Ex Parte GoodDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 30, 201411242808 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE __________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD __________ Ex parte CHARLES GOOD __________ Appeal 2011-013183 Application 11/242,808 Technology Center 2100 __________ Before TONI R. SCHEINER, DONALD E. ADAMS, and JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. SCHEINER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of claims directed to a computer program product, system, and method for interactive control of document updates. The claims have been rejected as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. 1 Appellant identifies Adobe Systems, Inc. as the Real Party-In-Interest (App. Br. 1). Appeal 2011-013183 Application 11/242,808 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claims 1, 2, 13-20, 22, and 25-41 are pending and on appeal; claims 3-12, 21, 23, and 24 have been canceled (App. Br. 2). The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 7,080,083 B2, July 18, 2006) and Hadfield et al. (US 7,496,841 B2, February 24, 2009). Claim 1, reproduced below with numbering added for clarity, is representative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A computer program product, the computer program product being embodied in a computer readable medium and comprising computer instructions for: [1] receiving a document comprising one or more segments, wherein each segment has a position within a hierarchy of the document and is configured to be generated automatically based at least in part on data from a data source associated with that segment; [2] receiving a plurality of visual changes, which includes one or more visual graphical changes and/or one or more visual textual changes, to be applied to the document or a portion thereof and created by a first entity; [3] prior to applying the received plurality of changes, presenting to a second entity the plurality of changes to be applied to the document, including by indicating those portions of the hierarchy of the document that would be affected by the plurality of changes if the plurality of changes were applied to the document; [4] receiving from the second entity a selection of one or more of the presented plurality of visual changes to be applied; and [5] displaying the document with the selected changes applied in response to receiving from the second entity the selection of one or more of the presented plurality of changes to be applied. Independent claims 25 and 26, directed to a system and method, respectively, have essentially the same limitations as claim 1. Appeal 2011-013183 Application 11/242,808 3 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Kim discloses “techniques for designing extensible style sheets using meta-tag information and/or differentiated associated meta-tag information, where the designed extensible style sheets are for various presentations and information exchange” (Kim, col. 1, ll. 31-35). 2. According to Kim: Dynamically converting the content-oriented structured documents into desired presentation requires what is called a style sheet . . . A style sheet is a definition of a document's appearance in terms of such elements as: a default typeface, size, and color for headings and body text, how front matter (preface, figure list, title page, and so forth) should look and how all or individual sections should be laid out in terms of space. One of the methods of creating a style sheet for an XML file to an HTML file involves matching the data or attributes of HTML elements with the associated meta-tag information in the XML file, e.g., data or attributes of XML elements. A user can create a new source HTML file by inserting the associated meta-tag information of the source XML file as the data or attributes of the elements of the source HTML file. Then the user can manipulate/add/subtract the HTML tag or tags around the associated meta-tag information of the source XML file in the source HTML file for customizing the HTML tags using WYSISWYG [sic] HTML editors such as Microsoft FrontPage, macromedia Dreamweaver, or Adobe goLive so that the customized HTML tags comprises the desired outcome of the target XSL file. Once desired customized HTML tags are made around the inserted associated meta-tag information of the XML file in the HTML file, a software process can use a matching algorithm to identify the particular XML data or attributes by matching the associated meta-tag information of the HTML elements. By identifying the particular XML data or attributes, the software process may automatically generate meta-tag information that hold the information about the relationships of Appeal 2011-013183 Application 11/242,808 4 the XML data or attributes in respect to its parent elements, its sibling elements, and its relationship with the root element. The location of the associated meta-tag information and its relationship with HTML tags may also be used to insert the corresponding meta-tag information at a matched location in the source HTML file in respect to its relations to the customized HTML tags. The combination of the meta-tag information with the customized HTML tags can then be used to generate the style sheet or a target XSL file. (Kim, col. 2, ll. 11-51.) 