Ex Parte Cohen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 31, 2012

11046595 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2012)

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. 11/046,595 01/27/2005 Marsha R. Cohen END920040082US1 5766 30449 7590 10/31/2012 SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS 22 CENTURY HILL DRIVE SUITE 302 LATHAM, NY 12110 EXAMINER BADAWI, SHERIEF ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2167 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/31/2012 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 MARSHA R. COHEN, JEAN B. CRAIG, JOHN M. HIGDON, PAUL J. KIRKWOOD, TINA M. LEMIRE, ROSS A. MIKOSH, TERRY D. PITTS, ANTHONY P. SCHERK, and MARY LOUISE SNEDDEN ____________________ Appeal 2010-005091 Application 11/046,595 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before DAVID M. KOHUT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-005091 Application 11/046,595 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 3, 4, 6, 7, and 29-34. Claims 1, 2, 5, and 8-28 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. Exemplary Claims Exemplary claims 3 and 6 under appeal read as follows: 3. The content searching method of claim 6, further comprising: receiving a search request; locating the searchable content in the search engine based on the search request; locating the displayable content in the file system using the at least one link; formatting the displayable content using the formatting tags in the style sheet; and displaying the displayable content after the formatting step. 6. A content searching method, comprising: loading text-based searchable content into a search engine; storing all other displayable content corresponding to the searchable content in a file system that is separate from the search engine, wherein the searchable content loaded into the search engine includes at least one link pointing to the displayable content in the file system; and Appeal 2010-005091 Application 11/046,595 3 providing formatting tags for formatting the displayable content in a style sheet that is maintained architecturally separate from the searchable content and the displayable content, wherein the displayable content is stored within a specific file in the file system, wherein the specific file references the style sheet, and wherein the specific file is an Extensible Markup Language (XML) file. Rejections Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, and 29-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Saito (US 6,353,840 B2, Mar. 5, 2002), in view of Ferrel (US 5,860,073, Jan. 12, 1999). Ans. 3-10. Claims 32-34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Saito in view of Ferrel, further in view of Babula (US 2003/0061071 A1, Mar. 27, 2003). Ans. 10-12. Appellants’ Contentions 1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Saito and Ferrel do not teach or suggest “providing formatting tags for formatting the displayable content in a style sheet that is maintained architecturally separate from the searchable content and the displayable content.” App. Br. 7-8. 2. Appellants further contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Saito and Ferrel do not teach or suggest “wherein the displayable content is stored within a specific file in the file system, ... and wherein the specific file is an Extensible Markup Language (XML) file.” App. Br. 8-11. Appeal 2010-005091 Application 11/046,595 4 3. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Saito does not teach “includes at least one link.” App. Br. 11-12. 4. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 7 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Saito and Ferrel do not teach or suggest “wherein the searchable content contains a subset of information contained in the displayable content” (App. Br. 13-17) or “wherein the searchable content consists of the subset of information contained in the displayable content.” App. Br. 20. 5. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Saito and Ferrel do not teach or suggest “filtering the displayable content.” App. Br. 18-19. 6. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 32 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Saito, Ferrel, and Babula do not teach or suggest “wherein the displayable content consists of a statement of a problem, a description of solutions pertaining to the problem, a list of related documents which relate to the problem, and a mechanism for a user to provide feedback pertaining to the description of solutions pertaining to the problem.” App. Br. 21-23. Issue on Appeal Whether the Examiner has erred in rejecting claims 3, 4, 6, 7, and 29- 34 as being obvious? Appeal 2010-005091 Application 11/046,595 5 FINDINGS OF FACT (FF) 1. Ferrel describes the prior art as follows (emphasis ours): It is important to note that each of these story objects makes reference to the style sheet 443 before being rendered on the page 434. When story objects are authored, they are given formatting tags that represent specific styles. As the story objects are rendered, they reference the style sheet that is linked to the appropriate control to retrieve formatting information. This formatting information includes properties of the paragraphs, fonts and embedded objects in the story that format the content as it was originally designed. Due to the separation of design and content in the MP system, the story objects themselves only have formatting tags, but do not contain a description of the particular format that corresponds to each tag. The descriptions of those tags is found in the style sheet that is linked to the control into which the story object becomes rendered. Ferrel col 19, ll. 35-50. 2. Saito describes the prior art as follows (emphasis ours): Based upon the information determined by the layout and logic analysis unit 209, the document database generation unit 210 generates a plurality of databases and further includes a post script (PS) document database generation unit 211 and a hyper text markup language (HTML) database generation unit 212. … the HTML database generation unit 212 generates document content structural descriptions in a specialized language such as HTML and stores them in the HTML database 215. The document content structural descriptions generally provide flexible links or connections between text and other document entities such as diagrams. The above use of the specialized languages is exemplary, and other specialized languages include Portable Document Format (PDF), Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML) and Extensible Markup Language (XML). Appeal 2010-005091 Application 11/046,595 6 Saito col. 6, ll. 7-28. 