Ex Parte Findlay et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 30, 2017

13412396 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 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.
13/412,396 03/05/2012 Roland Findlay RII-628A FN201202234 8838
50447 7590 06/01/2017
DUFT BORNSEN & FETTIG, LLP
1526 SPRUCE STREET
SUITE 302
BOULDER, CO 80302
EXAMINER
PATEL, HITESHKUMAR R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2441
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2017 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 @ dbflaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROLAND FINDLAY, RONALD MARC CONESCU,
EUGENE LIMB, HAIXIA YU, JAY DAUTCHER,
ELENA GROSTRER, MICHAEL GRIFFIN, and
YUKO IHARA
Appeal 2016-0085321
Application 13/412,396
Technology Center 2400
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., ADAM J. PYONIN, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1—20, which are all of the pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants indicate “pending appeals exist for related cases 13/411,259
[(Appeal 2016-007163)] and 13/412,443 [(Appeal 2016-006936)].” Brief 3.
Appeal 2016-008532
Application 13/412,396
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is directed “to the field of presentation devices for
meetings, and in particular, to collaborative presentation systems that enable
user interaction with a presentation.” Specification 12. Claims 1, 9, and 17
are independent. Claims 1, 6, and 7 are reproduced below for reference:
1. A system comprising:
a server that includes:
a network interface operable to communicate with clients;
and
a control unit operable to share visual content between the
clients for presentation at displays of the clients during a
meeting, the control unit further operable to receive instructions
from one or more of the clients for marking upon the visual
content, to store information in an undo or redo state (“undo/redo
state”) indicating the instructions applied to the visual content,
and to utilize the undo/redo state to generate a document
comprising a snapshot of the meeting at a point in time, the
document comprising the visual content of the meeting and the
instructions applied to the visual content at the point in time,
wherein the control unit is further operable to maintain
additional snapshots of the meeting that each indicate an
undo/redo state of the meeting at a different point in time, and
wherein the document comprises multiple sections that
each correspond with a different snapshot, each section of the
document comprising an instance of visual content and further
comprising instructions applied to the instance of visual content
at the time of a corresponding snapshot.
6. The system of claim 1 wherein:
the control unit is further operable, for each of the
snapshots of the meeting, to generate a separate copy of an
undo/redo state indicating actions performed upon the snapshot,
and to include the separate copy of an undo/redo state as an
2
Appeal 2016-008532
Application 13/412,396
instance of metadata within the document that is associated with
the snapshot.
7. The system of claim 1 wherein:
the control unit is further operable to conclude the
meeting, to initiate a new meeting, and for the new meeting:
to identify the document,
to identify the metadata within the document for each of
the snapshots of the meeting, and for each of the snapshots of the
meeting:
to share visual content for the snapshot between clients
that are attending the new meeting,
to detect that the instructions define strokes layered atop
the visual content for the snapshot,
to instruct the clients attending the new meeting to apply
detected strokes for the snapshot to the visual content for the
snapshot, and
to store the undo/redo state for the snapshot in memory.
References and Rejections2 3
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal isk
Camps
Komine
Burtner
US 2002/0116399 A1
US 2010/0083136 A1
US 2010/0306018 A1
Aug. 22, 2002
Apr. 1,2010
Dec. 2, 2010
2 The Examiner has withdrawn the 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph (pre-
AIA) rejection of claim 1. See Answer 3.
3 The Final Action indicates the “Examiner has maintained the provisional
nonstatutory double patenting,” but does not specify the reasoning or
references comprising the rejection. Final Action 4; Answer 16; see 37
C.F.R. 1.113(b). Appellants state the rejection will be addressed “when it
becomes ripe and is no longer provisional.” Brief 13. We decline to address
this rejection. See Ex Parte Moncla, 95 USPQ2d 1884, 1885 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).
3
Appeal 2016-008532
Application 13/412,396
Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Komine, Burtner, and Camps. Final Act. 7.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments. We adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions as our own,
and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
A. Independent Claim 1
Appellants argue the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 is in
error:
Komine, Burtner, and Camps do not discuss the concept of
memorializing a meeting with a document that includes multiple
sections, one per snapshot, that each include an instance of visual
content displayed in a meeting, and that each also include
instructions applied to that instance of visual content at a point
in time.
Brief 7.
Appellants argue each reference individually (see, e.g., Brief 10) and
thus do not persuade us the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Komine, Burtner, and Camps teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 1:
the Examiner finds Komine teaches a control unit “stores the received edited
content to be reflected in the document” (Answer 5); “Burtner discloses . . .
additional snapshots . . . [as] a timeline that may comprise information about
progress over the course of previous meetings ... as saved at various times
during the project, and/or document revisions (undo/redo state)” (Answer 7);
and Camps teaches the “document comprises multiple sections i.e.
displaying an edit log, displaying a portion of file that have been edits,
4
Appeal 2016-008532
Application 13/412,396
saving snapshot of document version” (Answer 8). The Examiner finds,
therefore, “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of applicant’s invention was made to implement Camps’s teachings
into Komine’s-Burtner's teaching[s].” Answer 8.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings. Appellants argue Komine
fails to teach limitations of claim 1 that the Examiner finds taught by the
combination of references. See Brief 7—8; Answer 7—9. We also find
unavailing Appellants’ argument that the Examiner is unreasonably
“[ejquating a timeline of Burtner to an undo/redo state and also a document
of claim 1 ” (Brief 9), both because Appellants do not persuasively explain
how the disputed limitations are distinguished over Burtner’s teaching of
saving meeting context information based on a timeline (see Answer 7;
Burtner 127), and because the Examiner finds the combination of Burtner’s
meeting state recall system—in view of Komine’s document editing and
Camps’ edit log—reasonably teaches generating the claimed document (see
Answer 6, citing Komine 22—23; Answer 7, citing Burtner || 24—27;
Answer 8, citing Camps 1 89). Similarly, Appellants’ arguments regarding
the failings of Camps are unpersuasive because they are conclusory and
unsupported by technical reasoning or persuasive evidence. See Brief 9—10.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
limitations of claim 1 are obvious in view of the cited references.
B. Dependent Claim 6
Appellants argue the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 6 is in
error, because “Burtner does not suggest the concept of inserting each of
multiple undo/redo histories (one per snapshot) into a document as
5
Appeal 2016-008532
Application 13/412,396
metadata.” Brief. 11. Particularly, Appellants contend that “[wjhile Burtner
goes as far as to suggest a timeline of revisions, it does not describe that
timeline as being stored within the same document that stores visual content
for the meeting.” Id.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. As discussed above with
respect to parent claim 1, we agree with the Examiner that the combination
of cited references reasonably teaches or suggests the document, within the
meaning of the claim. See Answer 6—9; see also Specification | 52 (“The
document may be separated into multiple portions.”). Further, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the cited references teach or suggest
the additional limitations of dependent claim 6, because Burtner discloses
storing meeting state information, including “a timeline that may comprise
information about progress over the course of previous meetings ... as
saved at various times during the project, and/or document revisions.”
Burtner 127; see also Burtner || 20, 24 (“[ojther state information about the
event, such as hardware device states, notes, presentations, and/or other
documents associated with the event may be stored with the transcription.”);
Answer 11—12. We also note Camps discloses an “edit log for the
document, which provides a consolidated report of all the edits performed.”
Camps 172.
Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in the rejection of
dependent claim 6.
C. Dependent Claim 7
Appellants argue the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 7 is in
error, because “[t]he cited references do not suggest the general concept of
6
Appeal 2016-008532
Application 13/412,396
using metadata within a document to determine how marks were applied to
visual content during the meeting, and rebuilding the meeting by sending
instructions in the document to clients.” Brief 12. Appellants argue that
“[specifically, Burtner does not discuss transmitting the instructions for an
old meeting to clients at a new meeting in order for the clients to
rebuild/recreate strokes that were applied during the old meeting.” Id.
The Examiner finds Burtner teaches “after the meeting has ended,
user[s] come in for their next meeting i.e. initiate a new meeting, identifying
by return to previous state information i.e. notes, presentation or document
i.e. captured meeting state (snapshot) each meeting state information
displays the document content between the users, detect the previous state
i.e. captured meeting state and apply the previous state.” Answer 14 (citing
Burtner || 12—14, 17, 24—27). We agree, because Burtner discloses “each
meeting associated with a project may be recorded, [so] users may scroll
through recorded states to go back to a previous state within the same and/
or any of the previous meetings and the devices in the room may repopulate
back to that previous state.” Burtner 114.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the combination of Komine,
Burtner, and Camps fails to teach or suggest the further limitations of
dependent claim 7.
CONCLUSION
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and
dependent claims 6 and 7. Appellants advance no further arguments on
remaining claims 2—5 and 8—20. See Brief 11—12. Accordingly, we sustain
7
Appeal 2016-008532
Application 13/412,396
the Examiner’s rejection of these claims for the same reasons discussed
above.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20 is 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8