Ex Parte Floyd et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2017

13751937 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 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.
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