Ex Parte Good

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2014

11242808 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2014)

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