SYSTEMWARE, INC.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 2, 20212019004777 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 13/864,983 04/17/2013 Frankie A. Basso ASYST.0138 7605 22858 7590 04/02/2021 CARSTENS & CAHOON, LLP P.O. Box 802334 DALLAS, TX 75380-2334 EXAMINER SHIH, HAOSHIAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2173 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/02/2021 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): eofficeaction@appcoll.com patents@CCLAW.COM PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte FRANKIE A. BASSO and ANDREA CHIAPPE Appeal 2019-004777 Application 13/864,983 Technology Center 2100 Before CATHERINE SHIANG, JOYCE CRAIG, and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 8–20. Claims 1–7 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Systemware,, Inc. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2019-004777 Application 13/864,983 2 BACKGROUND The Claimed Invention The invention relates to electronic document management, and specifically, to a “device agnostic” system and method for “multi-user interaction with electronic documents.” Spec. ¶ 5. Claims 8 and 16 are independent. Claim 8 is illustrative of the invention and the subject matter in dispute, and is reproduced below: 8. A system for providing device-agnostic collaborative electronic document content interaction between each of a plurality of users, each user having a communication device, said system comprising: an electronic document database comprising a plurality of electronic documents, wherein each electronic document is reviewable by at least one of the plurality of users and each electronic document has a permission level, wherein each electronic document is mapped via intelligent indexing to create intelligent indexing maps; a permissions database associating at least one permission level for each of the plurality of users to comment on and/or correct an electronic document; a collaboration workspace displayable with each electronic document of the electronic document database accessible to a user, wherein the user can access the electronic document if the permission level of the user equals or is greater than the permission level of the electronic document; one or more computing devices configured to: using the intelligent indexing maps, retrieve at least one electronic document as a document image file from the electronic document database if the at least one permission level of the user indicates that the user is allowed to retrieve the at least one electronic document and if the at least one permission level of the user equals or is greater than the Appeal 2019-004777 Application 13/864,983 3 permission level of the at least one electronic document to form a document image; present said documents image to the user through the user's communication device in the collaboration workspace; allow the user to select an area of said document image in the collaboration workspace as a point of interest; facilitate at least one interaction of the user with other users over one or more points of interest within said document image in the collaboration, wherein the at least one interaction comprises a plurality of interaction messages containing text, audio, or video information, wherein the at least one interaction appears as a thumbnail within said document image; associate the plurality of interaction messages with the one or more points of interests; update the document image if at least one interaction messages changes the content of the electronic document to include the at least one interaction message at the associated points of interest in the collaboration workspace as the thumbnail; coordinate concurrent display, within the collaboration workspace, of the at least one interaction message as the thumbnail within said document image and as a list of interaction messages, wherein the list of interaction messages is displayed within the collaboration workspace separately from said document image; and store the interaction messages as document metadata associated with said document image file. Appeal Br. 16–17 (Claims App.). References The references relied upon by the Examiner are: Appeal 2019-004777 Application 13/864,983 4 Name Reference Date Estrada et al. (“Estrada”) US 2003/0142126 A1 July 31, 2003 Fedoseyeva et al. (“Fedoseyeva”) US 2012/0210252 A1 Aug. 16, 2012 Eintracht et al. (“Eintracht”) US 6,687,878 B1 Feb. 3, 2004 The Rejections on Appeal Claims 8–20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Estrada, Fedoseyeva, and Eintracht. Final Act. 2–18. DISCUSSION We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments that Appellant could have made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). For the reasons discussed below, Appellant has not persuaded us of error. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejections and in the Examiner’s Answer. We provide the following for highlighting and emphasis. Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches or suggests “stor[ing] the interaction messages as document metadata associated with said document image file,” as recited in independent claim 8. Appeal Br. 6–7. Specifically, Appellant argues that two of the references (Estrada and Eintracht) “do not contain the word metadata” and the third reference (Fedoseyeva) fails to disclose “that interaction messages are stored as document metadata associated with said document image file.” Appeal Br. 6. Appellant further argues the Examiner erred in combining the Appeal 2019-004777 Application 13/864,983 5 references. Id. at 7–9; Reply Br. 3–4. We, however, are unpersuaded of error. As the Examiner finds, Fedoseyeva discloses using “metadata” to “associate[e] stream locations, comments, tags, authorization, and other data aspects to respective videos.” Ans. 3 (citing Fedoseyeva Fig. 5). Further, as the Examiner finds, although Estrada does not use the label “metadata,” Estrada discloses using “descriptive data of data, or attributes of data,” including “user identification and associated document access controls,” all of which one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood as metadata. Ans. 4 (citing Estrada ¶¶ 183, 212, Fig. 11). Neither claim 8 nor Appellant’s Specification limit “metadata” to exclude the type of data disclosed in Estrada. Spec. ¶ 24; Ans. 3; In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (claim terms given their “their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification”). Similar to Appellant’s broad use of the term “metadata,” see supra, Appellant’s Specification defines “interaction message” broadly as messages “containing text, audio, or video information.” Spec. ¶ 11; In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d at 1364. As the Examiner finds, the references teach the use of “interaction messages” in collaborative editing of a document. Ans. 4. The Examiner finds, and we agree: Estrada teaches in the field of collaboration spaces, wherein users may edit and/or modify the same document or a plurality of documents (Para 183), at selected points in the document (Paras 214-215), and/or add text and graphics to a document (Figure 23), and data notes (Abstract). Fedoseyeva teaches collaboratively editing a video by marking annotations within a video amongst a plurality of users (Para 182, Figure 5), and an ordered listing of interaction messages by a plurality of users for the video are shown in Figure 31. Eintracht teaches digital Appeal 2019-004777 Application 13/864,983 6 stick notes for a plurality of users to annotate a document asynchronously with respect to each other (Abstract), wherein the notes are indexed according to metadata for later retrieval in association with the corresponding document (column 10, Lines 56-65). Id. Appellant’s arguments also do not persuade us of error because, essentially, Appellant’s arguments focus on the references individually rather than the combination cited by the Examiner. Appeal Br. 5–6; In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.”); Id. (each reference must be read “not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the [cited] prior art as a whole.”). Finally, we discern no error in the Examiner’s rationale in combining the references. All three references (like Appellant’s claimed invention) are directed to collaborative annotation or editing of content, and the Examiner identifies specific suggestions to combine within the references themselves. Final Act. 6–7 (citing Fedoseyeva ¶ 62, Eintracht 2:1–5). For example, the Examiner finds it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to: modify the points of interest within a document as disclosed by Estrada to include interaction messages within the document image and stored as document metadata associated with the image file as taught by Fedoseyeva. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to provide the ability to make use of multiple observations of a task, as well as multiple criteria to evaluate the observed task performance, resulting in increased flexibility and improved ability to evaluate the performance of the task. Appeal 2019-004777 Application 13/864,983 7 Ans. 6; Fedoseyeva ¶ 62. Appellant does not identify any error in this finding. Similarly, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Eintracht suggests the combination of references “to provide the ability for multiparty collaboration based on the asynchronous exchange of annotations over a network without the requirement that all parties wishing to collaborate be simultaneously logged on to a server.” Ans. 7. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded of error regarding the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8. Appellant’s arguments regarding the remaining claims do not persuade us of error for the same reasons as discussed above (and in the Examiner’s Answer). We, therefore, sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 8–20. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 8–20. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 8–20 103(a) Estrada, Fedoseyeva, Eintracht 8–20 AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation