Ex Parte Reuter et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 31, 2007

08699261 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 31, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte RONALD L. REUTER and TAMARA J. FULLER
_____________

Appeal 2007-1543
Application 08/699,261
Technology Center 2600
______________

Decided: July 31, 2007
_______________

Before FRED E. McKELVEY, Senior Administrative Patent Judge, ALLEN
R. MacDONALD, and ROBERT E. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6 through 8, 12, 20, 21, 23, 24 and 27 through
30.1 For the reasons stated infra, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
these claims.

1 As the Examiner notes on page 2 of the Answer, the claims appendix to the
Brief contains an error, claims 3 and 4 should both be identified as

Appeal 2007-1543
Application 08/699,261

INVENTION

The invention is directed a system and method of annotating text
documents where there is a visual link between the annotation and a portion
of the text. One aspect of the invention allows a user to move the annotation
and associated annotation box relative to the document. When the
annotation and box move, the link is adjusted to follow the annotation while
still pointing to the portion of text. See pages 2 and 3 of Appellants’
Specification. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced
below:
1. A method for annotating at least a first portion of a first
electronic document displayable to a first person via a display screen,
comprising the steps of:

receiving at least a first input from the first person;

generating, in response to at least the first input, at least one of
a first annotation and a first annotation box displayable to the first
person via the display screen, wherein the first annotation is
displayable within the first annotation box, the first annotation box
being positioned a distance away from the first text portion of the first
electronic document, over a second text portion of the first electronic
document, such that the first text portion of the first electronic
document and said at least one of the first annotation and the first
annotation box are displayable simultaneously;

dependent upon claim 1 (see Amendment dated December 30, 1999).
Further, we note that claim 20 is dependent upon canceled claim 19.
Appellants are encouraged to correct the dependency of claim 20 should
there be further prosecution of this application.
2

Appeal 2007-1543
Application 08/699,261

linking said at least one of the first annotation and the first
annotation box with the first text portion of the first electronic
documents via a displayable first referencer, wherein the first
referencer comprises one of a displayable arrow and a displayable line
extending between the first text portion of the first electronic
document and said at least one of the first annotation box and the first
annotation;

receiving at least a second input from the first person, the
second input corresponding to relating at least one of the first
annotation and the first annotation box with the first portion of the
first electronic document via the first referencer;

generating, from the second input, the first referencer to link at
least one of the first annotation and the first annotation box with the
first portion of the first electronic document;

receiving at least a third input from the first person, wherein the
third input corresponds to moving at least one of the first annotation
and the first annotation box from a first location relative to the first
portion of the first electronic document to a second location relative to
the first portion of the first electronic document, and reconfiguring the
first referencer to link at least one of the first annotation box and the
first annotation at the second location with the first text portion of the
first electronic document, wherein the first end of the first referencer
moved from a first position proximate the first location to a second
position, where the second location is determined relative to at least
one of the first position of the first end and the first text portion of the
first electronic document, and is proximate the second location; and

positioning the first end of the first referencer at the second
position, proximate the second location, along with at least one of the
first annotation box and the first annotation.

REFERENCE

3

Appeal 2007-1543
Application 08/699,261

The reference relied upon by the Examiner is:

Rivette US 5,806,079 Sep. 8, 1998

THE EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS

Claims 1, 3, 4, 6 through 8, 12, 20, 21, 23, 24, and 27 through 30
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (e) as being anticipated by Rivette.

CONTENTIONS
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) is in error. Appellants argue that Rivette does not teach moving of
the notes on a display screen from one position to another as claimed.
Further, Appellants assert that the functionality of the referencer end
associated with the annotation box moving with the annotation box is not
taught by Rivette. Brief, p. 4.
Appellants also ague that the claimed invention would not have been
obvious in light of Rivette because the displays in Rivette are designed such
that it is not necessary to move notes so that displays on the screen are
viewable. Brief, p. 4.
ISSUES
Thus, issue before us is whether Appellants’ have shown that the
Examiner erred in finding that Rivette discloses that the user can move an
annotation on a display screen from one location to another with the
referencer arrow following the annotation box.
4

Appeal 2007-1543
Application 08/699,261

Appellants’ contention regarding what is obvious in light of Rivette
does not raise an issue for us to consider as there is no rejection based upon
obviousness before us.

