. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An apparatus for implementation of a system for panoptic visualization of one or more elements of a complex system, the apparatus comprising a processor and a memory storing executable instructions that, in response to execution by the processor, cause the apparatus to implement at least: a model viewer configured to receive user-selection of a particular point on a visual presentation of a digital three- dimensional (3D) model of a complex system, and translate the particular point to a particular location within a coordinate system of the complex system; a search engine coupled to the model viewer and configured to identify a document component of a panoptic visualization document collection having a plurality of document components, each document component of at least some of the document components including respective media content depicting an element of the complex system, and having associated metadata providing structured information reflecting a 3D geometry of the element within a coordinate system of the complex system, the respective media content of the identified document component depicting an element of the complex system at the particular location or within a volume about or at least in part defined by the particular location; and a layout engine coupled to the search engine and configured to generate a layout of panoptically-arranged visual representations of document components including the identified document component and one or more other document components identified according to the associated metadata for the identified document component, which further includes structured information identifying a link between the identified document component and one or more other document components that establishes a logical relationship between the respective media content thereof, 2 Appeal 2016-004792 Application 13/751,937 wherein the layout is a two-dimensional layout in which the logical relationship is expressed by a difference in size, location or depth of at least some of the visual representations relative to others of the visual representations, and wherein the visual representations of the document components in the layout are images of the document components including the respective media content thereof. REFERENCE The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Davis et al. US 2008/0247636 A1 Oct. 9, 2008 REJECTION Claims 1—18 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Davis. Final Act. 3—14. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, and 17. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, and 17 First, Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Davis discloses the model viewer recited in claim 1. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 2-4. Specifically, Appellants argue Davis does not “disclose translation of that 3 Appeal 2016-004792 Application 13/751,937 particular point to a particular location within a coordinate system of the modeled object. Id. The Examiner finds David discloses the model view recited in claim 1. Final Act. 3 (citing David 129, Fig. 5). More particularly, the Examiner finds “Davis discloses a selection of a point in a 3D model and mapping the point to a 2D view of the object.” Ans. 15 (citing Davis 25, 29). The Examiner further finds Davis discloses that “the user selected [position] of a 3D model is mapped to a second coordinate in a second image of the ‘complex’ system.” Ans. 14. Davis discloses mapping points from a first image “to a corresponding global coordinate point” and that position can “be further mapped to a corresponding location on alternative images that also reference the global coordinate point.” Davis 125. Davis further discloses that “because identified image points map to associated global coordinate points of the associated 3D model, the location of interest may be correspondingly mapped to the surface of the 3D model.” Davis 129. Although Davis does not use the same words as used in claim 1, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test.” In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, “it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (holding that prior art references must be “considered together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art”). Accordingly, Appellants’ argument has not persuaded us the Examiner erred. 4 Appeal 2016-004792 Application 13/751,937 Second, Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Davis discloses a layout of panoptically-arranged document components. App. Br. 8—9; Reply Br. 4—5. According to Appellants, “a graphical user interface (GUI) with a thumbnail window [] with images of an image set, and a main window into which one or more of the images may be loaded” is not panoptically-arranged. App. Br. 9. The Examiner find Davis teaches a layout engine “configured to generate a layout of panoptically-arranged visual representations of document components.” Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 15. The Examiner further finds “Davis displays an overview display of the document images that make up the model.” Final Act. 16. During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation while reading claim language in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad, of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Absent an express intent to impart a novel meaning to a claim term, the words take on the ordinary and customary meanings attributed to them by those of ordinary skill in the art. Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The ordinary meaning of panoptic is “including in one view everything within sight.” Panoptic, Webster’s New World College Dictionary (2010), http://www.yourdictionary.com/panoptic (last visited Aug. 10, 2016); see also Ex parte Hadley, Appeal 2015-003230, 2016 WF 4579907 *3 (PTAB. Aug. 26, 2016) (using the same definition in related appeal). There is nothing in the ordinary meaning of panoptic that would exclude the display format disclosed in Davis. Because Appellants’ 5 Appeal 2016-004792 Application 13/751,937 argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims, it is unpersuasive. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). Instead, we agree with and adopt the Examiner’s finding that Davis discloses the disputed limitation. Third, Appellants argue the Examiner failed to make specific findings as to claim construction and therefore failed to make a prima facie case of anticipation. App. Br. 9, 10. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner erred. As our reviewing Court has held, “all that is required of the office to meet its prima facie burden of production is to set forth the statutory basis of the rejection and the reference or references relied upon in a sufficiently articulate and informative manner as to meet the notice requirement of [35 U.S.C.] § 132.” In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011). We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection (Final Act. 3—4) and conclude that the notice requirement is satisfied in this case by “the examiner’s discussion of the theory of invalidity . . . , the prior art basis for the rejection . . . , and the identification of where each limitation of the rejected claims is shown in the prior art reference by [paragraph] number.” Jung, 637 F.3d at 1363. Fourth, Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Davis discloses a “two-dimensional layout in which the logical relationship is expressed by a difference in size, location or depth of at least some of the visual representations relative to others of the visual representations,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 10. Specifically, Appellants deny Davis teaches the limitation, but provide a single sentence discussing Davis withoutexplanation as to why Davis does not disclose the disputed limitation: 6 Appeal 2016-004792 Application 13/751,937 In yet further contrast to the apparatus of independent Claim 1, Davis does not explicitly or inherently disclose a two- dimensional layout in which the logical relationship between the media content of document components is expressed by a difference in size, location or depth of the images of at least some of the document components relative to others of the of the document components. For this feature, the Examiner cites paragraphs [0050] and [0051] of Davis for displaying a layout in a graphical user interface. As explained above, Davis does disclose a graphical user interface (GUI) with a thumbnail window in with images of an image set, and a main window into which one or more of the images may be loaded. But this alone is insufficient to satisfy the claim. And once again, nowhere does the Examiner provide any claim construction or interpretation of the claims or Davis that substantiates the Examiner’s conclusion. Id.2 That is insufficient to raise an argument that that Examiner erred. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Rule 41.37 requires “more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”); see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (“A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.”); cf. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by 2 To the extent Appellants attempt to raise a new issue in the Reply Brief without showing good cause, those arguments have been waived. See Optivus Technology, Inc. v. Ion Beam Applications S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006); accord Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1473—74 (BPAI 2010) (informative opinion) (absent a showing of good cause, the Board is not required to address an argument newly presented in the reply brief that could have been presented in the principal brief on appeal); 37 C.F.R. §41.41(b)(2) (same). 7 Appeal 2016-004792 Application 13/751,937 an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art.”). Because Appellants have not identified any specific errors in the Examiner’s findings, “the Board will not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection.” Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). Instead, we agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings regarding the “layout is a two-dimensional layout” limitation recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, along with the rejections of claims 7 and 13, which are argued on the same grounds, and claims 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16, and 17, which are not argued separately. Claims 3, 9 and 15 Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Davis discloses metadata that “includes structured information specifying one or more of a size, location or depth of the document component in the layout, and the layout engine is configured to generate the layout according thereto,” as recited in claim 3. App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 6—7. Specifically, Appellants argue Davis does not “explicitly or inherently disclose that any of its images have associated metadata that includes structured_information specifying the size, location or depth of the image in a layout of images, as per the claim” and “the Examiner’s proposition that Davis discloses displaying an image based on its location in a layout is clearly circular and erroneous.” App. Br. 11. The Examiner finds Davis discloses the additional limitation recited in claim 3. Final Act. 8 (citing Davis ^fl[ 50, 51). Specifically, the Examiner 8 Appeal 2016-004792 Application 13/751,937 finds “Davis discloses displaying images components [sic] based on the location of the components in the layout [and] the location is specified in data about the image.” Id. The Examiner further determines “[t]he metadata is the information that defines the location of the images, since metadata is merely data about data.” Ans. 17. We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments as the Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence or provided sufficient explanation as to how Davis discloses the limitation recited in claim 3. Although Davis discloses using data in generating images (Davis ^fl[ 50, 51) and that certain views may be obstmcted when a 3D model is mapped to a 2D view (Davis 133), the Examiner has not sufficiently explained how those disclosures map to the disputed claim limitation. Accordingly, we are constrained on this record to reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3, along with the rejections of claims 9 and 15, which recite limitations commensurate in scope to the disputed limitation discussed above. Claims 6, 12, and 18 Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Davis discloses “metadata that includes structured information reflecting the 3D geometry of the respective depicted element within the coordinate system of the complex system,” as recited in claim 6. App. Br. 11—12; Reply Br. 7—9. According to Appellants, “the referenced geometric properties [disclosed in Davis] are not structured information reflecting the 3D geometry of the depicted element within the coordinate system of the complex system. Instead, these geometry properties are for lines, areas or volumes defined by a user to 9 Appeal 2016-004792 Application 13/751,937 markup (annotate) an image.” App. Br. 11 (citing Davis 1 62, Fig. 5). Appellants further argue that although paragraph 45 discloses “mapping of points between the 3D model and images, and generically ‘image processing,’” that does not disclose the additional limitations of claim 6. Reply Br. 8—9. The Examiner finds Davis discloses the metadata recited in claim 6. Final Act. 9 (citing Davis 1 66). Specifically, the Examiner finds “Davis discloses tagging a component with geometric properties.” Id.', see also Ans. 18 (citing Davis 145). We have reviewed Davis at paragraphs 45 and 66. We conclude that the Examiner’s finding is not supported by Davis for the reasons set forth by Appellants at Appeal Brief 11 and Reply Brief 8—9. Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants’ other arguments. Accordingly, we are constrained on this record to reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6, along with the rejections of claims 12 and 18, which recite limitations commensurate in scope to the disputed limitation discussed above. DECISION For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s decisions rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, and 17. For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s decisions rejecting claims 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18. 10 Appeal 2016-004792 Application 13/751,937 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 11 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation