Ex Parte Uoi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 24, 2014

12440202 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 12/440,202 12/31/2009 Hirotaka Uoi 091619-0278 1829 119941 7590 09/24/2014 Foley & Lardner LLP 3000 K Street N.W. Suite 600 Washington, DC 20007-5109 EXAMINER BADER, ROBERT N. ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2614 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/24/2014 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte HIROTAKA UOI and TAKAHITO KAZAMA ____________________ Appeal 2012-005664 Application 12/440,202 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before: JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-005664 Application 12/440,202 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 8– 14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. The claims are directed to chat terminal device and chat system. Claim 8, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 8. A chat terminal device comprising: a memory configured to store chat data on a comment sentence input by a chat participant and received from a chat server, the chat data including at least text data on a comment sentence and information on the position of a comment sentence object on a chat canvas, the comment sentence object being placed on the chat canvas, wherein the chat canvas is a two-dimensional area; and a processor operatively coupled to the memory and configured to: calculate, in a three-dimensional virtual space where the chat canvas and a virtual camera are placed, coordinates of the comment sentence object in the three-dimensional virtual space based on the information on the position of the comment sentence object on the chat canvas such that the comment sentence object is projected on a screen viewed from the virtual camera; calculate a position of the comment sentence object on the screen based on the calculated coordinates in the three- dimensional virtual space; determine the display position within a chat window of the comment sentence text data corresponding to the comment sentence object based on the position of the comment sentence Appeal 2012-005664 Application 12/440,202 3 object on the screen and display the comment text data at the determined display position within the chat window; and change a position, line-of-sight direction or camera parameter of the virtual camera in the three-dimensional virtual space based on an input from a user. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Shefi US 2002/0176636 Al Nov. 28, 2002 Brin US 7,124,372 B2 Oct. 17, 2006 Catherine Plaisant, David Carr, and Ben Shneiderman, Image Browsers: Taxonomy, Guidelines, and Informal Specifications, IEEE, 12 IEEE Software, No. 2, 21-32 March 1995. REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 8, 9, and 11–14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brin in view of Shefi. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brin in view of Shefi as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Plaisant. ANALYSIS From our review of the Examiner’s rejection, we find the Examiner’s rejection to be based upon the application of the two-dimensional relational tracking of chats as disclosed by the Brin reference with the three- Appeal 2012-005664 Application 12/440,202 4 dimensional relational tracking of content in a virtual three-dimensional space as disclosed by the Shefi reference. We agree with the Examiner’s line of reasoning. Moreover, Appellants elected not to file a Reply Brief to further respond to the Examiner’s clarifications of rejections. Appellants contend that Brin and Shefi fail to disclose or suggest at least “‘chat data including[ . . . ]the position of a comment sentence object on a chat canvas.’” (App. Br 12). Appellants further contend that: [T]racking the general location of a user space (as in Brin) fails to disclose or suggest “the position of a comment sentence object on a chat canvas,” as claimed. Brin, which discloses user spaces, fails to disclose or suggest the “position” of a specific “comment sentence object,” as claimed. Shefi, which is directed to “positioning content elements in a virtual 3D space” (abstract), also fails to disclose or suggest such elements. (App. Br. 13). The Examiner maintains that “Appellant doesn't actually indicate what the alleged difference between keeping track of the relative position of each user's user space and the position of a comment sentence object on a chat canvas is considered to be.” (Ans. 12). The Examiner further maintains “ any particular difference between the reference and claim indicated (Appellant merely quotes and emphasizes parts of the reference and claim, without actually specifying any difference between them, then concludes Brin does not teach the claim limitations).” (Ans. 12). We agree with the Examiner and find that Appellants’ arguments are generally treating the references separately, rather than discussing what the combined teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. The Examiner additionally maintains: Appeal 2012-005664 Application 12/440,202 5 [A]lthough the Appellant’s specification does not formally define what a “comment sentence object” constitutes, descriptive examples in paragraphs 21 (describing a chat server in which a comment sentence object (analogous to a user space) can be places in an arbitrary position in a two-dimensional area chat canvas (analogous to a conversation display space) supporting a two-dimensional chat system) and 29 (describing comment sentence objects as similar to Brin’s user space in that the text is entered into a movable window which is the comment sentence object), make clear that Brin’s user space reads on Appellant’s disclosure of comment sentence objects. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive. (Ans. 13). Based upon our review of the record, we find Appellants have failed to present substantive arguments supported with specific factual evidence of sufficient character and weight to persuade us of error regarding the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) Thus, it is our view that Appellants have made a general allegation in the Brief that the above-mentioned claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes over the individually cited references. A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). We find that Appellants’ appeal is based on a series of conclusory arguments presented in the Brief. This form of argument is ineffective in establishing the patentability of the claims on appeal. See Ex parte Belinne, No. 2009- 004693, slip op. at 7–8 (BPAI Aug. 10, 2009) (informative). Appeal 2012-005664 Application 12/440,202 6 We note that “analysis [of whether the subject matter of a claim would have been obvious] need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)); see also DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C. H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“The motivation need not be found in the references sought to be combined, but may be found in any number of sources, including common knowledge, the prior art as a whole, or the nature of the problem itself.”). Therefore, we find Appellants’ argument unpersuasive of error in the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. Appellants argue Brin and Shefi fail to disclose or suggest at least determining “the display position within a chat window of the comment sentence text data.” (App. Br. 14). Appellants additionally argue: For at least the same reasons, Appellant submits that Brin and Shefi fail to disclose or suggest calculating “coordinates of the comment sentence object in the three-dimensional virtual space based on the...position of the comment sentence object,” as claimed. (Emphasis added). Brin and Shefi also fail to disclose or suggest calculating “a position of the comment sentence object on the screen,” as claimed or determining “the display position within a chat window of the comment sentence text data ... based on the position of the comment sentence object,” as claimed. (Emphasis added). Because Brin and Shefi fail to disclose the “position” of a specific “comment sentence object” as discussed above, it follows that the combination does not disclose the above-referenced elements which are based on the “position of the comment sentence object.” Appeal 2012-005664 Application 12/440,202 7 (App. Br. 14–15). Appellants merely repeat the language of the claim, and repeat the portions of the Shefi reference relied upon by the Examiner. Appellants maintain that claim 8 recites three distinct calculating/determining operations including “‘display position’” “‘based on the position of the comment sentence object on the screen.’” (App. Br. 16). While we agree with Appellants concerning the individual references, it is the combined teachings which the Examiner relies upon in the rejection. The Examiner maintains: Shefi displays each document content element as a textured surface using the bitmap of the content element (which corresponds to the user space of Brin, in which comment text data is one thing which may be shared). Shefi displays this textured surface at the location on the screen corresponding to it’s 3D position in the base plane (Brin’s conversation display space). In displaying the textured surface, the text data, which has been placed in the texture bitmap, is displayed at the location of the content element, which is displayed at the location in screen space corresponding to the location in 3D space on the conversation display space where the user space is located. In other words, three distinct positioning mechanisms exist in Brin as modified by Shefi, specifically, coordinates of the user space/content element in the conversation display space/base plane, the location of the user space/content element on the screen, based on the previous coordinates, and the location of the text data, as determined by texturing the user space/content element surface with the bitmap of user space. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive. (Ans. 13-14). The Examiner identifies that the above line of reasoning was detailed in a prior office action and in the Final Office Action (Final Act. 11), but Appellants have not responded directly to the Examiner’s analysis and conclusions. Rather, Appellants repeat the language of the claim and Appeal 2012-005664 Application 12/440,202 8 maintain that the individual references do not teach the totality of the claim limitations. We disagree with Appellants’ contention of error in the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness of representative independent claim 8. With respect to dependent claim 11, Appellants maintain that the Shefi reference does not teach or suggest “‘the processor is further configured to indicate the dimension of the canvas gradient with any one of a gradient of a straight line, the dimension of graphics, the pitch of graphics and the contrast of graphics displayed on the chat window.’” (App. Br. 16– 17). The processor is further configured to indicate the dimension of the canvas gradient with anyone of a gradient of a straight line, the dimension of graphics, the pitch of graphics and the contrast of graphics displayed on the chat window The Examiner maintains that paragraph 72 of the Shefi reference and the Figures 13a to 13c evidence the use of a grid and the relationship between the angle and the distortion the Examiner maintains that the distortion indicates the gradient to an observer understanding the perspective of the projected scenes. (Ans. 14–16). We agree with the Examiner and find no limitation on what the “indication” must be in claim 11 to differentiate from the Examiner’s line of reasoning. Therefore, Appellants’ argument does not show error in the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness of dependent claim 11. Appellants contend that there is no motivation to combine the references. (App. Br. 20). The Examiner restates the line of reasoning for the combination of the Brin and Shefi references. (Ans. 16). We agree with the Examiner’s line of reasoning and find Appellants’ argument to be unpersuasive of error in the motivation to combine. Therefore, we sustain Appeal 2012-005664 Application 12/440,202 9 the rejection of independent claim 8 and claims 9, 10, 12–14 grouped therewith.1 CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 8–14 based upon obviousness. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 8–14 are sustained. 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 gvw 1 We notice that the claim 14 is directed to a program product, but we note method claim 13 has active steps which do not necessarily correspond to program steps stored on a medium. We leave it to the Examiner to further evaluate claim 14 as a dependent claim or an independent claim and determine the metes and bounds thereof.