Ex Parte Schramm et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 21, 2017

12617672 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 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. 12/617,672 11/12/2009 Karl Schramm 04860.P8231 5037 45217 7590 03/21/2017 APPLE INC./BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN LLP 1279 OAKMEAD PARKWAY SUNNYVALE, CA 94085-4040 EXAMINER HILLERY, NATHAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3715 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/21/2017 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 KARL SCHRAMM and ERIC TAYLOR SEYMOUR ____________ Appeal 2015-0056801 Application 12/617,6722 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 3–8, 10–13, 21, and 22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 Our decision references Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.,” filed Nov. 12, 2009), Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed Nov. 14, 2014), Response to Notice of Non-Compliant Appeal Brief (“Response to Notice,” filed Jan. 12, 2015), and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed May 12, 2015), as well as the Final Office Action (“Final Action,” mailed Mar. 14, 2014) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Answer,” mailed Mar. 12, 2015). 2 According to Appellants, Apple Inc. is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2015-005680 Application 12/617,672 2 We REVERSE. According to Appellants, their invention is “related to providing content to Braille displays.” Spec. ¶ 1. We reproduce independent claim 1, below, as illustrative of the claims on appeal. 1. A computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving, in a data processing apparatus, content in a reference format; converting, with the data processing apparatus, the content into corresponding Braille content having an intermediate Braille format; and for each of a plurality of Braille displays, formatting, with the data processing apparatus, the Braille content from the intermediate format into a specific format for that Braille display, and sending the specifically formatted Braille content to the Braille display, wherein at least two of the Braille displays have different specific formats, wherein the data processing apparatus causes the specifically formatted Braille content to be simultaneously presented by each of the plurality of Braille displays; and storing a history buffer of previous Braille content sent to the plurality of Braille displays. REJECTIONS AND PRIOR ART The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3–8, 10–13, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Weiss (US 6,738,951 B1, iss. May 18, 2004), Chung et al., Virtual Laboratory Education for Persons with Vision Disabilities, Oklahoma State University, student paper (2002) (“Chung”), and Gupta (US 2002/0003469 A1, pub. Jan. 10, 2002). Appeal 2015-005680 Application 12/617,672 3 The Examiner rejects claims 4, 6, 8, and 10–13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Weiss, Chung, Gupta, and LaBine (US 2009/0292999 A1, pub. Nov. 26, 2009).3 ANALYSIS Written Description Rejection The Examiner rejects all of the claims, because [d]espite reviewing the Specification, the [E]xaminer cannot find support for the following claim limitation[s]: “converting the content into corresponding Braille content having an intermediate Braille format” and “formatting the Braille content from the intermediate format into a specific format for that Braille display.” The [S]pecification makes no mention of an intermediate format. Final Action 3. More specifically, the Examiner finds that “the [S]pecification does not disclose . . . an intermediate format of any kind[,] including an intermediate Braille format.” Answer 3. Based on our review, we agree with Appellants, however, that the Specification provides support for the claim limitations, and, in particular, provides support for the claimed intermediate Braille format. Appeal Br. 8–9; see also Reply Br. 4–5. For example, paragraph 23 of Appellants’ Specification states that “Braille display manager 204 converts the content into a Braille format, and stores the Braille content in a primary buffer.” Spec. ¶ 23. We determine that this provides written description support for the claimed conversion (i.e., the Specification’s description of “conversion by Braille display 3 Although the Examiner purports to reject claims “8–20” (Final Action 9), we note that claims 9 and 14–20 are not pending (see, e.g., Response to Notice 5, 6). Appeal 2015-005680 Application 12/617,672 4 manager 204” (id.)) of content (i.e., the Specification’s description of “the content” (id.)) into corresponding Braille content having an intermediate Braille format (i.e., the Specification’s description of the content being converted “into a Braille format” (id.)). A later portion of Appellants’ Specification describes the further formatting of that converted content into a specific format for the Braille display. In particular, paragraph 28 of Appellants’ Specification