3. Kim also provides a graphic user interface environment . . . to allow a user to visually manipulate or operate the meta-tag and/or associated meta-tag information. The graphic user interface environment including at least two displays is provided. One of the displays is from a commonly used browser or an application to display a target file including a plurality of objects and the other display is used to facilitate the editing of a tree structure. Each of the nodes in the tree structure is associated with one of the objects by associated meta-tag information. Based on the tree structure, a source can be generated. Together with the source file, the style sheet can be designed in accordance with the displayed target file. (Kim, col. 4, ll. 21-34.) 4. According to Kim: [In] one embodiment, an authoring tool is employed. The authoring tool may be FrontPage for HTML, Intava Gravity Professional for WML, and XMLeditor for XML. With one of these WYSIWYG authoring tools, a user can design the look- and-feel of a target file or an output presentation with an XML editor and a user can design a target XML tree showing the hierarchical relationships among the source objects (e.g. document elements)[.] (Kim, col. 8, ll. 9-16.) Appeal 2011-013183 Application 11/242,808 5 5. Figure 7D of Kim is reproduced below: FIG. 7D shows a pre-designed html document with inserted associated meta-tag information in Microsoft FrongPage [sic] environment, and the visualization of an XML document in XMLCitites's [sic] XMLWebGenie environment. FIG. 7D shows that associated meta-tag information has been inserted on the HTML document. After the insertion of associated meta-tag information into the WYSISWYG [sic] editors, user may further design the looks & feel for the associated meta-tag information through its WYSISWYG tools available from the editors. (Kim, col. 12, ll. 24-33.) DISCUSSION The Examiner finds that Kim discloses all of the elements of independent claims 1, 25, and 26, except that Kim “fails to disclose a second entity where the second entity can preview the changes prior to applying the changes” (Ans. 4 (emphasis omitted)). Specifically, the Examiner finds that Appeal 2011-013183 Application 11/242,808 6 Kim discloses a graphic environment that “includes at least two displays, a first display (window) for displaying an HTML file and a second display (window) for editing a corresponding XML tree and/or DTD for the HTML file” (Ans. 14 (emphasis omitted)). The Examiner finds that “‘[o]ne of the displays is from a commonly used browser or an application to display a target file including a plurality of objects and the other display is used to facilitate the editing of a tree structure. Each of the nodes in the tree structure is associated with one of the objects by associated meta-tag information.’” (Id. (emphasis omitted)) Referring to Figure 7A, the Examiner finds that “a document is received and comprises one or more segments in window 700 having a hierarchal structure and a position within a hierarchy of the document and being automatically generated based on data from a data source such as the document displayed in the left window comprising content from a specific address/location” (id.). The Examiner further finds that Kim uses a “WYSIWYG editor which displays content and document structure for editing via visual/textual changes” (id. (emphasis omitted)). Thus, the Examiner finds that Kim “teaches receiving a plurality of visual changes using an editor and including one or more visual graphical changes or textual changes to be applied to the document or a portion and being created by a first entity” (id. at 14), and that “editing of a tree structure includes textual changes applied to a portion or segment of the tree structure” (id. at 14-15). As for providing proposed changes to a second entity, the Examiner finds that Hadfield “discloses a collaborative system where a second entity makes changes to a document and which is then submitted for review by the Appeal 2011-013183 Application 11/242,808 7 first entity which accepts or rejects the changes” (id. at 4 (emphasis omitted)). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art “to have implemented the collaborative authoring system of Hadfield into the system of Kim . . . to improve the design of stylesheets meeting the approval of another entity thereby preventing errors or unwanted changes in the final design and saving time” (id. at 5 (emphasis omitted)). Appellant acknowledges that “Hadfield describes a collaborative process in which one or more contributing authors propose edits to a document and a single managing author selects which proposed edits to accept” (App. Br. 17). However, Appellant contends that neither Kim nor Hadfield describes element 3 of claim 1 (id. at 19-20), which requires presenting a plurality of changes to be applied to a document to a second entity, prior to applying the plurality of changes, while indicating those portions of the hierarchy of the document that would be affected by the plurality of changes if the plurality of changes were applied to the document - or step 1, which requires that the document comprises one or more segments, wherein each segment has a position within a hierarchy of the document and is configured to be generated automatically based at least in part on data from a