Ex Parte Zhao et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 24, 201612138401 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/138,401 06/12/2008 69316 7590 03/28/2016 MICROSOFT CORPORATION ONE MICROSOFT WAY REDMOND, WA 98052 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Jason Xiaobo Zhao 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 323553.01 9356 EXAMINER FAULK, DEVONA E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2616 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/28/2016 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): stevensp@microsoft.com chriochs@microsoft.com usdocket@microsoft.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JASON XIAOBO ZHAO, XIAOY AN SHI, and JIANG ZHANG Appeal2014-004941 Application 12/138,401 Technology Center 2600 Before LARRY J. HUME, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-21. 1 We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 In the Appeal Brief, Appellants identify Microsoft Corporation as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 1.) Appeal2014-004941 Application 12/138,401 THE INVENTION Appellants' invention is directed to copying animation effects of a source object to one or more target objects of a presentation. (Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A machine-implemented method for replicating an animation effect from one object to another, the machine- implemented method further comprising: receiving a selection, from a presentation file, of a source object included in a presentation slide of the presentation file, the source object having at least one associated animation effect; receiving an indication of a desired operation for copying of the at least one associated animation effect from the source object to at least one preexisting target object included in either a preexisting target presentation slide or a preexisting target presentation template; receiving a selection of the at least one preexisting target object; and copying only the at least one animation effect from the source object to the at least one preexisting target object in response to the receiving of the selection of the source object, the receiving of the indication of the desired operation, and the receiving of the selection of the at least one preexisting target object, wherein the method is implemented by a processing device. REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1--4, 6, 8-10, 12, 13, 16, and 19-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Peter Weverka, PowerPoint 2007 All-in-One Desk Reference For Dummies, ©2007 Wiley 2 Appeal2014-004941 Application 12/138,401 Publishing, Inc., and Alvarez et al. (US 2008/0028312 Al, pub. Jan. 31, 2008). (Final Act. 3-18.) The Examiner rejected claims 5, 7, 14, 15, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Weverka, Alvarez and Melman (US 2007/0016578 Al, pub. Jan. 18, 2007). (Final Act. 18-25.) The Examiner rejected claim 11under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Weverka, Alvarez and Dokuni (US 2006/0136823 Al, pub. Jun. 22, 2006). (Final Act. 25-26.) The Examiner rejected claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Weverka, Alvarez and Mizuma et al. (US 2004/0033475 Al, pub. Feb. 19, 2004). (Final Act. 27-28.) ISSUES ON APPEAL Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following issues: 2 Issue One: Whether the combination of W everka and Alvarez teaches or suggests the independent claim 1 limitations: "receiving a selection ... of a source object ... having at least one associated animation effect ... and copying only the at least one animation effect," and the similar limitations recited in independent claims 9 and 16. (App. Br. 6-11, 13.) Issue Two: Whether the combination of Weverka and Alvarez teaches or suggests the dependent claim 2 limitation, "deleting animation effects from a respective one of the at least one preexisting target object before 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and positions of the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Sep. 5, 2013), Reply Brief (filed Feb. 27, 2014), Final Office Action (mailed Apr. 10, 2013), and the Examiner's Answer (mailed Dec. 30, 2013) for the respective details. 3 Appeal2014-004941 Application 12/138,401 copying the at least one animation effect from the source object to the respective one of the at least one preexisting target object." (App. Br. 11- 12.) Issue Three: Whether the combination of Weverka and Alvarez teaches or suggests the dependent claim 21 limitations, "determining if the at least one animation effect from the source object is compatible with a respective one of the at least one preexisting target object; and if compatible, deleting animation effects from the respective one of the at least one preexisting target object before copying the at least one animation effect from the source object to the respective one of the at least one preexisting target object." (App. Br. 12-13.) ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants' arguments: we adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3-28) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 27-31 ), and we concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We emphasize the following. Issue One The Examiner finds Weverka and Alvarez teach or suggest, "receiving a selection ... of a source object ... having at least one associated animation effect ... and copying only the at least one animation effect," in part based on the ability of a version of Power Point, as described in W everka, to cut and paste elements such as text boxes from one slide to 4 Appeal2014-004941 Application 12/138,401 another slide, which elements can contain animation effects. (Final Act. 3- 5; Weverka pp. 348, 422.) The Examiner further relies on the disclosure in Alvarez of the ability to copy animations from one production element to another. (Final Act. 5; Alvarez i-f 66.) Appellants argue W everka discloses copying and pasting slide elements, but not "'only the at least one ... animation effect' that is associated with the selected slide elements." (App. Br. 9.) This argument is unpersuasive because it attacks the Weverka reference individually, whereas the Examiner relies upon the teachings of the combination of W everka and Alvarez, and in particular on the teaching in Alvarez of copying animations from one element to another: "W everka discloses copying an animation from a source object to a target; but does not copy the animation effect only. Alvarez is introduced to teach this deficiency .... " (Ans. 28.) See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The test for obviousness is whether the combination of references, taken as a whole, would have suggested the patentee's invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d413, 425(CCPA1981). In addition, Appellants argue, "nowhere does W everka teach or suggest that animation effects from a source text box would necessarily persist in a detestation [sic: destination] text box after the copy and paste operations," and assert that the Examiner is improperly taking judicial notice in finding that capability in Weverka. (App. Br. 9.) We are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding W everka at least teaches or suggests that animations persist during copying operations, given the Examiner's reliance on the disclosure in Weverka of the "Keep Source Formatting" option for the Paste command. (Ans. 29; Weverka p. 138.) 5 Appeal2014-004941 Application 12/138,401 Appellants further argue "neither W everka nor Alvarez teach or suggest 'receiving a selection ... of a source object [having at least one associated animation effect] included in a presentation slide of the presentation file' of claim 1." (App. Br. 10.) The Examiner does not so err - we find the capability of Power Point, as described on W everka, to cut and paste elements containing animation effects, together with the teachings of Alvarez, as discussed above, teach or suggest this claim limitation. (Final Act. 3-5; Ans. 28-29.) Moreover, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments "the Examiner has failed to clearly articulate 'reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion' why one skilled in the art to modify Weverka's technique based on Alvarez," or "such a modification would render Weverka's technique inoperable." (App. Br. 11.) As the Examiner finds: It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to only copy the animation from one object to another. The motivation would have been to preserve the original state of the animation. (Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 29.) We agree with the Examiner's findings. In KSR, the Court stated "[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). A reason to combine teachings from the prior art "may be found in explicit or implicit teachings within the references themselves, from the ordinary knowledge of those skilled in the art, or from the nature of the problem to be solved." WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int'! Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Appellants have 6 Appeal2014-004941 Application 12/138,401 not demonstrated that the Examiner's proffered combination of references would have been uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art." See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Furthermore, as held in In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (internal citations omitted): To justify combining reference teachings in support of a rejection it is not necessary that a device shown in one reference can be physically inserted into the device shown in the other. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. Issues Two and Three For the additional limitation of dependent claim 2, the Examiner relies on the disclosure in W everka of the ability to remove animations. (Final Act. 5-6; Ans. 30; Weverka p. 423.) For the additional limitations of dependent claim 21, the Examiner relies upon W everka' s ability to remove animations, and on the disclosure in Alvarez of copying animations, "assuming that the production elements share similar enough rigs that the animation is valid for each." (Ans. 31; Alvarez i-f 66.) We are not persuaded that the Examiner errs in rejecting claims 2 and 21. For claim 2, Appellants first repeat arguments directed to the alleged deficiencies in the Examiner's combination of references in the rejection of 7 Appeal2014-004941 Application 12/138,401 claim 1 from which claim 2 depends, for which we found no error.3 In addition, Appellants argue "W everka still does not teach or suggest 'deleting animation effects from a respective one of the at least one preexisting target object before copying the at least one animation effect from the source object to the respective one of the at least one preexisting target object."' (App. Br. 12.) Given the broad disclosure in Weverka of the capability of deleting animations from objects, we are persuaded that the limitation at issue is at least taught or suggested by Weverka. (Ans. 29-30.) Appellants repeat these arguments for claim 21, and also argue Weverka fails to teach or suggest "determining if the at least one animation effect from the source object is compatible with a respective one of the at least one preexisting target object." (App. Br. 12.) The Examiner, however, relies on the above described disclosure in Alvarez as teaching or suggesting this limitation. (Ans. 31; Alvarez i-f 66.) We are persuaded that the statement in Alvarez regarding "assuming that the production elements share similar enough rigs that the animation is valid for each," at least teaches or suggests the "determining ... compatib[ility ]" limitation at issue. (Alvarez ,-r 66.) CONCLUSIONS For the reasons discussed above, we sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 1, 2, 9, 16, and 21 over W everka and Alvarez. 3 For example, "[a]s discussed above, Weverka's copying an object into a slide does not teach or suggest "copying the at least one animation effect from the source object to the respective one of the at least one preexisting target object." App. Br. 12. 8 Appeal2014-004941 Application 12/138,401 We also sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 19, and 20 over Weverka and Alvarez, of claims 5, 7, 14, 15, and 18 over Weverka, Alvarez and Melman, of claim 11 over Weverka, Alvarez and Dokuni, and of claim 17 over W everka, Alvarez and Mizuma, which rejections are not argued separately with particularity. (App. Br. 12-14.) DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-21. 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). AFFIRMED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation