MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING, LLC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 20, 2022

2020004092 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 20, 2022)

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. 14/392,248 12/24/2015 Darren K. Edge 339495-US- PCT[2] (275US1) 7664 144365 7590 01/20/2022 Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. P.O. Box 2938 Minneapolis, MN 55402 EXAMINER BARNES JR, CARL E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2177 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/20/2022 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): SLW@blackhillsip.com usdocket@microsoft.com uspto@slwip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _______________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _______________ Ex parte DARREN K. EDGE, KOJI YATANI, REZA ADHITYA SAPUTRA, and CHAO WANG _______________ Appeal 2020-004092 Application 14/392,248 Technology Center 2100 _______________ Before JASON V. MORGAN, HUNG H. BUI, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. BUI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final rejection of claims 1, 4-11, 13, 16, 19, and 21-24, all the pending claims. Appeal Br. 24-28 (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.2 1 Appellant refers to “applicant(s)” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC. Appeal Br. 3. 2 Our Decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed January 6, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief filed May 12, 2020 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed March 24, 2020 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action mailed September 6, 2019 (“Final Act.”); and original Specification filed December 24, 2015 (“Spec.”). Appeal 2020-004092 Application 14/392,248 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to “techniques for selecting and editing visual elements (e.g., shapes, objects, formats, etc.) within a visual or across multiple visuals (e.g., PowerPoint® slides, Microsoft Word® document pages).” Spec. ¶ 4. According to Appellant, a user may select visual elements (e.g., shapes, objects, formats, etc.) of a presentation based on similarities of one or more attributes (e.g., shape positions, colors, object types, etc.). Id. ¶ 16. The computing device [shown in Figure 1A] may then divide the visual elements into groups based on similarities of the attributes among the visual elements. After grouping, the computing device may synchronize visual elements of a group by assigning an attribute value to the visual elements. The divided and synchronized visual elements may be presented to the users for evaluation. In an example process, the users may select and make changes to a visual element. These changes may be propagated to other visual elements that belong to the group of the visual element. Id. ¶ 17 (emphasis added). Figure 1A, depicting a computing architecture for selecting and editing visual element using attribute groups, is reproduced below with our annotations for illustration: Appeal 2020-004092 Application 14/392,248 3 Figure 1A depicts a computing architecture for selecting and editing visual element using attribute groups. As shown in Figure 1A, computing device 102 may include visual module 112, to obtain visual medium 104 for a visual display, via presenting module 114, so that a user may select and edit visual elements 108, 110 within visual 106(1) (e.g., presentation slides, document pages, etc.) or across visuals 106(1)-(N) based on similarities of one or more attributes (e.g., edge positions, text styles, shape styles, or other properties) among the visual elements. Spec. ¶¶ 21-24. Relationship application 116 may enable a user to group and synchronize visual elements 108, 110 with attribute groups. In these instances, an attribute group may include a set of visual elements sharing a particular value or set of attribute values. Id. ¶ 25. Styling application 118 may enable a user to identify the grouped and synchronized visual elements, and to make changes (e.g., size, position, shape style or text style) to the visual elements, and then may propagate the changes to other visual elements of the group. Id. ¶ 28. Appeal 2020-004092 Application 14/392,248 4 Claims 1, 5, and 8 are independent. Claim 1 is representative, as reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized: 1. One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, instruct the one or more processors to perform acts comprising: obtaining a visual medium containing a plurality of visual elements in presentation slides or document pages, the visual elements being graphic objects having values for a plurality of attributes, the plurality of attributes comprising line color, line width, fill color, fill pattern, shape size, and a distance of the visual element to an edge of the presentation slide or the document page; receiving a selection of at least one attribute, from the plurality of attributes, for grouping the visual elements; [1] determining, by a relationship application, visual elements having a same value for the selected attribute or attributes; grouping, by the relationship application, the determined visual elements into a group; synchronizing, by the relationship application, the group with the determined visual elements based on the grouping; [2] receiving, by a styling application, instructions to modify the value of the selected at least one attribute of a visual element of the synchronized group; and [3] propagating, by