data source associated with that segment. Specifically, Appellant contends that Kim merely “convert[s] files or documents from one markup language file (e.g. HTML) into another markup language file (e.g. XML)” and “[c]onverting a file from one markup language to another is not the same thing as presenting proposed changes and applying selected ones” (id. at 19 (emphasis omitted)). Appellant Appeal 2011-013183 Application 11/242,808 8 contends that “Kim's conversion technique changes a file or document from one markup language to another, but does not change the displayed or rendered document, for example by swapping one photograph for another or editing text” (id.). In addition, Appellant contends that “the document being edited [in Hadfield] has no intrinsic or predefined underlying structure, for example in the form of segments or in the form of a hierarchy” (id. at 13 and 17). Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. Kim discloses two displays: a first display to display a target file including a plurality of objects, and a second display to facilitate the editing a hierarchical tree structure, where each node in the tree structure is associated with one of the objects in the target file by a meta-tag (FF 3). Moreover, Kim discloses using a WYSIWYG editor to design the “look-and-feel” of a target file or an output presentation (FFs 4, 5). Therefore, the Examiner’s finding that Kim discloses presenting proposed changes to a structured document and applying selected ones (“receiving a plurality of visual changes . . . including one or more visual graphical changes or textual changes to be applied to the document” (Ans. 14), and applying “textual changes . . . to a portion or segment of the tree structure” (id. at 14-15)) is supported by the evidence of record. As for providing the proposed changes to a second entity, the Examiner has explained that it would have been obvious to incorporate Hadfield’s collaborative process into Kim’s computer instructions “to improve the design of stylesheets meeting the approval of another entity thereby preventing errors or unwanted changes in the final design and saving time” (id. at 5 (emphasis omitted)). Appellant has not addressed the Examiner’s rationale for combining the teachings of Kim and Hadfield. Appeal 2011-013183 Application 11/242,808 9 Claims 27-29 and 33-35 Each of claims 27-29 and 33-35 requires “displaying only those portions of the hierarchy of the document that would be affected by the plurality of changes if the plurality of changes were applied to the document” (emphasis added). The Examiner finds that: Kim discloses . . . computer instructions for . . . displaying only those portions of the hierarchy of the document that would be affected by the plurality of changes if the plurality of changes were applied to the document (column 2, lines 1067 & column 4, lines 1-55, & figs 2a-3c, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim). (Ans. 7-8.) Appellant contends that “[t]hose sections do not describe ‘displaying only those portions of the hierarchy of the document that would be affected by the plurality of changes if the plurality of changes were applied to the document.’” (App. Br. 20), and “[d]isplaying things is not the same thing as displaying only those portions of the hierarchy of the document that would be affected . . . if the plurality of changes were applied to the document” (id.). We agree with Appellant that the portions of the record cited by the Examiner on pages 7-8 of the Answer do not support the Examiner’s finding that Kim discloses this particular requirement of the claims, and the Examiner has not otherwise addressed the deficiency. Appeal 2011-013183 Application 11/242,808 10 Claims 36-38 Appellant contends that neither Kim nor Hadfield discloses the limitations of claims 36-38. Specifically, Appellant contends that: [N]either Kim nor Hadfield describe “displaying, in a same window as the displayed indented list, a graphical user interface (GUI) control associated with previewing; and in response to the second entity activating the GUI control associated with previewing: generating one or more instructions by applying (1) an XSLT snippet associated with a selected portion of the hierarchy selected from the indented list to (2) data targeted by a data XPATH, wherein the generated instructions are the same instructions that would be passed to a rendering engine if those instructions were to be applied; and displaying to the second entity the generated instructions”[.] (App. Br. 22.) However, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Kim and Hadfield, together, teach the required limitations, for the reasons set forth by the Examiner on page 17 of the Answer. SUMMARY The rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Kim and Hadfield is affirmed, as is the rejection of claims 2, 13-20, 22, 25, 26, 30-32, and 39-41, as these claims were not separately argued. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1). The rejection of claims 27-29 and 33-35 as unpatentable over Kim and Hadfield is reversed. The rejection of claims 36-38 as unpatentable over Kim and Hadfield is affirmed. Appeal 2011-013183 Application 11/242,808 11 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED-IN-PART lp Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation