Ex Parte Ortega et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 5, 201411253305 (P.T.A.B. May. 5, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte DANIEL ORTEGA, SHERIF YACOUB, JOSE ABAD PEIRO, and PAOLO FARABOSCHI ____________ Appeal 2012-000597 Application 11/253,305 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention processes documents by extracting articles from document zones. To this end, the zones are normalized by applying a zone- Appeal 2012-000597 Application 11/253,305 2 breaking factor to lines within the zones such that the normalized zones have lines consistent with the factor. See generally Abstr.; Spec., ¶¶ 0041-46. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. One or more computer-readable storage media comprising computer-executable instructions for processing a document, the computer-executable instructions comprising instructions for: normalizing a plurality of zones, wherein the normalizing comprises applying at least one zone-breaking factor to lines within zones from among the plurality, thereby creating normalized zones, each normalized zone having lines consistent with the at least one zone-breaking factor; and extracting an article from the plurality of normalized zones. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non-statutory subject matter. Ans. 4-5.1 The Examiner rejected claims 1-4 and 6-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Jongwoo Kim et al., Automated Labeling in Document Images, PROC. OF THE SPIE 1-12 (Apr. 2002) (“Kim”). Ans. 5- 11. The Examiner rejected claims 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Taylor (US 5,848,184; iss. Dec. 8, 1998). Id. at 11-14. The Examiner rejected claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Taylor and Kim. Id. at 14-15. 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to: (1) the Appeal Brief filed March 28, 2011 (“App. Br.”); (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed June 9, 2011 (“Ans.”); and (3) the Reply Brief filed August 9, 2011 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2012-000597 Application 11/253,305 3 THE § 101 REJECTION The Examiner finds that because the computer-readable storage media recited in the independent claims includes transitory media such as signals, the claims are ineligible under § 101. Ans. 4-5, 16-17. Appellants, however, contend that skilled artisans would not consider a transitory or propagation medium to be a storage medium as the Examiner asserts. App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 4-5. ISSUE Under § 101, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-20 by finding that the recited computer-readable storage media encompasses ineligible transitory media? PRINCIPLES OF LAW Signals are patent-ineligible under § 101. In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2007). According to U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) guidelines: A claim that covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments . . . embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter. . . . For example, . . . a claim to a computer readable medium that can be a compact disc or a carrier wave covers a non-statutory embodiment and therefore should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non- statutory subject matter. Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 2106(I) (8th ed., Rev. 9, Aug. 2012) (emphasis added). Appeal 2012-000597 Application 11/253,305 4 The USPTO also provides the following guidance: The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium . . . typically covers forms of non- transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. . . . When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. David J. Kappos, Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. & Trademark Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010). ANALYSIS We sustain the Examiner’s § 101 rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 16 reciting, in pertinent part, computer-readable storage media. This storage, however, is insufficient to limit the claims to non-transitory media where, as here, neither the Specification nor the claims limit the storage media to non-transitory forms. See Ex parte Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857, 1862 (PTAB 2013) (precedential) (holding recited machine-readable storage medium ineligible under § 101 because it encompassed transitory media). That Appellants concede that their Specification does not explicitly define the recited computer-readable storage media (App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 4) only bolsters this conclusion. Where, as here, a recited computer storage medium is not claimed as non-transitory, and the disclosure does not expressly and unambiguously limit that medium to solely non-transitory forms via a definition or similar limiting language, the medium encompasses transitory forms and is, therefore, ineligible under § 101. Appeal 2012-000597 Application 11/253,305 5 Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 9, and 16 under § 101, as well as their dependent claims for similar reasons.2 THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION OVER KIM The Examiner finds that Kim’s automated document labeling system normalizes zones by applying at least one zone-breaking factor to lines within zones such that each normalized zone has lines consistent with the factor, namely in terms of font size, distance between lines, etc. Ans. 5-6, 16-23. Kim’s optical character recognition (OCR)-based system is also said to extract an “article,” such as the document’s abstract, title, and affiliation, from the normalized zones. Id. at 6, 23-24. Appellants argue that although Kim uses an automated zoning technique, Kim does not further detail this process, but instead describes an automated labeling technique that has nothing to do with zone-breaking. Based on this alleged distinction, Appellants contend that the Examiner confuses Kim’s labeling with zoning and, as such, the Examiner’s reliance on Kim’s labeling as disclosing the recited zone normalization is flawed. App. Br. 10-13; Reply Br. 5-9. Appellants add that Kim also does not extract an article from the normalized zones as claimed, but rather applies OCR to a document before it is automatically zoned and labelled. App. Br 13-14; Reply Br 9-10. Appellants argue various other recited limitations summarized below. 