Ex Parte Ma

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 18, 2017

12937664 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 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.
12/937,664 01/03/2011 Ling Ma 2043.522US1 4592
49845 7590 12/20/2017
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/EBAY
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
EXAMINER
BROWN, SHEREE N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/20/2017 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):
USPTO@SLWIP.COM
SLW @blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LING MA1
Appeal 2016-006972
Application 12/937,664
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL L. WOODS, LEE L. STEPINA, and
AMANDA F. WIEKER, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 The Appeal Brief lists eBay Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-006972
Application 12/937,664
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to presenting a matrix view of items. Claim 1,
reproduced below with emphasis added, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A computerized method, comprising:
using one or more processors of a computer to perform at
least a portion of one or more of the following:
selecting a plurality of items of interest from a large
collection of items; and
displaying the plurality of items as points in a matrix view
arranged with a horizontal axis to represent price of each of the
plurality of items and a vertical axis to represent a value
associated with an attribute of each of the plurality of items such
that each of the points with a price of the item the point
represents on the horizontal axis and a value associated with an
attribute of the item the point represents on the vertical axis, thus
visually presenting a value/price ratio of each of the plurality of
items in a single view.
Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Yano US 2003/0105728 A1 June 5,2003
Whitney US 2005/0004852 A1 Jan. 6, 2005
REJECTION
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Whitney and Yano.
2
Appeal 2016-006972
Application 12/937,664
OPINION
The Examiner relies on Whitney to teach many of the features recited
in claim 1, but relies on Yano (Figures 3, 5, and 16 and paragraphs 118, 124,
and 196-198) to teach the portion of claim 1 italicized above. See Final
Act. 6-8.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s findings of fact with respect to
the teachings of Yano are in error because the X-axis in Yano lists a
standard price for a new vehicle, not the actual price paid for a new vehicle.
See Appeal Br. 9. Thus, according to Appellant, “the sale price of the used
and resold vehicle and the standard price for a new vehicle of the same type
as the resold vehicle are not both associated with a same item.” Id. (italics
added, underlining and bolding omitted); see also Reply Br. 2-4.
In response, the Examiner reiterates “Figure 3 and paragraph 0118 [of
Yano] disclose[] the Appellant’s claim language of ‘visually displaying
value/offer price ratios associated with particular vehicles as points on a
graph.’” Ans. 5 (bolding omitted).
We agree with the Examiner on this issue. Paragraph 118 of Yano
states, “the scatter diagram shown in FIG. 3 in which X-axis shows new
vehicle price and Y-axis shows sold price.” The diagram in Figure 3 of
Yano depicts a large number of points plotted, along the X-axis, according
to their new vehicle prices. In other words, the X-coordinate of each point
represents its own “new vehicle price.” Likewise, each point is associated
with a “sold price” based on its location along the Y-axis (its Y-coordinate).
We do not agree with Appellant that the new vehicle price (X-coordinate)
and the sold price (Y-coordinate) of each plotted point are not for the same
item because, as is evident in Figure 3, each point is associated with a
3
Appeal 2016-006972
Application 12/937,664
specific pair of X, Y coordinates, and, accordingly, a specific pair of new
vehicle and sold prices, not merely a standard new vehicle price and specific
sold price as asserted by Appellant. See Appeal Br. 8-11; Reply Br. 2-5.
Consequently, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over
Whitney and Yano. Appellant makes no separate argument for the
patentability of claims 2-8, 10-14, and 20-23. See Appeal Br. 11-12.
Accordingly, we also sustain the rejection of claims 2-8, 10-14, and 20-23
as unpatentable over Whitney and Yano.
Claim 15
Independent claim 15 recites, in part:
... a point of the points representing an item of the
plurality of items in the matrix view is displayed to have a value
associated with a price attribute of the item on the horizontal axis
and a value associated with another attribute of the item on the
vertical axis, to visually present a value/price ratio of the
plurality of items in a single view.
Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
Appellant quotes the above-noted portion of claim 15, but adds the
word “different” after the word “another” in the italicized portion of claim
15 reproduced above. Appeal Br. 11. Appellant contends “the ‘successful
bid price’ and ‘new car price’ of Yano are even more inapplicable since
they are both price attributes in contrast to claim 15 which recites values for
a price attribute and also another different (e.g., non-price) attribute.”
Appeal Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 5.
In response, the Examiner finds that “the ‘bid price’ (i.e., value) [in
Yano] is in fact different from the ‘vehicle price’ attribute.” Ans. 5 (citing
Yano, Fig. 3).
4
Appeal 2016-006972
Application 12/937,664
We agree with the Examiner on this point. Claim 15 recites the
display of “another attribute of the item on the vertical axis,” but does not
require this “other” attribute to be unrelated to price. Rather, the broadest
reasonable and plain reading of claim 15 requires an attribute that is not
identical to the value associated with the price attribute. Therefore, the
Examiner is correct in finding that the values presented along the Y-axis in
Figure 3 of Yano meet this limitation, and Appellant’s argument that these
values fail to do so is based on an unreasonably narrow interpretation of
claim 15. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15 and
claims 16-19 and 24 depending therefrom as unpatentable over Whitney and
Yano.
Claims 9 and 19
Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and recites, in part, “presenting
additional information related to an item in the matrix view in a pop-up
window, when a cursor is moved over an item in the matrix view, the
additional information including a hyper link.” Appeal Br. 15 (Claims
App.). Claim 19 depends from claim 15 and recites a similar feature. Id. at
18.
The Examiner finds that Whitney, in paragraphs 182 and 185,
discloses this feature (Final Act. 10), but Appellant contends that the cited
portions of Whitney merely disclose general functions of a mouse, not the
specific feature recited in claims 9 and 19 (Appeal Br. 11). In the Answer,
the Examiner adds citations to paragraphs 62 and 157 of Whitney in support
of the finding that Whitney teaches the above-noted feature in claims 9 and
19. See Ans. 6. Appellant replies that paragraph 157 of Whitney teaches a
5
Appeal 2016-006972
Application 12/937,664
pop-up window that is activated from main menu 705, not from scrolling
over a matrix item as required by claims 9 and 19.
Paragraphs 62, 182, and 185 of Whitney do not mention pop-up
menus, and therefore, fail to disclose the specific functions recited in claims
9 and 19 relating to pop-up menus. Although paragraph 157 discloses the
use of a pop-up menu, as pointed out by Appellant, this menu is activated
differently from the pop-up menus recited in claims 9 and 19 inasmuch as
the activation required in these claims is associated with the item selected
from the plurality of items depicted in the matrix and recited in respective
independent claims 1 and 15. In paragraph 157 of Whitney, in contrast,
activation is associated with main menu 705. See Whitney ^ 157, Fig. 8.
Consequently, the Examiner’s findings of fact with respect to Whitney are
not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 9 and 19 as unpatentable over
Whitney and Yano.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-24 is affirmed with respect to
claims 1-8, 10-18, and 20-24, and reversed with respect to claims 9 and 19.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFF1RMED-1N-PART
6