Ex Parte Kloiber et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 9, 2017

12882757 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 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.
OPEN3830-2 3537
EXAMINER
ZUBERI, MOHAMMED H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2177
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/882,757 09/15/2010
109422 7590 03/09/2017
Sprinkle IP Law Group/OPEN
1301 W. 25th Street, Suite 408
Austin, TX 78705
Daniel J. Kloiber
03/09/2017 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 DANIEL J. KLOIBER, DAVIS L. MARKSBURY,
CHRISTOPHER J. HEINZ, ROBERT C. GUCKENBERGER,
RONALD L. HEINEY, and KENNETH E. GIBBS
Appeal 2015-005491
Application 12/882,7571
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JEFFREY S. SMITH,
and JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Hewlett Packard
Development Company, LP. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2015-005491
Application 12/882,757
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—7, 14, 16—19, 21, and 22, which constitute all of
the claims pending in this appeal. Claims 8—13, 15, and 20 have been
canceled. Claims App’x. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants ’ Invention
Appellants invented a method and system for processing a superactive
electronic document during a post design editing session. Spec. 1:11—16,
Fig. 2. Once a first instance of the electronic document (110) has been
designed, a second instance of the document is generated via user interaction
within a displayable interview pane (202) superimposed or juxtaposed with
the document to provide a variable content thereof. Spec. 25:14—32, Fig. 1.
Upon a user accessing an instance of the document, predetermined contents
associated with the user characteristics are presented to the user in the
interview pane so as permit the user to modify the portions of the document
for which the user is authorized. Spec. 26:11—32.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention as follows:
1. A non-transitory computer readable medium storing
computer-executable instructions for performing a method of
processing an electronic document, the method comprising:
providing a first post-design editing session of a first
instance of a document, wherein the document is complete;
during the post-design editing session,
2
Appeal 2015-005491
Application 12/882,757
iteratively triggering transformation of the document, to
produce a second instance of the document, via user interaction
within a displayable interview pane that is superimposed over or
juxtaposed with the document, the interview pane including
multiple, separate user-interaction components arranged to
provide variability in at least the content of the document, the
user interaction components including:
a guided-fill component configured to guide users to enter
text into data fields, with the entered text becoming part of the
second instance of the document or triggering inclusion of
additional content in the second instance of the document;
a tree-form text component configured to permit users to
enter text in free-form in portions of the document, including
permission to add tree-form text as new portions of the
document; and
an interview component configured to prompt queries to
the user, wherein answers to the queries determine at least one
format parameter and at least one content parameter, and
wherein the user is permitted to vary at least the content of
the document via directly adding or removing text in free-form
in the document while the interview pane is an active state and
simultaneously displayed with the document; and
controlling, as a function of user characteristics including
at least one of an identity, a title, or a role, user access to
predetermined content of the interactive document and user
access regarding which, if any, of the respective displayable
user-interaction components within the interview pane
associated with the first instance of the document are accessible
by a user.
Prior Art Relied Upon
The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of
unpatentability:
Andersen US 5,903,905 May 11, 1999
3
Appeal 2015-005491
Application 12/882,757
Kurokawa US 6,237,099 B1 May 22, 2001
US 2004/0139401 A1 July 15, 2004
US 7,036,072 B1 Apr. 25, 2006
US 2007/0016434 A1 Jan. 18, 2007
US 7,237,195 B1 June 26, 2007
Unbedacht
Sulistio
Oppenheimer
Zaky
Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
1. Claims 5, 19, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter, Appellants regard as the invention. Final
2. Claims 1—4, 6, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Unbedacht, Andersen,
Kurokawa, and Zaky. Final Act. 4—9.
3. Claims 5 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Unbedacht, Andersen,
Kurokawa, Zaky, and Sulistio. Final Act. 9—10.
4. Claims 14, 16—19, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Unbedacht,
Andersen, Oppenheimer, and Zaky. Final Act. 10-19.
Act. 3.
4
Appeal 2015-005491
Application 12/882,757
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 8—31, and the Reply Brief, pages 2—8.2
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments. We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ contentions. Except as
otherwise indicated herein below, we adopt as our own the findings and
reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’
Appeal Brief. Ans. 3—26, Final Act. 2—19. However, we highlight and
address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows.
Indefiniteness Rejection
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in concluding that the claim
recitation “the instance data comprising non-stored information retrieved
from an asynchronous information source” is ambiguous, and thereby
renders the claim indefinite. App. Br. 10, Reply Br. 2—3. According to
Appellants, the disputed limitation is sufficiently described in the
Specification to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to ascertain the scope
of the invention. In particular, Appellants argue the following:
In view of context of Appellants’ specification, it would
be clear to one skilled the art that the term “non-stored” as used
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed September 24, 2014), the Reply Brief (filed
May 1, 2015) and the Answer (mailed March 2, 2015) for their respective
details. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments
Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellants
could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
5
Appeal 2015-005491
Application 12/882,757
in the claim recitations of claims 5, 9, 22 . . . relates to
information not stored by the producer/manager/user of the
electronic document. For example “the non-stored information
from an asynchronous source” recited in Appellants’ [base]
claim 5 is information such as live data available a
network/Intemet communication. In one example, the live data
could correspond to a stock price that can change frequently
throughout the day. While technically speaking the information
would be at least temporarily held in a memory somewhere, it
would be clear to one skilled in the art regarding Appellants’ base
claim 1 and claim 5, that the information is non-stored (from the
asynchronous information source) in the sense that the
information does not come from a standing database such as from
the producer/manager/user of the electronic document.
App. Br. 11 (citing Spec. 16:15—23) (emphasis added). We do not agree
with Appellants.
Although the reference to the asynchronous information source in the
cited portion of the Specification may be directed to live data available from
network communication, the ordinarily skilled artisan would readily
recognize the claim recitation “information retrieved’’ (emphasis added)
denotes3 the act of fetching information stored on a tangible medium, albeit
temporarily, as admitted by Appellants. Therefore, we agree with the
Examiner that even if the information is stored temporarily, it is nonetheless
stored and would, thus, conflict with the contradictory recitation that the
3 See e.g. Oxford computer dictionary defining retrieve as “to find and get
back data or information that has been stored in the memory of a computer”.
Available at
http://www.oxfordleamersdictionaries.com/us/topic/computer..programming
/retrieve.
6
Appeal 2015-005491
Application 12/882,757
information is non-stored. Ans. 19-20. Accordingly, we are not persuaded
of error in the Examiner’s indefmiteness rejection of claims 5, 19, and 22.
Obviousness Rejections
Regarding claim 1, Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding
that the combination of Unbedacht, Andersen, Kurokawa, and Zaky renders
claim 1 unpatentable because the proposed combination of references does
not teach or suggest numerous limitations. First, Appellants argue that none
of the references teaches or suggests “user interaction within a displayable
interview pane that is superimposed over or juxtaposed with the document,
the interview pane including multiple, separate user-interaction components
arranged to provide variability in at least the content of the document, ” as
recited in independent claim 1. App. Br. 13 (emphasis added). In particular,
Appellants argues that Unbedacht refers to performing real-time preview of
commands that may be presented to users to select from dropdown menus,
control toolbars, and dialog boxes to observe the effect the commands would
have on the formatting of the document. Id. at 13—17 (citing Unbedacht ]f]f
27—33, 46, 51—53, 69-98). Further, Appellants argue that Zaky is similarly
deficient because the disclosure of a web page development system
including a display of an HTML source view and a graphics/browser view,
though displayed simultaneously, are separate and distinct from each other.
According to Appellants, because Zaky is directed to the design phase, it
diverges or conflicts with Appellants’ claim requiring a post editing session.
Id. at 19 (citing Zaky 1:35—40, Fig. 2). We are not persuaded.