3. Saito further describes an invention where: A key text storing unit 703 stores the extracted key words in a key text database 702 while the key words are associated with or linked to corresponding portions of Post script database 214 and or HTML database 215. A search engine 705 receives a search request for searching in the key word database and retrieving the associated or linked portions in Post Script and or HTML databases. . . . The fourth alternative embodiment ultimately generates a text database 905 and an image database 904. After the pre- processing of the inputted image data, the image data storing unit 901 stores the pre-processed inputted image data in the image database unit 904. On the other hand, an information extraction unit 204 generates text data finally via an optical recognition unit 207, and the text database storing unit 902 stores the text data in the text database unit 905. Certain portion of the text data and the image data are connected as they are stored. Since images such as a figure, a diagram, a table and a photograph are stored separately, the images are efficiently retrieved for display. Saito col. 9, l. 65 to col. 10, l. 37. (Emphasis ours) 4. Saito describes the prior art as follows (emphasis ours): Text storing unit 800 also relates certain portion of the entire text to the data in other databases including Post Script database 214 and HTML database 215. Saito col. 10, ll. 17-20. Appeal 2010-005091 Application 11/046,595 7 5. Saito further states as to their invention: Still referring to FIG. 5, the information extraction unit 204 generally extracts certain information necessary for generating a predetermined database and further includes the following units. In order to extract the predetermined information, a division unit 205 first divides the document image into separate sub-areas which respectively include characters, figures, diagrams, tables and photographs. Saito col. 5, ll. 51-57. (Emphasis ours). 6. Babula describes the prior art as follows (emphasis ours): FIG. 9 illustrates an interface page 216 for informing the system operator of the search results. The search results page 216 includes a text area 218 which summarizes the key words and phrases that the user entered for the search as well as the number solutions located and the status of the search. In addition, the search results page 216 includes a series of graphical or access devices or links 220, each associated with a particular solution to the problem query. In the exemplary search results page shown in FIG. 9, the search successfully located eight solutions. Any number of solutions may be associated with a particular query. Because information identifying the diagnostic system is transmitted to the service center when the system is placed into network contact with the service center, the search results displayed at the diagnostic system are specific to the system modality. Babula ¶ 0052. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. Appeal 2010-005091 Application 11/046,595 8 We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. Regarding above contention 1, we agree with the Examiner that Saito and Ferrel render obvious the use of tags in the style sheets for formatting. Ans. 12-13, FF 1. Regarding above contention 2, we agree with the Examiner that Saito and Ferrel teach or suggest storing the displayable content in a specialized XML file. Ans. 14, FF 2 Regarding above contention 3, the Examiner equates Saito’s text data to be the “searchable content,” and equates the “image data” to be the “displayable content,”, as recited in claim 3. Ans. 3-4. The Examiner finds that the text data and the image data are connected, and thus linked together. Id. at 4; FF 3. We, therefore, agree with the Examiner (Ans. 3-4) that Saito teaches locating the displayable content in the file system using the at least one link, as required by claim 3. With regard to Appellants’ contention 4, the Examiner finds that in Saito “[I]n order to extract the predetermined information, a division unit 205 first divides the document image into separate sub-areas which respectively include characters, figures, diagrams, tables and photographs, therefore the searchable text is sub area of the display image.” Ans. 8 (citing to Saito, col. 5, lines 50-62) (bolding omitted). As such, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Saito’s sub-areas encompasses a “subset of information,” Id. Appeal 2010-005091 Application 11/046,595 9 Regarding above contention 5, the Examiner equates Saito’s information extraction unit to the filtering of the displayable content feature, as recited in claim 30. Ans. 17. We agree because the information extraction unit performs filtering when it extracts certain information to generate the database. FF 4 and FF5. As to Appellants’ above contention 6, we note that the Examiner has identified the relevant portions of Babula and has provided sufficient explanation with corresponding citations to various parts of the reference for teaching the feature disputed in Appellants’ contention (Ans. 18-20). For emphasis, we note that the Examiner cites to portions of Babula that describe the keywords and phrases entered by the user that correspond to the “statement of the problem” and the “solutions pertaining to the problem.” Babula, ¶ 0052; FF 6. Additionally, Figure 9 of Babula discloses “documents 222” that relate to the problem. The Examiner also finds that ¶ 0051 of Babula teaches enabling service engineers to “provide feedback on solutions already in the library through a solution feedback page.” Ans. 10- 11. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Babula teaches a statement of a problem, a description of solutions pertaining to the problem, a list of related documents which relate to the problem, and a mechanism for a user to provide feedback pertaining to the description of solutions pertaining to the problem, as required by claims 32 and 33. CONCLUSIONS (1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 3, 4, 6, 7, and 29- 34 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). (2) Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, and 29-34 are not patentable. Appeal 2010-005091 Application 11/046,595 10 DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 3, 4, 6, 7, and 29-34 are affirmed. 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). AFFIRMED msc