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Rivette teaches a system where notes or annotations can be created
and associated with portions of a document. Abstract.
2. These notes are linked to specific portions of the documents. See
figures 30, 31A-B, 32, and col. 18, ll. 39-49.
3. Rivette teaches that there are several modes for viewing the
information. The standard note view is depicted in figures 6-13, in
this view links are depicted and navigated by linking buttons. col. 17,
l. 43 and col. 15, ll. 8-15.
4. Rivette also teaches several other views including a modified note
view depicted in figure 30, a object view, depicted in figures 31 A, B,
and a user defined view depicted in link view, depicted in figure 32.
col. 17, l. 50, col. 18, l. 41, and col. 19, l. 50.
5. Rivette teaches that the links in the modified note view, object
view and user defined views can be represented as double ended
arrows. See figures 30, 31A-B, 32, and col. 11, ll. 25-37, col. 18,
ll. 10-21, 57-67, and col. 19, ll. 54-67.
6. Rivette teaches that the notes may be manipulated and that the
links are updated accordingly. See col. 37, ll. 21-33.
5

Appeal 2007-1543
Application 08/699,261

7. Rivette describes that during the operation of the system, when the
user selects to see the modified notes view, the system retrieves and
displays the linked data object including the bi-directional arrow. Col.
35, ll. 51-55.
8. In describing an example of a user manipulating a note depicted in
the note view of figure 13, Rivette states:
[A]ssume that the user wishes to move Sub-note
B1 so that it is displayed between Sub-notes B3
and B4. In this case, the user selects Sub-note B1
in a well known manner, and then drags selected
Sub-note B1 until it is located between Sub-notes
B3 and B4. The user then drops Sub-note B1
between Sub-notes B3 and B4.
Col. 37, ll. 38-43.
9. From facts 5 and 8, we find that Rivette teaches an input, dragging
and dropping, where a note associated with a portion of the document
is moved from one location to another on the display of the document
while still being linked to the same portion of the document.

ANALYSIS
Appellants on page 4 of the Appeal brief present arguments as to why
Rivette does not anticipate. First Appellants contend that the Rivette does
not teach moving of the notes or sub-notes on a display screen from one
position to another. Specifically, Appellants argue that Rivette does not
teach a third input where the first annotation and box are moved from a first
location to a second. The Examiner in response, states on page 7 of the
Answer, that “Rivette discloses the user can modify and rearrange notes and
6

Appeal 2007-1543
Application 08/699,261

sub-notes by drag and drop process, col. 37, lines 20-57 and modifying the
notes within a note group and the linkage.” We agree with the Examiner, as
discussed in fact 8 and 9, Rivette describes moving a note on a display
screen from one position to another while still being linked to the same
portion of the document, e.g., moving sub-note B1 from the top position of
figure 13 to a position between notes B3 and B4 changes the position of the
note but not the association of the note to the portion document.
Second Appellants contend on page 4 of the Appeal Brief that the
functionality of the referencer end associated with the annotation box
moving with the annotation box is not taught by Rivette. Brief, p. 4. The
Examiner responds on page 9 of the Answer stating that Rivette discloses
linking a note to the portion of a document by an arrow, citing figures 30
and 32. Answer, p. 9. We agree with the Examiner, as discussed in fact 4,
Rivette describes several views. These views also make use of bi-directional
arrows (a referencer). Fact 5. Given that the system of Rivette teaches that
the system depicts the links between note and content based upon the view
selected by the user, (Fact 7) we find that the system does automatically
depict the referencer to the new location of a moved sub-note.
Thus, we find that there is ample evidence to support the Examiner’s
finding that Rivette teaches that the user can move an annotation on a
display screen from one location to another with the referencer arrow
following the annotation box.
7

Appeal 2007-1543
Application 08/699,261

CONCLUSION
Appellants’ contentions have not convinced us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection as there is substantial evidence to support the
Examiner’s findings. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 1, 3, 4, 6 through 8, 12, 20, 21, 23, 24 and 27 through 30 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e). The decision of the Examiner 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

gw

MARSH, FISCHMANN & BREYFOGLE LLP
3151 SOUTH VAUGHN WAY SUITE 411
AURORA, CO 80014
8