Ex Parte Marum et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 15, 2017

14256822 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 15, 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.
14/256,822 04/18/2014 Matthew Marum 1301-040U 8712
29973 7590 08/17/2017
CRGO LAW
ATTN: STEVEN M. GREENBERG, ESQ.
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, EL 33434
EXAMINER
HARRISON, CHANTE E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2619
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/17/2017 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):
docketing@crgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTHEW MARUM and HENRY ROGERS
Appeal 2017-001734
Application 14/256,822
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants request rehearing of our Decision on Appeal entered June
2, 2017 (“Decision”), in which we affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1—20.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Request for Rehearing in view of our Decision.
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of anything our decision
misapprehended or overlooked. We note the following for emphasis.
Appeal 2017-001734
Application 14/256,822
Appellants argue that our Decision misapprehended or overlooked
Appellants’ arguments that Weeldreyer does not disclose “displaying each of
the different segments sequentially in correspondingly different frames of a
single animation according to the sequence in a display of the limited
display device,” as recited in the claims. Req. Reh’g 4—5. Specifically,
Appellants argue:
while a pie chart is shown in each of Figures 5 V through 5JJ of
Weeldreyer, not a single pie chart shown in Figures 5V
through 5 JJ shows each pie wedge of a pie chart being displayed
in its own frame of an animation in a sequence as required by
Appellants’ plain claim language [and]
.. .while Figures 5 V, 5W, 5X and 5Y of Weeldreyer taught
the partitioning of a pie chart in a single display of a document,
and while paragraphs [0184] and [0192] may have provided that
the document can be included as part of a slide show, nothing in
any portion of Weeldreyer taught the claimed display of each of
the pie segments sequentially in correspondingly different
frames of a single animation.... [T]he pie chart of Figures 5V,
5W, 5X show the same pie chart with different sized slices—not
the same sized slices. Thus, at best Weeldreyer taught the
singular display in only one frame of a slideshow of all segments
of a pie chart.
[T]he Board did not address the foregoing factual
arguments presented by the Appellants in the Appeal Brief and
the Reply Brief and instead concluded that Weeldreyer shows
different figures with pie charts with different slices of the pie
charts “emphasized”. The emphasis, however, of a pie slice
amongst many pie slices in a pie chart is not the same as the
claimed display of each of the different segments sequentially in
correspondingly different frames of a single animation according
to the sequence in a display of the limited display device—
especially since the pie chart slices in Weeldr[e]yer from figure
to figure are different slices of different sizes as argued by
Appellants in the Appeal Brief. Therefore, Appellants request
the Board on rehearing to explain how the pie charts of Figures
5V, 5W, 5X and 5Y of Weeldreyer are the same pie chart with
2
Appeal 2017-001734
Application 14/256,822
the same slices with each slice being emphasized in sequence in
different slides when it appears from Figures 5V, 5W, 5X and
5Y of Weeldreyer that the pie chart slices vary in size in each of
5V, 5W, 5X and 5Y of Weeldreyer.
Id. 4—6.
Our Decision noted the Examiner’s finding that
Weeldreyer discloses a presentation application that presents a
sequence of slide builds (individual slides being the
claimed “frames” and the sequence of slides being an
“animation”) in which emphasis objects (i.e., pie slices, which
are equated to the claimed “segments”) are sequentially
emphasized in a user-selected order. Ans. 7 (citing || 181, 182,
184, 192, 218). See also id. 12 (citing Figs. 5 V, 5W, 5X, 5Y and
11 185, 193-94).
Decision 3. We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s findings and
conclusion because Appellants’ arguments continue to
overlook^ that Weeldreyer discloses that different
segments (i.e., pie slices) may be emphasized in different frames
(i.e., sequential slides). Weeldreyer 1 194 (“the emphasis
animations are prepared ‘on the fly’ as the computing device
receives user inputs (i.e., the animation frames are generated by
the device on an as needed basis)” and “the user does not select
predefined animations to create a sequence of slide builds in
a presentation application”).
Decision 3.
Specifically, we are not persuaded of error because Appellants’
arguments again fail to consider that Weeldreyer discloses more than what is
depicted in the figures. Req. Reh’g 6 (“it appears from Figures 5V, 5W, 5X
and 5Y of Weeldreyer that the pie chart slices vary in size in each of 5 V,
5W, 5X and 5Y of Weeldreyer”). The Examiner’s rejection finds
Weeldreyer discloses “displaying each of the different segments sequentially
in correspondingly different frames of a single animation according to the
3
Appeal 2017-001734
Application 14/256,822
sequence in a display of the limited display device” based at least on
Weeldreyer’s additional disclosure that “the device automatically and
dynamically determines emphasis animations for presentation of emphasis
objects, e.g. graph segments/pie wedges, while the document authoring
application is in presentation mode, e.g. a slide show.” Ans. 12 (citing
Weeldreyer || 193—94). In other words, Weeldreyer discloses “displaying
each of the different segments” (e.g., pie slices A—E in Fig. 5X, individually
emphasized in sequential frames as shown in Fig. 5Y) “sequentially in
correspondingly different frames of a single animation” (each of the
sequential frames being different slides of a slide show) “according to the
sequence in a display of the limited display device” (i.e., in an emphasis
animations). See id. 12.
DECISION
Accordingly, based on the record before us now and in the original
appeal, we have granted Appellants’ request to the extent that we have
reconsidered our Decision, but we deny Appellants’ request to make any
changes in our Decision.
The request for rehearing is denied.
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).
REHEARING DENIED
4