the styling application, the modification to each of the visual elements of the synchronized group in response to the received instructions. Appeal Br. 24 (Claims App.). Appeal 2020-004092 Application 14/392,248 5 REJECTIONS AND REFERENCES (1) Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 16, 19, 21, 22, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Young (US 6,038,567; issued Mar. 14, 2000) and EngageSoftworks, Select objects faster and more efficiently in Illustrator, available at https://vimeo.com/2507719 (Dec. 1, 2008) (“Adobe Illustrator”). Final Act. 12-33. (2) Claims 4, 6, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Young, Adobe Illustrator, and Hosotsubo (US 2006/0156227 A1; published July 13, 2006). Final Act. 34- 37. ANALYSIS In support of the obviousness rejection, the Examiner finds the combination of Young and Adobe Illustrator teaches or suggests all of the limitations of Appellant’s claims 1, 5, and 8. Final Act. 12-26 (citing Young 9:36-43, 11:60-65, 12:29-38, 13:65-67, 17:47-49; Adobe Illustrator [00:34-00:35], [00:45-00:46], [00:47-00:50]). For example, the Examiner finds Young teaches most limitations of Appellant’s claim 1, including: obtaining a visual medium containing a plurality of visual elements in presentation slides or document pages, the visual elements being graphic objects having values for a plurality of attributes, the plurality of attributes comprising line color, line width, fill color, fill pattern, shape size, and a distance of the visual element to an edge of the presentation slide or the document page; receiving, by a styling application, instructions to modify the Appeal 2020-004092 Application 14/392,248 6 value of the selected at least one attribute of a visual element of the synchronized group; and propagating, by the styling application, the modification to each of the visual elements of the synchronized group in response to the received instructions. Id. at 13-15 (citing Young 9:36-43, 11:60-65, 12:29-38, 13:65-67, 17:47- 49). Young teaches a publishing software program installed at computer system 20, shown in Figure 1, to enable a user (e.g., an author of a document) to (1) select and edit one or more objects (e.g., visual elements of a document), including, for example, adding, deleting, or changing any of the objects such as the size, position or format of objects, and then (2) propagate the edited object(s) to other objects within the same document or other documents, via linked objects, shown in Figure 4A, and object property propagation rules, shown in Figure 5. Young’s Abstract; 1:22-36, 3:38-54, 10:35-67, 17:47-49 (“propagates editorial changes, such as content entries and format changes, in the edit mode”). Young’s Figure 4A depicting a table of linked objects having associated format groups and content groups, is reproduced below: Appeal 2020-004092 Application 14/392,248 7 Figure 4A depicts table 400 of objects linked together, via object identifier 402, and each object identifier 402 is associated a particular format group 404 and content group 406, when the user selects and edits just one object but wishes to propagate the edited object to other objects in the same component or other components of the same document whose identifiers belong to same content or format group. Young 3:38-54, 14:63-15:17. Young’s Figure 5 depicting a table of propagation rules to govern how an object selected and edited by the user is propagated to other objects within the same document or other documents, is reproduced below: Young’s Figure 5 depicts a table of propagation rules to govern how an object selected and edited by the user is propagated to other objects within the same document or other documents. As shown in Figure 5, the object property propagation rules that may be applied to content properties and format properties of an object include: (1) do not propagate to any other objects; Appeal 2020-004092 Application 14/392,248 8 (2) propagate to objects in the same component whose identifiers belong to the same content or format group; (3) propagate to objects in the same document whose identifiers belong to the same content or format group; (4) propagate to objects in other components of the same document with the same identifiers and instance codes; and (5) propagate to objects in the same document whose identifiers belong to the same content or format group and save the object property in a registry so that the object property propagates to other documents as well. Young 3:38-54 (emphases added). Implicitly disclosed by Young are (1) the relationship linked or established between objects (e.g., visual elements) having the same value for certain attributes (e.g., whose identifiers belong to the same content or format group), (2) the grouping of these linked objects (e.g., visual elements), and (3) the synchronization of these linked objects (e.g., visual elements) based on the grouping, shown in Figure 4A, prior to propagation to other objects within the same document or other documents in accordance with the propagation rules, shown in Figure 5. The Examiner then relies upon Adobe Illustrator to expressly teach, what is implicitly disclosed by Young, the following limitations: determining, by a relationship application, visual elements having a same value for the selected attribute or attributes; grouping, by the relationship application, the determined visual elements into a group; synchronizing, by the relationship application, the group with the determined visual elements based on the grouping, as recited