states “Braille display manager 204 provides the Braille content to each of the Braille display engines 206. . . . The Braille display engine 206 uses the Braille line formatter 210 to format the Braille content into a format that is appropriate for the Braille display 208 managed by the Braille display engine 206.” Spec. ¶ 28. Thus, the Specification describes the intermediate content (i.e., the Specification’s description of the information converted by Braille display manager 204 (id. at ¶ 23)) being formatted into a specific format for a Braille device (i.e., the Specification’s description of “Braille line formatter 210 . . . format[ting] the Braille content into a format that is appropriate for the Braille display 208” (id. at ¶ 28)). Therefore, based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the written description rejection of any of claims 1, 3–8, 10–13, 21, and 22. Obviousness rejections For the following reasons, we do not sustain any of the rejections of claims 1, 3–8, 10–13, 21, and 22. With respect to independent claim 1, the claim recites converting, with the data processing apparatus, the content into corresponding Braille content having an intermediate Braille format; and Appeal 2015-005680 Application 12/617,672 5 for each of a plurality of Braille displays, formatting, with the data processing apparatus, the Braille content from the intermediate format into a specific format for that Braille display, and sending the specifically formatted Braille content to the Braille display, wherein at least two of the Braille displays have different specific formats. Response to Notice 3. The Examiner finds that Weiss . . . teach[es] . . . converting the received content to content in a reference format ([c]olumn 3, lines 39[–]41: an electronic document is received in a digital format (e.g., the second digital format), wherein the electronic document includes presentation information); and Weiss . . . teach[es] . . . sending the content in the reference format to a Braille display manager ([c]olumn 4, lines 54[–]55: transcoder proxy receives electronic documents (e.g., document 12) from internet server in digital format). Final Action 4. We agree with Appellants, however, that “Weiss fails to disclose converting content from . . . an intermediate Braille format to a specific format” for a Braille display. Appeal Br. 11. We note, in particular, that column 3, lines 39–41 of Weiss, on which the Examiner relies, states that “[a]n electronic document is received in a digital format (e.g., the second digital format), wherein the electronic document includes presentation information.” Weiss, col. 3, ll. 39–41. It is not clear, however, that the electronic document received in a digital format is, in fact, content that has already been converted into a Braille format, such that a further formatting of that Braille format into another Braille format occurs, as required by claim 1. Rather, it appears, as Appellants argue, that “Weiss discloses converting directly between the reference and selected formats without going through an intermediate format. Thus, Weiss discloses using two formats instead of the three as claimed.” Appeal Br. 10–11. Therefore, Appeal 2015-005680 Application 12/617,672 6 based on our review, we determine that the Examiner does not support adequately the finding that Weiss discloses the above-discussed claim recitations of converting content into corresponding Braille content having an intermediate Braille format, and then formatting the Braille content from the intermediate Braille format into a specific format for each of at least two Braille displays. Notwithstanding the above discussion, which addresses the Examiner’s finding that Weiss discloses the claim recitations under discussion, in the Answer, the Examiner appears also to determine that Weiss renders obvious the claim recitations under discussion. Specifically, the Examiner states, “[s]uccinctly, Weiss teaches first digital document format (HTML, XML) -> second digital format -> elected Braille format, which renders obvious the claimed converting from reference format -> intermediate Braille format -> specific Braille format” (Answer 5). To the extent that this is a determination by the Examiner that it would have been obvious to modify Weiss’s second digital format to be content that has been converted into Braille content, the Examiner does not provide any evidence or reasoning to support adequately this determination. Based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1. We also do not sustain any of the rejections of claims 3–8, 10–13, 21, and 22, inasmuch as these claims either depend from claim 1 or are independent claims reciting features similar to those discussed above, and the Examiner does not establish that any reference remedies the deficiencies in the rejection of claim 1 discussed above. Appeal 2015-005680 Application 12/617,672 7 DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s written description and obviousness rejections of claims 1, 3–8, 10–13, 21, and 22. REVERSED