Ex Parte Zhao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 24, 2016

12138401 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2016)

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