in Appellant’s claim 1 in order to support the conclusion of obviousness, i.e., “it would have been obvious . . . for organizing, grouping Appeal 2020-004092 Application 14/392,248 9 and modifying objects with similar attributes” because “[a]llowing a user to format object styling throughout multiple documents without having to manually change each of the objects independently improves a user work productive, reduces errors and the tedious of editing multiple documents with similar attributes.” Final Act. 15-19 (citing Adobe Illustrator [00:34- 00:35], [00:45-00:46], [00:47-00:50]). Appellant disputes the Examiner’s findings regarding Young and Adobe Illustrator’s teachings. In particular, Appellant presents several principal arguments against the application of Young and Adobe Illustrator. First, Appellant contends Adobe Illustrator does not teach or suggest the disputed limitation: [1] determining, by a relationship application, visual elements having a same value for the selected attribute or attributes; grouping, by the relationship application, the determined visual elements into a group; synchronizing, by the relationship application, the group with the determined visual elements based on the grouping. Appeal Br. 8-13; Reply Br. 8-13. According to Appellant, Illustrator [only] shows how to select items having a same characteristic, such as having the same fill color. Once the items are selected, the user is able to perform an editing operation on the selected items, such as changing the fill color. However, Illustrator is silent with reference to grouping the visual elements into a group and then synchronizing the group, as claimed. For example, in Illustrator, the user has to continuously perform the selection operation to be able to operate on the group. There is no synchronization of the group because Illustrator is just a selection tool for selecting multiple items. Appeal 2020-004092 Application 14/392,248 10 Id. at 9 (emphases added). Appellant argues that “simply selecting a group of objects” as taught by Adobe Illustrator does not mean “that the objects are synchronized.” Reply Br. 13. According to Appellant, “[n]o person skilled in the art would believe that simply selecting multiple items automatically means that those items are synchronized.” Id. at 12. Second, Appellant contends neither Young nor Adobe Illustrator teaches or suggests the disputed limitation: [2] receiving, by a styling application, instructions to modify the value of the selected at least one attribute of a visual element of the synchronized group. Appeal Br. 12-13. In particular, Appellant argues “if Young does not teach receiving a selection of at least one attribute, then Young cannot teach the ‘selected at least one attribute.’” Id. at 13. Likewise, Appellant argues “[i]f Young does not teach grouping [or synchronizing], then Young cannot teach the group [or the synchronized group].” Id. (emphasis omitted) Third, Appellant contends neither Young nor Adobe Illustrator teaches or suggests the disputed limitation: [3] propagating, by the styling application, the modification to each of the visual elements of the synchronized group in response to the received instructions. Appeal Br. 13-16. According to Appellant, “Young does not teach grouping or synchronizing, thus Young cannot teach propagating the modification to the synchronized group, as claimed.” Id. at 14 (emphasis omitted). Appellant acknowledges Young’s “propagation rules are based on the identifiers and instance codes of the layouts,” but argues that “Young is silent with reference to propagating to visual elements that have a same value of the selected attribute.” Id.. Appeal 2020-004092 Application 14/392,248 11 Appellant’s contentions are not persuasive of Examiner error. Instead, we find the Examiner’s findings, including the Examiner’s responses to Appellant’s contentions, are supported by a preponderance of the evidence on this record. Ans. 31-34. As such, we adopt the Examiner’s findings provided therein. Id. For example, because Adobe Illustrator’s objects having the same characteristic or attribute, such as having the same fill color (white), are grouped together, these “objects are [deemed] synchronized as a group and presented to the user, where the user can make changes to objects with the same fill color.” Id. at 33. The test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly disclosed in the references, but whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). In an obviousness analysis, it is not necessary to find precise disclosure directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this regard, “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 421. As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, obviousness requires an “expansive and flexible” approach that asks whether the claimed improvement is more than a “predictable variation” of “prior art elements according to their established functions.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 415, 417. Here, in contrast to that approach, Appellant’s contentions rigidly focus on a narrow reading of Young and Adobe Illustrator without taking full account Appeal 2020-004092 Application 14/392,248 12 of an ordinarily skilled artisan’s “knowledge, creativity, and common sense.” Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Here, Young teaches a software program to enable a user to (1) select and edit one or more objects (e.g., visual elements of a document), including, for example, changing an attribute (e.g., size, position or format), and then (2) propagate the edited object(s) to other objects within the same document or other documents, via linked objects, shown in Figure 4A, and object property propagation rules, shown in Figure 5. Young’s Abstract; 1:22-36, 3:38-54, 10:35-67, 17:47-49 (“propagates editorial changes, such as content entries and format changes, in the edit mode”). In other words, Young’s software program enables a user to select at least one attribute of an object (e.g., a visual element) for modification, grouping and synchronizing the modified object(s) with other objects together within the same document or other documents, via linked objects, and then propagating the modification to other objects of the synchronized group, via object property propagation rules. Adobe Illustrator is only cited to expressly illustrate how the same objects (e.g., visual elements) are selected, grouped together, and presented to the user, so that the user can make changes to the objects with the same fill color (i.e., to objects having the same value for a selected attribute or attributes). Adobe Illustrator [00:34-00:35], [00:45-00:46], [00:47-00:50]). Based on the teachings of Young and Adobe Illustrator, a person skilled in the art would have the “knowledge, creativity, and common sense” to recognize that a user making a change to objects would likely want to make the same change to other objects sharing the same value for a selected attribute or attributes, and that allowing for selection of and propagation of Appeal 2020-004092 Application 14/392,248 13 an edit to such objects-in the manner recited in Appellant’s claim 1 and, similarly, recited in claims 5 and 8-would have been obvious as a way of saving the user time. See Adobe Illustrator [00:20]-[00:32] (there is no problem in selecting objects manually provided the user likes “wasting time”). For these reasons, Appellant does not persuade us of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and, similarly, claim 8 as obvious over the combination of Young and Adobe Illustrator and of their dependent claims 10, 11, 13, 16, 19, 22, and 24, which are not argued separately. Claims 5, 7, 19, and 23 Independent claim 5 is slightly narrower than claim 1, and further recites: “presenting highlighted the visual elements of the synchronized group on a display.” Claims 7, 19, and 23 recite a similar limitation. Appellant argues neither Young nor Adobe Illustrator teaches or suggests “presenting highlighted the visual elements of the synchronized group on a display.” Appeal Br. 16-18. We disagree. As correctly recognized by the Examiner, Adobe Illustrator teaches “presenting highlighted the visual elements of the synchronized group on a display.” Ans. 36 (citing Adobe Illustrator, [00:47]-[00:50]; highlighting the shapes with same white fill color.). In addition to Adobe Illustrator, Young also teaches changing the font and font color of an object which would also highlight the visual elements of the synchronized group on a display as well. Ans. 36 (citing Young 12:29- 38). Appeal 2020-004092 Application 14/392,248 14 For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 7, 19, and 23 as obvious over the combined teachings of Young and Adobe Illustrator. Claim 21 Claim 21 depends from claim 1, and further recites: “wherein the selected attribute is the shape size of the visual element, wherein propagating the modification includes changing the shape size of the other visual elements of the group.” Appellant focuses solely on Adobe Illustrator and argues Adobe Illustrator “does not teach the selected attribute is the shape size of the visual element.” Appeal Br. 21 (emphasis omitted). Again, we disagree and adopt the Examiner’s findings on page 39 of the Examiner’s Answer. For this reason, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 as obvious over the combined teachings of Young and Adobe Illustrator. Claims 4, 6, and 9 Claim 4 depends from claim 1, and further recites: “wherein the selected attribute is the distance of the visual element to the edge of the presentation slide or the document page, wherein the visual elements in the group have a same distance to the edge of the presentation slide or the document page.” Claims 6 and 9 recite similar limitations. Appellant argues “Hosotsubo is silent with reference to grouping containers having a same distance to the edge of the presentation slide or the document page.” Appeal Br. 22-23. We also disagree and adopt the Examiner’s findings on pages 40-41 of the Examiner’s Answer. For this reason, we sustain the Examiner’s Appeal 2020-004092 Application 14/392,248 15 rejection of claims 4, 6, and 9 as obvious over the combined teachings of Young, Adobe Illustrator, and Hosotsubo. CONCLUSION On this record, Appellant does not demonstrate the Examiner errs in rejecting: (1) claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 16, 19, 21, 22, 23, and 24 as obvious over the combined teachings of Young and Adobe Illustrator; and (2) claims 4, 6, and 9 as obvious over the combined teachings of Young, Adobe Illustrator, and Hosotsubo. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 16, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24 103 Young, Adobe Illustrator 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 16, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24 4, 6, 9 103 Young, Adobe Illustrator, Hosotsubo 4, 6, 9 Overall Outcome 1, 4-11, 13, 16, 19, 21-24 Appeal 2020-004092 Application 14/392,248 16 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2019). AFFIRMED