Ex Parte Horiuchi et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 26, 201311293477 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111293,477 12/02/2005 37945 7590 10/04/2016 DUKEW. YEE YEE AND AS SOCIA TES, P.C. P.O. BOX 802333 DALLAS, TX 75380 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Y oshio Horiuchi 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. JP920040l96US1 4294 EXAMINER AMIN, MUSTAFAA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2144 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/04/2016 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): ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com mgamez@yeeiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YOSHIO HORIUCHI, MASABUMI KOINUMA, MARI (KUROKI) ONISHI, and MASAKI SAITOH Appeal2015-007192 Application 11/293 ,4 77 Technology Center 2100 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, ERIC S. FRAHM, and ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 19, 23-26, 30-33, and 37--42. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal2015-007192 Application 11/293,477 REFERENCES and REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 19, 23-26, 30-33, and 37-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Soldan et al. (US 2010/0058172 Al; March 4, 2010), Flanagan (DAVID FLANAGAN, JAVASCRIPT DEFINITIVE GUIDE (4th ed., 2002)), Kim et al. (US 2003/0120686 Al; June 26, 2003), and Oshima et al. (US 2009/0217153 Al; Aug. 27, 2009). Final Act. 4--14. The Examiner rejects claims 40-42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Soldan, Flanagan, Kim, Oshima, and Bales (US 2005/0268230 Al; Dec. 1, 2005). Final Act. 14--15. ANALYSIS Independent claim 19 is representative of claims 23-26, 30-33, and 37-39 (first rejection). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Appellants do not present separate patentability arguments for dependent claims 40-42 (second rejection). All claims thus stand or fall with claim 19, addressed below. Ciaim 19 's only disputed limitation is "synchronizing the content of the managed document with edited content on the edit screen based on editing operations on the edit screen." Br. 19-20 (Claims App'x). Appellants argue Oshima's applied disclosure teaches synchronizing of a document object model's (DOM) content; not a managed document's content (as is claimed). Br. 14--15. Appellants principally contend: Oshima 's [applied] paragraph [0245] describes edits and manipulations to the document object model (DOM). A Document Object Model (DOM) is an application programming interface (API) for valid HTML and well-formed XML documents. It is based on an object structure that closely resembles the structure of the documents it models. It defines the logical structure of documents and the way a document is accessed and manipulated. The Document Object Model does 2 Appeal2015-007192 Application 11/293,477 not define what information in a document is relevant or how information in a document is structured. The DOM is simply an API to this information set. While the Applicants' claim 19 does state that the DOM is updated, the claim feature at issue, itself, has nothing to do with updates to the DOM. Instead, the claim feature recites that, based on editing operations on the edit screen, the content of the managed document (i.e., not the DOM) is synchronized with the edited content on the edit screen. Oshima's paragraph [0245] states nothing about editing the managed document itself. Br. 15. Appellants' arguments are not persuasive for the reasons presented by the Examiner's response (Ans. 5---6). We adopt the findings therein and highlight the following for emphasis. Appellants incorrectly construe claim 19 as restricting the manner in which changes to the edit screen's content are propagated to the managed document's content. Rather, claim 19 requires only a correspondence of the edit screen's contents and managed document's contents; e.g., recites "an edit screen on which a tag content of the managed document is converted to a visual representation" and the disputed limitation of "synchronizing the content of the managed document with edited content on the edit screen[.]" Br. 20 (Claims App'x). Appellants have not shown a lack of such claimed correspondence between Oshima's source code and edits (analogized, respectively, to claim 19's managed document and edit screen). See Ans. 6; Final Act. 10. Further, even assuming claim 19 restricts the manner in which changes to the edit screen's content are propagated to the managed document's content, claim 19 can be construed as synchronizing the 3 Appeal2015-007192 Application 11/293,477 managed document's contents via the updating of the DOivI information in response to the editing operations. Oshima's source code is also synchronized to the edits by updating of the DOM in response to the editing operations. See Ans. 6; see also Oshima i-f 245 ("[E]diting of a complex document 2200 having an XHTML part 2210, a SVG part 2220, and another XHTML part 2230 ... is effected by manipulation of the DOM ... representing the document. . . . As a sequence of editing commands are entered by a user, the DOM is modified[.]"). DECISION For the foregoing reasons, the rejections of claims 19, 23-26, 30-33, and 37--42 are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation