Ex Parte Koh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 17, 2017

12130607 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 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.
12/130,607 05/30/2008 Eunyee Koh 58083-394809 (B705) 4287
72058 7590 03/21/2017
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Adobe Systems, Inc. 58083
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309-4530
EXAMINER
JOSEPH, SHAWN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/21/2017 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):
ipefiling @ kilpatrickstockton .com
jlhice@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EUNYEE KOH and WALTER WEI-TUH CHANG
Appeal 2016-004423
Application 12/130,607
Technology Center 2100
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JOHN F. HORVATH, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—8, 16, 17, 19—24, and 32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We reverse.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Adobe Systems, Inc. App.
Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-004423
Application 12/130,607
Introduction
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to “reading order extraction,”
which is a computerized process for extracting text from documents that
have a layout of distinct columns and sections, such as a typical newspaper,
so that the extracted text is placed together in the order that it is intended to
be read. Spec. 1—3. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method comprising:
receiving a collection of strings, each string from the
collection of strings having a corresponding bounding box
describing a position of at least a portion of the string in a
source document, the source document including multiple
sections, each section presenting at least a portion of the
collection of strings;
determining string densities occurring in a first subset of
vertical portions of the source document by processing vertical
position information from at least one bounding box by
scanning left to right;
determining string densities occurring in a first subset of
horizontal portions of the source document by processing
horizontal position information from at least one bounding box
by scanning top to bottom;
detecting a section boundary of one of the multiple
sections in the source document by concurrently analyzing the
string densities occurring in vertical portions and the string
densities occurring in horizontal portions;
based on the section boundary, assigning each string
from the collection of strings to either a pre-boundary collection
of strings, or a post-boundary collection of strings;
recursively analyzing the pre-boundary collection of
strings and the post-boundary collection of strings to search for
additional section boundaries in each collection; and
arranging the collection of strings according to a reading
order using the section boundary, the reading order
2
Appeal 2016-004423
Application 12/130,607
corresponding to a language associated with the collection of
strings.
App. Br. 16 (Claims App’x).
References and Rejections
Claims 1—8, 16, 17, 19—24, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over prior art described by Appellants in the
Specification (“APA” (admitted prior art)), Paknad et al. (US 5,832,530;
Nov. 3, 1998), Altamura et al. (Transforming paper documents into XML
format with WISDOM++, International Journal on Document
Analysis and Recognition, Vol. 4, Iss. 1, pp. 2-17; Aug. 2001),
Kobayashi (US 2006/ 0288278 Al; Dec. 21, 2006), and Tsuji (Document
Image Analysis for Generating Syntactic Structure Description, 9th
International Conference on Pattern Recognition; 1988, available at
ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/28346/ (last accessed Mar. 7, 2007)). Final
Act. 2-16.
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Kobayashi teaches the recited
steps of “determining string densities” (by horizontal and vertical scanning
in a document) and “detecting a section boundary” (by concurrently
analyzing the vertical and horizontal string densities). See Final Act. 5—6
(citing Kobayashi | 88, Fig. 6). Appellants contend the Examiner errs in
these findings because the cited portions of Kobayashi teach “searching for
the locations of extracted objects within a document in order to determine
the reading order for the extracted objects” (App. Br. 9), which does not
does teach or suggest any aspect of “string densities” and, accordingly, does
3
Appeal 2016-004423
Application 12/130,607
not teach or suggest the recited determining or detecting steps. See App. Br.
8-13.
The Examiner responds that Appellants’ arguments merely allege
patentability and fail to comply with 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Ans. 3—4,
10-11, 13—14. We disagree. Appellants discuss the disclosure of Kobayashi
and contrast its teachings with the relevant portions of the claim language,
which clearly explains why Appellants allege the Examiner errs in finding
Kobayashi teaches the recited “string density” requirements.
The Examiner also responds that Appellants ignore the context of
Kobayashi (see Ans. 4—6), which discloses extracting from a document “the
rectangular areas and the attributes of elements” (id. at 5 (quoting Kobayashi
174)). The Examiner reasons that in Kobayashi, “each printed string
possesses a ‘density’” that meets the dictionary definition of that term “since
the font and font size dictate the amount, or quantity, of characters displayed
per unit area or unit length.” Ans. 5 (citing Merriam-Webster’s definition of
density (“the quantity per unit volume . . ., unit area . . ., or unit length”))
{see www.merriam-webster.com/dietionary/density (last accessed March 7,
2017)).
Appellants reply that “[t]he Examiner seems to conflate the concept
that strings of a document have a density with the claimed elements for
determining string densities in a document.” Reply Br. 3 (emphasis
removed). We agree. An ordinarily skilled artisan certainly understands
that all documents containing strings have areas where the strings occur, and
areas where they do not, and that inherently therefore there is a density of
the strings within any given area of such documents. But we agree with
Appellants that the existence of an inherent property does not by itself teach
4
Appeal 2016-004423
Application 12/130,607
or suggest a step of determining that property. We find persuasive
Appellants’ argument that Kobayashi’s teaching of using the location of
objects within a document for determining the reading order does not teach
or suggest the recited requirements for determining string densities and then
detecting a section boundary by analyzing the string densities.
The Examiner also responds by newly finding that the APA, Paknad,
and Altamura each also teach the recited steps for determining string
densities. Ans. 8—9. Specifically, the Examiner finds: the Specification’s
APA discussion of spatial configurations of word positions teaches string
density “since we know where words are positioned] and how far apart they
are” (id. at 8); Paknad’s analysis of the spatial distance between adjacent text
objects teaches string density for the same reason (id. at 9); and Altamura
also teaches determining string densities by its use of a “spread factor” ratio
that indicates “‘closely’ (densely) ‘written text regions’ are determined and
indicated by the given ratio” (id.).
Regarding the Examiner’s new APA finding, Appellants reply that the
Specification discusses “conventional techniques [that] can analyze the
spatial configuration of word positions in a document,” but does not indicate
these techniques provide sufficient information to determine string density.
Reply Br. 4 (citing Spec. 2:9—15). We find this argument persuasive. The
Examiner provides no finding to explain why one of ordinary skill would
understand the APA teaching of identifying positions of words throughout a
document suggests determining vertical and horizontal string densities.
Regarding Paknad, Appellants reply that it teaches using whitespace
to identify words in a document, and while it teaches determining whether
the space between characters exceeds a threshold, there is nothing in Paknad
5
Appeal 2016-004423
Application 12/130,607
that indicates determining string densities. Id. (citing Paknad 2:61—3:10).
“Simply having the data from which a density could be found . . . does not
teach actually determining the string density, particularly if there is no
apparent purpose for doing so.” Id. at 5. We agree. While the documents
discussed in Paknad contain text, and thus inherently have string densities,
Paknad is silent as to determining the inherent string densities within the
documents.
Regarding the Examiner’s new finding that Altamura teaches the
recited requirements for determining string densities, Appellants reply that
the “spread factor” discussed by the Examiner “applies to sections of the
document meeting qualifying criteria and is based on measuring the distance
between these qualifying sections.” Id.
Identifying a distance between a pair of qualifying regions (or
the spread factor based on the distance) is not determinative of
the string densities within the regions, not determinative of the
string densities in portions of the document outside of the
qualifying regions, and not determinative of the string densities
in the document as a whole. Once again, the Examiner seems to
conflate the concept that strings of a document have a density
with the claimed elements for determining string densities in a
document.
Id. at 5—6.
We again find Appellants’ argument persuasive. While Altamura’s
spread factor may reflect string density within a document, the Examiner
does not explain how determining an overall spread factor ratio for a
document teaches or suggests the specific requirements for determining
6
Appeal 2016-004423
Application 12/130,607
multiple vertical and horizontal string densities that subsequently are
concurrently analyzed for boundary section detection, as recited.2
Accordingly, Appellants persuade us the Examiner errs in finding the
cited art teaches the recited uses of string densities in the determining and
detecting steps, and we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1.
The other independent claims, 17 and 32, both include limitations
analogous to those of claim 1. Thus, for the same reasons, we also do not
sustain their rejection. We also, accordingly, do not sustain the rejection of
the dependent claims, 2—8, 16, and 19-24.
2 We note Altamura discusses that the WISDOM++ document processing
system incorporates a prior art LEX layout analysis system, which includes
“an iterative process, in which the vertical and horizontal histograms of text
blocks are alternatively analyzed to detect columns and sections/paragraphs,
respectively.” Altamura, p. 6. The Examiner does not make any findings
that explain whether or how this disclosure of using histograms of text
blocks to detect columns and sections teaches or suggests determining
vertical and horizontal string densities and then detecting a section boundary
by concurrently analyzing determined string densities, as recited by claim 1.
We note, in an ex parte appeal, the Board “is basically a board of
review—we review . . . rejections made by patent examiners.” Ex parte
Gambogi, 62 USPQ2d 1209, 1211 (BPAI 2001). Review under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 “is not a process whereby the examiner . . . invite[s] the [Bjoard to
examine the application and resolve patentability in the first instance.” Ex
parte Braeken, 54 USPQ2d 1110, 1112 (BPAI 1999). The Board’s primary
role is to decide based on the findings and conclusions presented by the
Examiner. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1). We express no opinion as to the
validity of the pending claims in view of additional explanation and/or
references. Although we have authority to reject claims under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b), no inference should be drawn when we elect not to do so. See
Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1213.02.
7
Appeal 2016-004423
Application 12/130,607
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the rejection of claims 1—8, 16, 17,
19-24, and 32.
REVERSED
8