Ex Parte Zhang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 28, 2018

14539919 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2018)

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