Ex Parte Zhang et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 28, 201814539919 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/539,919 11/12/2014 58735 7590 11/30/2018 Fountainhead Law Group P.C. Chad R. Walsh 900 LAFAYETTE STREET SUITE 301 SANTA CLARA, CA 95050 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Kit Yue Zhang 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. 000 l 40-005400US 6165 EXAMINER BARRETT,RYANS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2145 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/30/2018 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): docketing@fountainheadlaw.com rbaumann@fountainheadlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KIT YUE ZHANG, DAVID HSIA, and DOMINIC PHILIP HAINE Appeal2018-003740 1 Application 14/539,9192 Technology Center 2100 Before JOHN A. EV ANS, SCOTT B. HOW ARD, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-20. App. Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 3 1 The Appeal and Reply Briefs are not paginated. For reference convenience, we designate the cover page of the respective Brief as page 1 and number the pages consecutively therefrom, including the Appendices. 2 Appellants identify SuccessFactors, Inc. as the real party in interest. App Br. 2. 3 Rather than reiterate the arguments of the Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed November 15, 2017, "App. Br."), the Appeal2018-003740 Application 14/539,919 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims relate to a method for exporting organizational charts being presented inside a browser window. See Spec., Abstract. Invention Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of illustrative claim 1, which is reproduced below with some formatting added: 1. A computer-implemented method, comprising: presenting, by a processor, an organizational chart within a first layer of a window, the organizational chart including a plurality of nodes that each represent an employee within an organization, wherein each node is represented as a tile within the first layer of the window; presenting, by the processor, an export canvas within a second layer of the window that overlays the first layer, wherein the export canvas is configured to identify a portion of the organizational chart for export that lies within the within the boundaries of the export canvas; detecting, by the processor, an adjustment to the export canvas; determining, by the processor, that the adjustment causes a boundary of the export canvas to collide with a tile representing a node of the organizational chart; determining, by the processor, whether a majority of the tile is within the export canvas; and Reply Brief (filed February 15, 2018, "Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer (mailed December 18, 2017, "Ans."), the Final Office Action (mailed June 22, 2017, "Final Act."), and the Specification (filed November 12, 2014, "Spec.") for their respective details. 2 Appeal2018-003740 Application 14/539,919 automatically updating, by the processor, the export canvas to prevent the collision based on the determination whether the majority of the tile is within the export canvas. Decker Yoon Palmer References and Rejections US 2008/0168388 Al US 2010/0058216 Al US 2011/0184962 Al July 10, 2008 Mar. 4, 2010 July 28, 2011 1. Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Decker and Palmer. Final Act. 3-20. 2. Claims 2, 9, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Decker, Palmer, and Yoon. Final Act. 20-24. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1-20 in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief. App. Br. 10- 12. CLAIMS 1, 3-8, 10-15, AND 17-20: OBVIOUSNESS OVER DECKER AND PALMER. Whether a Majority of a Tile Is Within an Export Canvas. Appellants argue all claims over the disclosure of Decker in view of independent claims 1, 8, and 15. See App. Br. 10-12. 3 Appeal2018-003740 Application 14/539,919 Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 each recite, inter alia, "determining, by the processor, whether a majority of the tile is within the export canvas." Appellants contend Decker fails to teach this limitation, contrary to the Examiner's finding. App. Br. 10. The Examiner finds Decker teaches determining whether a majority of a tile is within an export canvas by disclosing [ a ]11 of the identified structural elements have a spatial extent that can be described by a boundary having, for example, horizontal and vertical edges (e.g., a bounding box)" and that the "size or position of the area of interest, depending on the operation being performed by the user ( e.g., reposition or resize), is adjusted to align with one or more of the nearest identified boundaries. Final Act. 5 (citing Decker ,r,r 59, 65); Appellants contend the cited Decker disclosure relating to "a boundary box" is part of a description for a step on a process that identifies the boundary of each identified structural element in a document. App. Br. 10. Appellants argue that identifying a boundary of a structural element in a document, as disclosed in Decker, is not the same as determining whether a majority of a tile is within an area (i.e., an "export canvas"), as recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15. Id. Appellants acknowledge that Decker discloses "[ t ]he size or position of the area of interest ... is adjusted to align with one or more of the nearest identified boundaries." Id. But Appellants argue that adjusting the size or position of an area of interest, as disclosed in Decker, is not the same as determining whether a majority of a tile is within an export canvas, as claimed. Id. The Examiner finds Decker teaches a technique that is mathematically identical, as that claimed, to determine whether a majority of a structural 4 Appeal2018-003740 Application 14/539,919 element of a document is within an area of interest. Ans. 3. The Examiner finds Decker merely uses different words than those of the claims to describe the technique. Id. Appellants reply that Decker discloses a "snapping module" that automatically snaps a user selection to one or more boundaries associated with structural elements of a document. Reply. Br. 2. Appellants argue the snapping module is not related to determining "whether a majority of a tile is within an export canvas," as claimed. Id. We find no disclosure in Decker relating to an algorithm to determine an area of a tile. Nor does the Examiner so direct our attention. In view thereof, we decline to sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 15. The Examiner's Answer does not rely on the teachings of Yoon to support the rejection of any claim. Because we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20 for the reasons discussed supra, we need not address Appellants' additional arguments. See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (Finding an administrative agency is at liberty to reach a decision based on "a single dispositive issue."). DECISION The rejections of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation