Ex Parte Srinivasmurthy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 18, 2018

13887080 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/887,080 05/03/2013 22879 7590 09/20/2018 HP Inc. 3390 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 35 FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Venugopal K. Srinivasmurthy 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 83199546 7889 EXAMINER GARMON, BRIAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2176 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/20/2018 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): ipa.mail@hp.com barbl@hp.com yvonne.bailey@hp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte VENUGOPAL K. SRINIVASMURTHY and BIBHU PRASAD BISWAL Appeal 2018-002766 Application 13/887,080 1 Technology Center 2100 Before MICHAEL W. KIM, KA YLAN K. DESHPANDE, and RAMA G. ELLURU, Administrative Patent Judges. ELLURU, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 The Appellants identify Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal2018-002766 Application 13/887,080 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Venugopal Srinivasmurthy et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 of the final rejection of claims 1-15. See App. Br. 7-14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). SUMMARY OF DECISION We AFFIRM. 2 SUBJECT MATTER ON APPEAL The invention is directed to providing "a microformat for unified printing of web content." Spec. ,r 10. Claims 1, 7, and 12 are independent claims on appeal, and claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter and reproduced below. 1. A system for providing a microformat for unified printing of web-based content, the system comprising: a processor to: obtain web content that is displayed in a web browser, wherein the web content comprises meta tags that include a plurality of print property assertions and a plurality of print property intents, wherein the plurality of print property assertions assert a set of searchable printing characteristics including at least one of print quality, orientation, description, and color; process the plurality of print property assertions to determine printing device capabilities that are compatible with the web content; 2 Our decision references the Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed May 22, 2017), the Appellants' Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed January 16, 2018), the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Nov. 30, 2017) and the Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Oct. 21, 2016). 2 Appeal 2018-002766 Application 13/887,080 identify a plurality of printing devices that satisfy the printing device capabilities; process the plurality of print property intents to determine a print layout of the web content; and send a print job for the web content to one of the plurality of printing devices, wherein the print job is generated based on the print layout of the web content. EVIDENCE The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability: Brown et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0002070 Al Jan.2,2003 Chapin et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0231328 Al Dec. 18, 2003 Michel et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0028093 Al Feb.3,2005 Kim U.S. Pub. No. 2007 /0268507 Al Nov. 22, 2007 Mohammed U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0281351 Al Nov. 4, 2010 REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected the claims as follows: claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 12-14 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Mohammed, Michel, and Chapin; claims 4, 9, and 15 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Mohammed, Michel, Chapin, and Kim; and claims 6 and 11 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Mohammed, Michel, Chapin, and Brown. 3 Appeal 2018-002766 Application 13/887,080 ANALYSIS Appellants argue claims 1----15 as a group. App. Br. 7----14; Reply Br. 11. \Ve select independent claim 1 as representative. The remaining claims of the group stand or fall with independent claim l. 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). Independent claim 1 recites "obtain web content that is displayed in a web browser, wherein the web content comprises meta tags that include a plurality of print property assertions and a plurality of print property intents, wherein the plurality of print property assertions assert a set of searchable printing characteristics including at least one of print quality, orientation, description, and color" ( emphasis added). Claim 1 further recites "process[ing] the plurality of print property assertions to determine printing device capabilities that are compatible with the web content," and "identify[ing] a plurality of printing devices that satisfy the printing device capabilities." The Examiner finds that Mohammad teaches web content, HTML documents, with meta tags that can define linked content that spans multiple pages (i.e., the claimed "print property assertions"). Final Act. 3; Ans. 20. The Examiner further finds that Michel discloses print attributes, such as the claimed "orientation" and "color." Id. at 4. In addition, the Examiner finds that Chapin discloses comparing print job requirements and printer capabilities to determine the "best-equipped printer" for the job, and sending the print job to the selected printer. Id. at 5. Appellants argue that Mohammed's tags do not include "intents," "such as formatting or layout of the print job". Reply Br. 4-5; App. Br. 8-9. We are not persuaded. The Specification discloses that "print property 4 Appeal 2018-002766 Application 13/887,080 intents" include "print layout." Spec. ,r 9. The Examiner finds that Mohammed teaches HTML documents containing content and tags, and the tags "also define formatting, such as "'column' and layout." Ans. 20. For example, Mohammed's HTML tags can indicate that formatting not formatted in columns on a displayed web should be organized into columns for printing based on special "'column"' print tags. Mohammed ,r 44. Appellants next assert that "Michel discusses that a page description language (PDL) file [translated from a source file] may include PDL commands that describe print objects that have attributes including location, orientation, color value, color space, etc." App. Br. 9 (citing Michel ,r 4). Appellants, however, argue that neither Michel's PDL nor its source file satisfy the claimed "web content" and that the PDL file does not include meta tags with the claimed "orientation" or "color" information. App. Br. 1 O; Reply Br. 6. We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. The Examiner does not refer to Michel for "web content," but rather refers to Mohammed for this limitation. See Final Act. 3; Ans. 21-22. The Examiner further determines that Michel's source file could be an HTML document that can be displayed in a browser. Ans. 22. In addition, Michel discloses that a PDL file may include commands describing print attributes for text objects, such as "color space, color value, [] orientation, and other similar attributes." Michel ,r 43; see Ans. 22. The Examiner also determines that it would have been obvious to a skilled to artisan to modify Mohammed's method to include the tags taught by Michel "for the purpose of 'identifying print settings and printer factors that may affect the entire print job." Final Act. 4 ( citing Michel, Abstract). As such, Appellants' argument is tantamount to an attack on the references separately, even though the 5 Appeal 2018-002766 Application 13/887,080 rejection is based on the combined teachings of the references. See App. Br. 9--10. Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellants next argue that Chapin does not disclose the recited "process the plurality of print property assertions to determine printing device capabilities that are compatible with the web content," because Chapin's controller takes the user's selected print properties and determines which printer is best equipped to complete the print job. App. Br. 10-11. More specifically, Appellants' contend that "Chapin does not disclose that the [printer] selection is made using printer property assertions that are included in meta tags of web content." Reply Br. 9--10. We disagree. As the Examiner finds, Chapin discloses comparing printer property assertions ( e.g., formatting) to printer capabilities to determine a printer compatible for the print job. Ans. 24. Chapin teaches that "the best-equipped printer" is selected based on formatting criteria including "Media Size, Media Type ... Black and White Document, Color Document." Chapin ,r 15. It is the combination of Mohammed's teaching of HTML documents with meta tags modified by Chapin' s teaching to process formatting properties to selected "the best-equipped printer" that the Examiner finds reads on the printer limitations. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, Appellants do not apprise us of error in the Examiner's determination that independent claim 1 is unpatentable. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103, with claims 2-15 falling therewith. 6 Appeal 2018-002766 Application 13/887,080 DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims of claims 1-15 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.50(f). AFFIRMED 7