7
Appeal 2015-005491
Application 12/882,757
As correctly noted by the Examiner, Unbedacht’s disclosure of a post­
design editing session wherein a user is provided with an interface
containing dropdown windows including selectable commands, when
executed, modify the content of the electronic document thereby causing the
content thereof to vary, teaches or suggests “user-interaction components
arranged to provide variability in at least the content of the document.” Ans.
20-21 (citing Unbedacht || 27—33, 51, 69-98). We do not agree with
Appellants’ argument that Unbedacht’s disclosure of changing the font,
color or effect of the text pertains to changing the format of the document,
whereas the claim is directed to varying the content thereof. App. Br. 15,
Reply Br. 4. We note that the claim is not so limiting because it recites
providing variability in at least the content of the document. One of
ordinary skill in the art would readily construe the recitation “at least the
content” as the content or more. Further, although the term content
generally differs from format, content of a document does not necessarily
exclude the format thereof within the context of the claim. Therefore, under
the broadest reasonable interpretation, the content of a document can be
construed to include not only the strict content of the document, but also
anything within the four comers of the document.
As further correctly noted by the Examiner, Andersen’s disclosure of
a Letter TaskWizard including an interface that interviews the user to select
one of a plurality of entries from a dropdown menu, as well as a ffee-form
interface for the user to provide responses (content) to questions would
complement the cited Unbedacht’s disclosure to teach the interview pane
8
Appeal 2015-005491
Application 12/882,757
through which the user can provide content thereby providing variability in
at least the content of the document. Ans. 5—6 (citing Andersen Figs. 2b, 2e,
and 2f). Additionally, we agree with the Examiner that Zaky’s disclosure of
displaying simultaneously a source view and a browser view for concurrent
editing further complements the Unbedacht-Andersen combination to yield
the disputed limitations. Ans. 22—24 (citing Zaky 5:14—31).
Second, Appellants argue that Kurokawa’s disclosure of a plurality of
elements in a dialog having fixed and always present data fields and buttons
to determine settings for access rights does not teach or suggest “controlling
. . . user access regarding which, if any, of the respective displayable user-
interaction components within the interview pane associated with the first
instance of the document are accessible by a user,” as recited in claim 1.
App. Br. 17—18 (citing Kurokawa 2:24—3:6, Fig. 6). According to
Appellants, because the displayed dialog elements are fixed and always
present, they do not teach displayable user-interaction components that may
not be displayable by the user. Id. at 18. We do not agree with Appellants.
As correctly noted by the Examiner, Kurokawa’s disclosure of an
interface that utilizes an access control list for regulating users’ access right
settings, when combined with the Unbedacht-Andersen-Zaky’s system
would result in a system wherein different users are provided with access to
different menus to modify different contents in a document depending on
their respective access rights. Ans. 6 (citing Kurokawa 2:24—3:6, Fig. 6).
We are therefore satisfied that that the proposed combination of Unbedacht,
Andersen, Kurokawa, and Zaky teaches or suggests the disputed limitations,
9
Appeal 2015-005491
Application 12/882,757
and thereby renders claim 1 unpatentable of claim 1. Accordingly, we are
not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1.
Regarding the rejections of claims 2—7, 14, 16—19, 21, and 22, to the
extent Appellants have either not presented separate patentability arguments
or have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously
discussed for patentability of claim 1 above, those claims fall therewith. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Further, to the extent Appellants have raised
additional arguments for patentability of these claims, we find that the
Examiner has rebutted in the Answer each and every one of those arguments
by a preponderance of the evidence. Answer 24—26, Final Act.7—19. We
adopt the Examiner’s findings and underlying reasoning, which we
incorporate herein by reference. Because Appellants have failed to
persuasively rebut the Examiner’s findings regarding the rejections of claims
2—7, 14, 16—19, 21, and 22, Appellants have failed to show error in the
Examiner’s rejection of these claims.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s indefmiteness rejection of claims 5, 19, and
22. We also affirm the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
claims 1—7, 14, 16—19, 21, and 22.
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
10