2 We note in passing that the term “media” in the preamble of the independent claims is inconsistent with the term “medium” in the preamble of the dependent claims. We nonetheless treat this inconsistency as a harmless typographical error. Appeal 2012-000597 Application 11/253,305 6 ISSUES Under § 102, has the Examiner erred by finding that Kim: (1)(a) normalizes plural zones by applying at least one zone-breaking factor to lines within zones, where each normalized zone has lines consistent with the factor, and (b) extracts an article from the normalized zones as recited in claim 1? (2) applies a zone-breaking factor by (a) balancing similarity between a line of text and lines of text already added to a zone, where the balancing compares results of plural zone-breaking factors as recited in claim 2, and (b) applying at least two such factors and a combination algorithm between the factors to resolve an associated outcome as recited in claim 3? (3) normalizes plural zones as recited in claim 4? (4) extracts an article as recited in claims 6 and 7? (5) creates at least one normalized sub-zone comprising lines consistent with at least one zone-breaking factor as recited in claim 9? ANALYSIS Claim 1 We begin by construing the key disputed limitation of claim 1 which recites, in pertinent part, “normalizing” zones. Appellants’ Specification indicates that the disclosed system receives zone and image information and creates “‘normalized’ sub-zones, i.e. sub-zones that are consistent with a set of zone-breaking factors or rules.” Spec., ¶ 0023. Appellants’ use of “i.e.” in this context is notable, for it signals an intent to so define the term. See Edwards Lifesciences, LLC v. Cook, Inc., 582 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (noting that the term “i.e.” in the specification signals an intent to Appeal 2012-000597 Application 11/253,305 7 define the word to which it refers). Accord App. Br. 13. Appellants’ Specification further describes various types of zone-breaking factors including font size, typeface (font), changes in line spacing, etc., that are applied to lines of text within zones to normalize the zones. Spec., ¶¶ 0026- 29. Based on this description, we see no error in the Examiner’s finding that Kim’s automatic document zoning and labeling system normalizes zones even when construed according to Appellants’ definition. Although the Examiner acknowledges that Kim does not detail the automated zoning process that precedes the automatic labeling step (Ans. 19), it is this latter labeling step on which the Examiner relies for teaching normalizing the zones. Id. at 5-6, 16-23. As the Examiner indicates, Kim automatically labels zones of interest by applying particular rules associated with those zones that pertain to the document’s title, author, affiliation, and abstract. Id. at 20; Kim §§ 4-4.5. Notably, these rules are based on, among other things, font size and distance parameters (id.)—parameters that can vary depending on the particular type of zone. See Kim § 3 (noting that font sizes of author and affiliation zones are usually smaller than those in the title zone). The particular rules for various types of zones are detailed in Kim’s sections 4.1 through 4.5 that each include a rule pertaining to font size which, for the abstract, requires a similar font size as the Examiner indicates. Ans. 20 (citing Kim § 4.5). As the Examiner explains, these rules reasonably comport with the “zone-breaking factors” described in Appellants’ Specification. See Id. at 18-19 (citing Spec., ¶ 0028 noting that a common zone-breaking factor involves font size). Appeal 2012-000597 Application 11/253,305 8 By applying these rules or “zone-breaking factors” to lines within particular zones for labeling, Kim effectively normalizes those zones at least to the extent that they are consistent with those factors under Appellants’ definition. See Spec., ¶ 0023. Appellants’ contention that Kim’s labeling is not normalizing (App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 9) is unavailing and not commensurate with the scope of the claim that does not preclude Kim’s automatic zone creation and labeling process that effectively normalizes those zones as shown in Figure 3(c). Nor do we find error in the Examiner’s position that Kim extracts an article from the normalized zones, namely by extracting bibliographic information such as abstract, title, and affiliation. Ans. 6, 23-24 (citing Kim, Abstr., § 2). Kim explains that this extraction process begins with: (1) scanning an article; (2) converting the image to text by OCR; (3) zoning the contiguous text to create text zones; and (4) identifying the zones by labels (title, author, affiliation, abstract, etc.). Kim, § 1. Despite Kim’s using the term “article” in this context to denote the entire scanned document, nothing in the claim precludes the Examiner’s broader interpretation of “article” as reading on constituent elements of that document, such as the bibliographic information (e.g., abstract, title, and affiliation) that is extracted from the normalized zones. We reach this conclusion noting that Appellants do not identify a limiting definition of the term “article” in the Specification, and the breadth of the term’s plain meaning that does not preclude the Examiner’s interpretation. See WEBSTER’S NEW WORLD DICTIONARY OF AMERICAN ENGLISH 78 (3d College ed. 1993) (defining “article” in pertinent part as “one of the sections Appeal 2012-000597 Application 11/253,305 9 or items of a written document, as of a constitution, treaty, contract, etc.”) (emphasis added). Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1. Claim 2 We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 reciting that applying the zone-breaking factor comprises instructions for balancing similarity between a line of text and lines of text already added to a zone, where the balancing compares results of plural zone-breaking factors. We see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Kim’s abstract-based rules in section 4.5 for teaching this feature. Ans. 6-7, 24-25. Despite Appellants’ arguments to the contrary (App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 13-14), we find no error in the Examiner’s position that because these rules require lines of text to have the same font size to be grouped accordingly in a normalized or labeled abstract zone such as that shown in Kim’s Figure 3(c), there would be some sort of balancing of similarity between the respective lines to achieve this end. Nor do we find error in the Examiner’s position that this balancing compares results of plural zone-breaking factors, namely font size and distance parameters, and that a decision is made whether to add a line of text to the zone. Ans. 6-7, 24-25. Appellants’ contention that the Examiner allegedly confuses automatic labeling with automatic zoning (Reply Br 10) is unavailing and not commensurate with the scope of the claim that does not preclude Kim’s automatic zone creation and labeling process for the reasons noted previously. Appeal 2012-000597 Application 11/253,305 10 Claim 3 We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3 reciting that applying the zone-breaking factor comprises instructions for applying at least two such factors, and applying a combination algorithm between the factors to resolve an outcome of the factors. Apart from arguing that Kim’s section 4.5 does not normalize plural zones or divide a document into zones (App. Br. 17-18; Reply Br. 14-15), Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s position for the reasons noted previously. To the extent that Appellants separately contest the Examiner’s findings regarding the recited combination algorithm, we are unpersuaded of error in these findings. Apart from reiterating previous arguments and summarily asserting that the cited prior art fails to disclose the recited algorithm (App. Br. 18; Reply Br. 14), Appellants do not particularly show error in the Examiner’s findings in this regard. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (noting that an argument that merely points out what a claim recites is unpersuasive). Accord In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[T]he Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”). Claim 4 We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4 reciting that normalizing plural zones comprises instructions for concatenating or breaking contiguous lines into a same zone or separate zones, respectively, where indicated by the zone-breaking factor. Apart from reiterating that Appeal 2012-000597 Application 11/253,305 11 Kim’s section 4.5 does not teach normalizing plural zones (App. Br. 18; Reply Br. 15), Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s position for the reasons noted previously and by the Examiner. Ans. 7, 25-26. To the extent that Appellants separately contest the Examiner’s findings regarding the particulars of this normalization, namely the recited concatenating or breaking contiguous lines, Appellants do not particularly show error in these findings to persuade us of error, but rather merely allege that these recited features are not disclosed in Kim. See Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357. Claims 6-8 We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 7 reciting various aspects of extracting an article. Apart from reiterating that Kim does not extract an article from normalized zones (App. Br. 19-20; Reply Br. 15- 16), Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s position for the reasons noted previously and by the Examiner. Ans. 7, 25-26. To the extent that Appellants separately contest the Examiner’s findings regarding the particulars of this extraction recited in claims 6 and 7, Appellants do not particularly show error in these findings to persuade us of error, but rather merely allege that these recited features are not disclosed in Kim. See Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 6 and 7, as well as claim 8 that depends from claim 7 and not argued separately with particularity. Appeal 2012-000597 Application 11/253,305 12 Claims 9-15 We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative independent claim 9 reciting, in pertinent part, creating at least one normalized sub-zone comprising lines consistent with at least one zone- breaking factor. The Examiner finds that this limitation is met by Kim’s creating an “abstract title zone” in Figure 3(c) that constitutes a normalized “sub-zone” that is labeled differently than the “abstract zone.” See Ans. 9- 10. Appellants do not squarely address—let alone persuasively rebut— this finding, but rather reiterate arguments made previously regarding claim 1, and add that Kim does not subdivide existing zones with zone-breaking factors to create a normalized sub-zone. App. Br. 15-16; Reply Br. 11-12. Not only are we unpersuaded by these arguments for the reasons previously discussed, but Appellants’ contention regarding subdividing existing zones is not commensurate with the scope of the claim and, in any event, does not particularly show error in the Examiner’s interpretation. Accordingly, the weight of the evidence on this record favors the Examiner’s position. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting representative claim 9, and claims 10-15 not argued separately with particularity. Appeal 2012-000597 Application 11/253,305 13 THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION OVER TAYLOR Regarding independent claim 16, the Examiner finds that Taylor: (1) joins adjacent zones within a document reading order in view of text similarity, and (2) breaks weakly-joined zones using topic vectors analysis via X-Y tree segmentation. Ans. 11-12, 26-28. Appellants argue that Taylor’s X-Y tree segmentation is not topic vectors analysis that compares numeric values of topic vectors for different document zones, where the topic vectors themselves provide numeric values for topics in a particular zone. App. Br. 20-22; Reply Br. 17-19. Appellants add that Taylor also does not join adjacent zones in view of text similarity as claimed. App. Br 22-23; Reply Br. 19-20. ISSUE Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 16 by finding that Taylor breaks weakly-joined zones using topic vectors analysis? ANALYSIS We begin by construing the key disputed limitation of claim 16 that recites, in pertinent part, “topic vectors analysis.” Although the term is not defined in the Specification, topic vectors are nonetheless associated with each document zone and contain numeric values assigned to particular topics. See Spec., ¶¶ 0061-65. In one example, numeric values are assigned to each of: (1) three topics (“politics,” “government,” and “crime”) in one zone (“Zone 2”), and (2) two different topics (“science” and “engineering”) in another zone (“Zone 3”). Id., ¶¶ 0063-64. That is, the first such topic vector contains three numeric values, and the other contains two numeric Appeal 2012-000597 Application 11/253,305 14 values, each value corresponding to a respective topic. These arrays of numerical values and topics reasonably correspond to the plain meaning of “vector” which, for data structures, is a one-dimensional array (i.e., a set of items arranged in a single column or row.). See MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY 548 (5th ed. 2002). The Specification further explains that once a topic vector is obtained for each zone, a numerical “distance” between the topic vectors is calculated that determines whether candidate pairs of zones are split or joined. See Spec., ¶¶ 0061-65. Thus, topic vectors analysis involves two distinct sets of numeric assignments: (1) the one-dimensional array of values and topics comprising the topic vectors themselves, and (2) the numerical distance between these vectors that is used to determine whether to split or join pairs of zones. Although this description does not limit our interpretation of the term “topic vectors analysis,” it nonetheless informs our understanding of this technique which, at a minimum, requires an analysis using vectors (one- dimensional arrays) associated with topics. With this construction, we find the Examiner’s reliance on Taylor’s X-Y tree segmentation as purportedly using topic vectors analysis problematic. See Ans. 11-12, 26-28. Taylor’s X-Y tree segmentation produces a coarse geometric segmentation of an image by successively detecting white gaps between text blocks, and slicing through the identified white space. Taylor, col. 5, ll. 16-55; col. 11, l. 54 – col. 12, l. 30; Figs. 14 (step 101); 16 (step 1215). So even assuming that Taylor’s X-Y tree segmentation breaks “weakly-joined” zones as the Examiner asserts, we still fail to see—nor has the Examiner shown—how this segmentation is based on topics associated with those zones, let alone topic vectors. Rather, Appeal 2012-000597 Application 11/253,305 15 Taylor’s segmentation occurs at identified gaps between blocks—a purely geometric scheme that has not been shown to be tied to the particular topics associated with those blocks, let alone a vector associated with those topics. To the extent that the Examiner equates the tree construction associated with Taylor’s segmentation as somehow corresponding to topic vectors analysis (see Ans. 27), we find such a construction does not reasonably comport with the Specification’s description of the term that, as noted above, requires an analysis using vectors (one-dimensional arrays) associated with topics. Therefore, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting: (1) independent claim 16, and (2) dependent claims 17-20 for similar reasons. Because this issue is dispositive regarding our reversing the anticipation rejection of these claims, we need not address Appellants’ other arguments. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION We do, however, sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 5. Ans. 14-15. Despite nominally arguing this claim separately, Appellants reiterate similar arguments made in connection with claim 1 that we find unpersuasive for the reasons previously discussed. See App. Br. 23; Reply Br. 20. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting: (1) claims 1-20 under § 101; (2) claims 1-4 and 6-15 under § 102; and (3) claim 5 under § 103. The Examiner, however, erred in rejecting claims 16-20 under § 102. Appeal 2012-000597 Application 11/253,305 16 DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 is 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED hh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation