Ex Parte Lyapunov et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 22, 2014

11345016 (P.T.A.B. May. 22, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte MIKHAIL M. LYAPUNOV, CHRISTOPHER J. HAN, DAVID C. BROWN, JASON H. HARTMAN, MICHAEL J. DUGGAN, and MIKHAIL V. LEONOV _____________ Appeal 2012-001186 Application 11/345,016 Technology Center 2600 ______________ Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, DENISE M. POTHIER, and DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges. Opinion for the Board filed by Administrative Patent Judge KOHUT. Concurring Opinion filed by Administrative Patent Judge BAUMEISTER. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-001186 Application 11/345,016 2 This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1-9, 11-16, and 22-25.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. INVENTION The invention is directed to converting one or more characters from a vector format to an overscaled bitmap format and adjusting each character based on a text contrast setting. Spec. ¶ 3. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. A method of rendering text comprising at least one character having at least one vertical stem having a vertical stem width and at least one horizontal stem having a horizontal stem width, the vertical stem width and the horizontal stem width having a stem width ratio, into output for a display device based on a text contrast setting, comprising: for respective characters: obtaining a shape of the character in a vector format; overscaling the shape of the character to generate an overscaled bitmap of the character; and adjusting only a horizontal stem width of at least one edge of at least one horizontal stem of the overscaled bitmap by at least one pixel based on the text contrast setting to generate an adjusted overscaled bitmap having a different stem width ratio of an adjusted horizontal stem width with respect to the vertical stem width of the vertical stem of the shape; 1 Claims 10 and 17-21 were previously cancelled. Appeal 2012-001186 Application 11/345,016 3 performing a filtering procedure to determine a set of density values for how respective pixels of the adjusted overscaled bitmap correspond to a set of screen pixels; and blending the respective pixels of the adjusted overscaled bitmap into the output based on the set of density values to form a modified output ready for displaying on the display device. REFERENCE Dowling US 5,943,063 Aug. 24, 1999 Hill et al. US 6,577,291 B2 June 10, 2003 Ivarsy et al. US 2006/0101162 A1 May 11, 2006 (filed Nov. 8, 2004) REJECTIONS AT ISSUE Claims 11-16 and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed towards non-statutory subject matter. Ans. 4-5. Claims 1-9, 11-16, and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to meet the written description requirement. Ans. 5-7. Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11, 12, 14-16, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Dowling in view of Ivarsy. 2 Ans. 7-12. Claims 3, 13, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Dowling in view of Ivarsy in view of Hill. Ans. 12- 14. 2 Since claim 21 has been cancelled, we have removed it from the statement of rejection. Appeal 2012-001186 Application 11/345,016 4 CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS Refusal To Enter an Amendment Initially, Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in refusing to enter an amendment presented on January 31, 2011. App. Br. 9-13. Such issues are petitionable matters under 37 C.F.R. § 1.181 and will not be addressed on appeal. See MPEP §§ 1002 and 1201. 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112, first paragraph rejections The Examiner rejected claims 11-16 and 22-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for containing non-statutory subject matter and claims 1-9, 11-16, and 22-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for failing to comply with the written description requirement. Ans. 4-5. Appellants submit that these grounds of rejection are not presented for appeal. App. Br. 5. However, these claims have not been cancelled, and the §§ 101 and 112 rejections have not been withdrawn. See Ans. 4-7. Thus, we summarily sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11-16 and 22-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and claims 1-9, 11-16, and 22-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. Claims 1-9, 11-16, and 22-25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 Independent claim 1 requires, “adjusting only a horizontal stem width.” Independent claims 11 and 25 set forth similar limitations. Claims 2-9, 11-16, and 22-24 variously depend from independent claims 1 and 11. The Examiner finds that although Dowling in view of Ivarsy does not teach the disputed feature, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to forgo vertical adjustments if a change in character height was not desired. Ans. 9-10. Appellants contend that the Examiner admitted that Dowling does not literally teach the disputed Appeal 2012-001186 Application 11/345,016 5 feature and Dowling teaches preserving stem balance both in the vertical and horizontal directions. App. Br. 20-26; Reply Br. 2-6. Appellants also contend that the Examiner failed to give due weight to these portion of Dowling that teach away from the disputed features. Id. The dispositive issue before us, then, is as follows: Did the Examiner err in finding that Dowling in view of Ivarsy teaches or suggests adjusting only a horizontal stem width after the overscaled bitmap of the character is generated, as required by independent claim 1 and similarly required by independent claims 11 and 25? We find Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive. Although Dowling discusses, in the Background Art section, the undesired possibility of having unbalanced stem weight balance, Dowling teaches preserving the stem weight balance both in the horizontal and vertical directions. See Dowling, col. 2, ll. 55-63 and col. 10, ll. 47-58. The Examiner has not shown, nor do we find, anything in Dowling that suggests adjusting only certain stems after the shape has been overscaled. Therefore, the Examiner does not provide sufficient evidence that the teachings of Dowling, coupled with Ivarsy and the knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art, render the presently disputed features an obvious modification, absent consideration of Appellants’ disclosure. As such, the Examiner has not established that the cited prior art suggests the feature, “adjusting only a horizontal stem width.” We therefore do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-9, 11-19, and 22-25. Appeal 2012-001186 Application 11/345,016 6 CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 11-16 and 22-25 under 35 U.S.C. §101 is summarily sustained. The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-9, 11-16, and 22-25 under 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph, is summarily sustained. The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-9, 11-16, and 22-25 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) is not sustained. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-9, 11-16, and 22-25 is affirmed. 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) (2010). AFFIRMED Appeal 2012-001186 Application 11/345,016 7 BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge, CONCURRING: I agree with the Majority’s conclusions and rationales, as indicated in the Majority opinion. I write separately in relation to the 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph rejection to provide further clarity should there be further prosecution of the claims. I agree with the Examiner’s conclusion (Ans. 5-7) that claims 1-9, 11-16, and 22-25 fail to meet the written description requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph, for the limitation, “adjusting only a horizontal stem width of at least one edge of at least one horizontal stem.” However, I agree for a different reason. Appellants’ Specification states The widths of the stems of one or more shapes are then adjusted based on the text contrast settings (stage 248). In one implementation, the stems of the shapes are made wider or narrower based on the value specified for the text contrast setting. As one non-limiting example, the right or other edge of the shape is extended by a number of pixels that corresponds to the number of specified in the text contrast setting. Spec. ¶ 22 (emphasis added). This passage provisionally seems to indicate that the Specification does provide adequate written description for adjusting either a shape’s horizontal or vertical widths. But the Specification seems to provide adequate written description only for adjusting each one of the shape’s horizontal or vertical widths—it fails to provide written description for adjusting only one edge of only one of plural horizontal stems. For example, the Specification appears to provide support for adjusting the width of the single vertical bar of the capital letter “I,” or the width of all three horizontal Appeal 2012-001186 Application 11/345,016 8 bars of the capital letter, “E.” However, the Specification does not appear to provide support for adjusting the width of, e.g., only the E’s middle horizontal bar. For this additional reason, as well, I agree that claims 1-9, 11-16, and 22-25 fail to meet the written description requirement for 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. msc