Ex Parte Kloiber et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 9, 201712882757 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation