Ex Parte Hao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 17, 2012

10725624 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte MING C. HAO, UMESHWAR DAYAL,
AKHIL SAHAI, FABIO CASATI, and VIJAY MACHIRAJU
____________________

Appeal 2010-008096
Application 10/725,624
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and
JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-008096
Application 10/725,624

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-30. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).

SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We affirm.

BACKGROUND
Appellants’ invention is directed to a system and method for
visualizing business agreement interactions. (Specification [0007]).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method of visualizing business agreement interactions, the
method comprising:
dividing, by a computer, parties into at least three types;
displaying, by the computer, one or more parties of a first
type as nodes in a first region of a view window;
displaying, by the computer, one or more parties of a
second type as nodes in a second region of the view window;
displaying one or more parties of a third type as nodes in
a third region of the view window, wherein the third region is at
least substantially between the first and second regions; and
displaying, by the computer, agreements between parties
as lines between corresponding nodes.

Appellants appeal the following rejections:
Claims 1-7, 11, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gorur (US 2003/0065546 A1, pub. Apr. 3, 2003) and
Chang (US 7,313,533 B2, iss. Dec. 25, 2007).
Appeal 2010-008096
Application 10/725,624

3
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Gorur, Chang and Israel (US 2004/0210540 A1, pub. Oct. 21, 2004).
Claims 10, 27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gorur, Chang and Chen (US 2005/0066026 A1, pub. Mar.
24, 2005).
Claims 12 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gorur, Chang, Abrari (US 7,020,869 B2, iss. Mar. 28,
2006) and Chen.
Claims 13, 14, 19, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gorur, Abrari, and Chang.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Gorur, Abrari, Chang and Israel.
Claims 16-18, 20, 28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gorur, Abrari, Chang, and Chen.

FACTUAL FINDINGS
We find the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence.
1. Gorur discloses at Figure 3 three types of parties displayed in three
regions of the screen, with lines indicative of contractual relationships
between the parties as supplier and customer. Figure 3 of Gorur is
reproduced below:
App
App

2.
3.
4.
5.
21 to
repre
claim
subs
eal 2010-0
lication 10
Figure 3 o
display, co
Gorur disc
provider a
Israel disc
coding. (P
Chang dis
violated. (
Chang dis
has taken p

Claims 1
Initially,
gether as
sentative
21 stand
tantive arg
08096
/725,624
f Gorur sh
nnected b
loses that
nd contrac
loses notif
ara. [0198
closes dete
Col. 4, ll.
closes noti
lace. (Co
-3, 6, 11,
we note th
a group. (
claim 1 to
ing or falli
ument as t
ows three
y lines tha
Figure 3 d
t customer
ying users
]).
rmining if
12-18).
fying a pa
l. 4, ll. 27
AN
21, and 22
at the Ap
App. Br. 8
decide the
ng with cl
o the sepa
4
types of p
t indicate
isplays “in
objects.”
of the stat
a busines
rty if a bus
-30).
ALYSIS

pellants ar
). Corresp
appeal of
aim 1. Ap
rate patent
arties in th
contracts.
tersection
(Para. [00
us of a dis
s commitm
iness com
gue indep
ondingly,
these claim
pellants d
ability of
ree region
s between
82]).
pute using
ent has b
mitment v
endent cla
we select
s, with re
o not prov
claims 2, 3
s of the
contract
color
een
iolation
ims 1 and
maining
ide a
, 6, 11,

Appeal 2010-008096
Application 10/725,624

5
and 22 that depend from claims 1 and 21. Thus claims 2, 3, 6, 11, 21, and
22 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellants’ argument that Gorur fails to disclose parties of at least three
types (App. Br. 6), because the argument construes the claim narrowly. The
claim broadly recites “dividing, by the computer, parties into at least three
types,” but does not limit the types. Gorur, at Figure 3, shows three types of
parties in three zones of the display (FF 1) that meet the claim requirements
as follows: users A and D in the left region are contract providers, users C,
F, and G in the right region are contract customers, and users B and E in the
middle region are both contract providers and customers (FF 2). The
disclosure in Chang of three different party types is cumulative.
We are also not persuaded of error by Appellants’ argument that
Chang does not disclose displaying its three types of parties in different
regions of a view (App. Br. 7, 8), because the Examiner found the display in
three different regions of a view (FF 1) in Gorur (Ans. 4), and relied on
Chang only for its disclosure of three specific types of parties (Ans. 5).
We further are not persuaded of error by Appellants’ argument that
the rejection is based on hindsight and that there would be no motivation to
combine Gorur and Chang “since Gorur is focused on peer-to-peer contract
relationships.” (App. Br. 7 to 8). First, to the extent Appellants seek an
explicit suggestion or motivation in the reference itself, this is no longer the
law in view of the Supreme Court’s recent holding in KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). Second, we find three types of
relationships in Gorur, as set forth above. Additionally, we agree with the
Examiner (Ans. 5) that one of ordinary skill in the art of creating display
Appeal 2010-008096
Application 10/725,624

6
views of information, upon viewing the display layout of Gorur’s Figure 3,
would be motivated to use the display layout for displaying additional types
of information, such as relationships between additional party types
disclosed in Chang.

Claims 4 and 5
Dependent claim 4 recites “wherein the first region is an arc of a
circle, and wherein the second region is an opposing arc of the circle.”
Dependent claim 5 recites that the “third region is a circle diameter.”
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellants’ arguments, directed to claim 4, that there is “no reason to depict
the peer-to-peer relationships of Gorur on arcs of a circle,” and to claim 5
that it is “unnecessary, and even undesirable, in the context of Gorur.”
(App. Br. 9-10).
We agree with the Examiner that the selection of a particular graphic
display technique to represent information is a matter of design choice.
(Ans. 7). The particular graphical representation chosen from the available
toolkit of options has no particular function and would have been an obvious
matter of design choice well within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See
In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553 (CCPA 1975) (use of claimed feature solves no
stated problem and presents no unexpected result and “would be an obvious
matter of design choice within the skill of the art”).
On this basis, we affirm the rejections of claims 4 and 5 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).

Appeal 2010-008096
Application 10/725,624

7
Claims 7, 10, 23, 27, and 29
We note that the Appellants argue claims 7 and 23 together as a
group. (App. Br. 10). Correspondingly, we select representative claim 7 to
decide the appeal of these claims, with remaining claim 23 standing or
falling with claim 7. Appellants do not provide a substantive argument as to
the separate patentability of claims 10, 27, and 29 that depend from claims 7
and 23 (App. Br. 13). Thus claims 10, 23, 27, and 29 stand or fall with
claim 7. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Claim 7 recites, “wherein said lines are displayed with at least one
characteristic indicative of whether a violation of a corresponding one of the
agreements has occurred.”
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellants’ argument that the only basis for a conclusion of obviousness is
hindsight, because Chang does not disclose the claim limitation. App. Br.
10. The choice of a specific symbolic meaning assigned to a display
element does not affect the function of the claim, which is to display
information. The specific symbolic meaning assigned (whether a violation
has occurred), therefore, does not have a new and nonobvious functional
relationship sufficient to establish patentability. See In re Gulack, 703 F.2d
1381, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Gorur discloses lines that represent contracts,
and therefore discloses the function of displaying lines with at least one
characteristic indicative of the existence of a contract. This meets the claim
requirements, so we affirm the rejection of claims 7, 10, 23, 27, and 29
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Claim 8
Appeal 2010-008096
Application 10/725,624

8
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellants’ argument that the “status of a dispute is completely different
from indicating with color whether a violation of an agreement has
occurred.” (App. Br. 11). As with claim 7, the specific symbolic meaning
assigned to a display element is non-functional descriptive material not
deserving patentable weight. Israel discloses using color to notify of the
status of a dispute (FF 3), which meets the requirement that “lines are
displayed with at least one characteristic indicative” of an assigned meaning.
We therefore affirm the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Claim 9
Dependent claim 9 recites the use of “animation.” We are not
persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by Appellants’ argument that
“color does not provide any hint whatsoever of use of animation.” (App. Br.
12). One of ordinary skill in the art of designing graphical displays of
information on a computer screen has a limited set of tools from which to
draw to represent information, including words, points, lines and other
geometric shapes, color, animation, and so on. The particular graphical
representation chosen from the available toolkit of options has no particular
function and would have been an obvious matter of design choice well
within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Kuhle. We therefore affirm the
rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Claims 12 and 24
Dependent claims 12 and 24 recite the use of “parallel lines” and
“changing one or more of the parallel lines as a function of time.” We are
Appeal 2010-008096
Application 10/725,624

9
not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by Appellants’ argument
that Chang provides “no hint whatsoever of changing one or more of the
parallel lines as a function of time.” (App. Br. 13-14). One of ordinary skill
in the art of designing graphical displays of information on a computer
screen has a limited set of tools from which to draw to represent
information, including words, points, lines and other geometric shapes,
color, animation, and so on. The particular graphical representation chosen
from the available toolkit of options has no particular function and would
have been an obvious matter of design choice well within the level of
ordinary skill in the art. Id. We therefore affirm the rejection of claims 12
and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Claims 13, 14, 19, 25, and 26
We note that the Appellants argue independent claims 13 and 25
together as a group. (App. Br. 15-16). Correspondingly, we select
representative claim 13 to decide the appeal of these claims, with remaining
claim 25 standing or falling with claim 13. Appellants do not provide a
substantive argument as to the separate patentability of claims 14, 19, and 26
that depend from claims 13 and 25. (App. Br. 16). Thus claims 14, 19, 26,
and 26 stand or fall with claim 13. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellants’ argument that Chang does not disclose “displaying lines that
represent agreement conditions with at least one characteristic indicative of
whether a violation” has taken place. (App. Br. 15). We agree with the
Examiner that the particular method for the notification within the display
would have been a matter of design choice, within the skill of one of
Appeal 2010-008096
Application 10/725,624

10
ordinary skill in designing graphical displays of information (Ans. 15), and
the specific meaning assigned to that graphical display element is non-
functional descriptive material, not deserving patentable weight. Chang
discloses determining if a business commitment has been violated (FF 4) and
notifying a party of the violation (FF 5). The combination therefore meets
the requirement of “displaying lines that represent agreement conditions
with at least one characteristic indicative” of an assigned meaning.
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellants’ argument that there is no reason to combine Gorur with Abrari
because the “desirability” of displaying lines with the particular claimed
meaning assigned to a “characteristic indicative” of that meaning. (App. Br.
16). To the extent Appellants seek an explicit suggestion or motivation in
the reference itself, this is no longer the law in view of the Supreme Court’s
recent holding in KSR at 419. The Examiner provided a reasonable rationale
for the combination, “in order to display the relationship between the
agreement conditions and the parties of the agreement” beyond the simple
existence of contracts disclosed in Gorur. (Ans. 15).
We also are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellants’ argument that there is no reason to combine Gorur/Abrari with
Chang because Chang’s detection of a business commitment violation “has
nothing to do with the visualization technique” of the claim. (App. Br. 16).
Chang discloses notifying a party of the violation (FF 5), and the particular
method for the notification within the display would have been a matter of
design choice, within the skill of one of ordinary skill in designing graphical
displays of information.
Appeal 2010-008096
Application 10/725,624

11
For these reasons we sustain the rejection of claims 13, 14, 19, 25, and
26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Claim 15
We affirm the rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because
it was not separately argued. App. Br. 16-17.

Claims 16 and 30
Dependent claim 16 recites that “displaying actions are animated to
show a violation occurrence sequence over time.”
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellants’ argument that “[n]one of the cited references provide any
teaching of displaying agreement conditions with an animation.” App. Br.
17. Similar to our response at claim 9 above, we agree with the Examiner
that the use of animation is one of design choice. Ans. 18. One of ordinary
skill in the art of designing graphical displays of information on a computer
screen has a limited set of tools from which to draw to represent
information, including words, points, lines and other geometric shapes,
color, animation, and so on. The particular graphical representation chosen
from the available toolkit of options has no particular function and would
have been an obvious matter of design choice well within the level of
ordinary skill in the art. Kuhle.
Appellants do not provide a substantive argument as to the separate
patentability of claim 30. Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claims 16
and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Appeal 2010-008096
Application 10/725,624

12
Claims 17, 18, 20, and 28
We affirm the rejection of claims 17, 18, 20, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) because they are not separately argued. App. Br. 18.

DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

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

mls