Ex Parte Mastie et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 9, 201612771005 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 9, 2016) 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. 8185P087 1774 EXAMINER AUGUSTIN, MARCELLUS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2674 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/771,005 04/30/2010 76073 7590 11/10/2016 InfoPrint Solutions/ Blakely 1279 Oakmead Parkway Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040 Scott D. Mastie 11/10/2016 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 SCOTT D. MAS TIE and CRAIG D. BROSSMAN Appeal 2014-006070 Application 12/771,005 Technology Center 2600 Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2014-006070 Application 12/771,005 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1, 3—15, 17—25, and 27—35. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We Affirm. Exemplary Claim Claims 1 and 30 are illustrative: 1. A computer generated method comprising: examining a print job data stream spooled in a spooled print production file; identifying one or more white space regions within documents in the print production file; quantifying each of the white space regions to establish one or more characteristics of the content to be inserted into each white space region; and inserting content into each of the white space regions. 30. A computer system comprising: a memory to store a printing software product; a processor, coupled to the memory, to execute the printing software product; and a display device to display a graphical user interface (GUI) upon the processor executing the printing product, the GUI having menu options to enable identification of one or more white space regions within documents in a print production file and selection of content to be inserted in the white space regions. 2 Appeal 2014-006070 Application 12/771,005 The Examiner’s Rejection Claims 1, 3—15, 17—25, and 27—35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Isles (US 2008/0291486 Al, Nov. 27, 2008). Final Act. 3—16. Appellant’s Contentions 1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as anticipated because Isles does not disclose “a process of quantifying white space regions to establish one or more characteristics of content to be inserted into each white space region” (hereinafter “the quantifying limitation”), as recited in independent claim 1. Br. 7—10. In particular, Appellants contend “Isles fails to disclose or suggest establishing characteristics of content to be inserted into a white space region.” Id. at 8—9. 2. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 30 as anticipated because Isles does not disclose “a GUI having menu options to enable identification of one or more white space regions within documents in a print production file and selection of content to be inserted in the white space regions” (hereinafter “the identification limitation”). Br. 11. ANALYSIS1 We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ 1 Appellants focus its contentions on claims 1 and 30, and advances no separate, substantive arguments for the remaining rejected claims 3—15, 17— 3 Appeal 2014-006070 Application 12/771,005 conclusions. We have reviewed the Examiner’s Final Rejection and response to Appellants’ arguments (Final Act. 3—18; Ans. 16—20). We concur with the findings made in the Examiner’s Final Rejection and the Examiner’s conclusions made in the Answer. Id. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. As to contention 1, we begin our analysis by first considering the scope and meaning of the disputed quantifying limitation, which must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with Appellants’ disclosure, as explained in In re Morris: [T]he PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant’s specification. In re Morris, 111 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (stating that “claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow”). Our reviewing court further states, “the ‘ordinary meaning’ of a claim term is its meaning to the ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (enbanc). In particular, Appellants’ Specification states the following: At processing block 220, the identified white spaces are quantified. For instance, fixed white space regions are quantified in terms of the size and type of (e.g., text or image) content that may be placed within the white space. This quantification may subsequently be codified and stored. In one embodiment, a quantification value may be a number of 25, 27—29, and 31—35. Br. 12. Arguments not made are considered waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). 4 Appeal 2014-006070 Application 12/771,005 characters of message text in a certain point size that would fit in the white space region, while in other embodiments it may include dimensions of an image that could fit within the region. Spec. 127 (emphasis ours). Although this disclosure is not limiting of the claimed invention, it provides context for interpretation of the disputed quantifying limitation. The Examiner has identified the relevant portions of Isles and has provided sufficient explanation with corresponding citations to various parts of the reference for disclosing the disputed quantifying limitation. Ans. 16— 19. In particular, the Examiner finds that paragraphs 85 and 94 of Isles disclose the disputed quantifying limitation. Based on our review of Isles flflf 85, 94; Ans. 16—19), we find that the Examiner, giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, has properly found that the disputed quantifying limitation is met by Isles. As to contention 2, we agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings that Isles’ disclosure meets the disputed identification limitation of claim 30: The computing devices include a display having a graphical user interface (Fig. 2, [0084]—[0085] and [0094]) consistent with Appellant’s disclosure of (Specification para. 0026 and 0027) where a user interact with the device comprising menu options where a whitespace analysis module identifies white spaces comprising margin spacing, character spacing, line spacing, and whitespace amount; the analysis module 220 further includes identifying one or more white space regions within documents in the print production file including document characteristics comprising said whitespace of margin spacing, character spacing, line spacing and the like where a whitespace management feature 186 determine and establishes the characteristics of the whitespace regions and the selected 5 Appeal 2014-006070 Application 12/771,005 content area characteristics to be inserted in the whitespace regions. Ans. 19-20 (emphasis ours). We observe that no Reply Brief is of record to rebut such findings including the Examiner’s responses to Appellants’ arguments. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3—15, 17—25, and 27—35 is affirmed. 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 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation