D2L CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 10, 2022

2021000814 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 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. 13/966,943 08/14/2013 Jeremy AUGER K8001237US 8266 34236 7590 03/10/2022 GOWLING WLG (CANADA) LLP 345 King Street West Suite 600 KITCHENER, ONTARIO N2G0C5 CANADA EXAMINER FILIPCZYK, MARCIN R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2153 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/10/2022 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): JEFF.WONG@GOWLINGWLG.COM VAL.COTTRILL@GOWLINGWLG.COM Waterloo.IP@gowlingwlg.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JEREMY AUGER, BRIAN CEPURAN, and JOHN BAKER Appeal 2021-000814 Application 13/966,943 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, ERIC B. CHEN, and DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges. LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Examiner rejected 1-21 and 23-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject the claims. 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 (2012). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as D2L Corporation. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-000814 Application 13/966,943 2 REJECTION The Examiner rejects Claims 1-21 and 23-31 in the Final Office Action under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of Glasgow et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0282180 A1, published Nov. 13, 2008) (“Glasgow”) and Andrade (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0218492 A1, published Sept. 28, 2006) (“Andrade”). Final Act. 3. CLAIM There are four independent claims on appeal, claims 1, 9, 15, and 21. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below. The claim is annotated with bracketed numbers for reference to the limitations in the claim. 1. A method for a network enabled clipboard comprising: [1] performing a clipboard command with selected data at a first user device; [2] retrieving metadata associated with the selected data at the first user device; [3] storing the selected data and associated metadata at a network device; [4] providing the network enabled clipboard to be displayed on a user interface of a second user device; [5] receiving, from the second user device, a request to edit one or more entries in the clipboard, wherein the one or more entries includes the selected data; [6] in response to receiving the request to edit the one or more entries in the clipboard, modifying, based at least in part on one or more inputs associated with an edit to the one or more entries in the clipboard, one or more of (i) content of the selected data included in the one or more entries associated with the request to edit the one or more entries, and (ii) the metadata associated with the selected data, [iii] wherein if the content of the selected data included in the one or more entries associated with the request Appeal 2021-000814 Application 13/966,943 3 to edit the one or more entries is modified, source location data included in the metadata associated with the selected data is maintained; and [7] performing a further clipboard command on the selected data and associated metadata at the second user device. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Examiner finds that Glasgow describes steps [1]-[6], [6](i), and [7] of claim 1. Final Act. 3-6 (citing Glasgow ¶¶ 21, 22, 23, 29-33; Figs. 1, 3). The Examiner acknowledges that Glasgow does not describe step [6](ii) of claim 1 of modifying “the metadata associated with the selected data,” but the Examiner finds that Andrade describes this step. Final Act. 5 (citing Andrade ¶¶ 66, 69). The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to modify the metadata “to create an audit trail of changes to the citation/metadata for the copied/pasted data.” Final Act. 5 (citing Andrade ¶ 69). The Examiner further finds that Glasgow describes [6][iii] of claim 1 of maintaining the “source location data included in the metadata associated with the selected data” when the content of the selected data is modified in [6](i). Final Act. 5-6 (citing Glasgow ¶ 29). Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in maintaining the obviousness rejection of claims 1-21 and 23-31. Appeal Br. 14. Appellant argues independent claims 1, 9, 15, and 21 together, and provides separate arguments for claims 28-31. Id. at 17-21. We address these arguments below. Appeal 2021-000814 Application 13/966,943 4 ANALYSIS Claims 1, 9, 15, and 21 Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Glasgow and Andrade “disclose[s] or render[s] obvious” step [6](ii) of “in response to receiving the request to edit the one or more entries in the clipboard, modifying, based at least in part on one or more inputs associated with an edit to the one or more entries in the clipboard” “(ii) the metadata associated with the selected data.” Appeal Br. 14 (emphasis added). As explained above, the Examiner finds that step [6](ii) of claim 1 is described by Andrade. Final Act. 5. The Examiner’s finding is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Andrade discloses an embodiment in which a video is copied by a user. Andrade ¶ 66. Citation information is automatically collected as metadata. Id. (“citation information for the source of the clip is automatically collected, such as by reading metadata for the source video file”). Andrade discloses that, after copying the video clip: Subsequently, when the user pastes the clip into a destination file, the citation information (and any other collected metadata) is also inserted into or associated with the destination file. For example, citation information may be added to metadata for the destination video file, indicating that the sequence from 1 min 30 seconds to 3 minutes was derived from a video stream authored by a particular person. Id. As stated in in paragraph 66, Andrade specifically teaches that, after automatically collecting citation information from a video clip, “citation information may be added” to the metadata, indicating that a certain time Appeal 2021-000814 Application 13/966,943 5 sequence of the video is derived from a video authored by a particular person. Id. The addition of the metadata to the destination file is the claimed “modifying . . . [(iii)] the metadata associated with the selected data.” The “selected data” is the video clip. Appellant states that paragraph 66 of Andrade does not disclose step [6](ii), but Appellant does not identify a specific deficiency in the Examiner’s findings. Appeal Br. 15. Paragraph 69 of Andrade also describes modifying metadata (“citation information”) by inserting metadata from a system-wide metadata log into existing metadata associated with content data. Andrade explains: “Additionally, in one embodiment, a user could use the system-wide metadata log to assign additional citation information or modify existing citation information for copied/pasted data.” Andrade ¶ 69. Appellant also argues that “Andrade does not disclose a request to edit one or more entries in the clipboard” as recited in step [5] of claim 1. Appeal Br. 15. This argument in unavailing. The Examiner does not rely on Andrade for disclosing limitation [5] of claim 1 of the request to edit an entry. Rather, the Examiner cites Glasgow for this step of the claim. Final Act. 4. Appellant does not identify a deficiency in the Examiner’s findings with respect to the teaching in Glasgow of step [5] of claim 1. Appellant further argues that “Glasgow and Andrade fail to disclose or render obvious” step [6][iii] of claim 1 in which “if the content of the selected data included in the one or more entries associated with the request to edit the one or more entries is modified, source location data included in the metadata associated with the selected data is maintained.” Appeal Br. 15. Appeal 2021-000814 Application 13/966,943 6 Appellant contends, quoting from paragraph 69 of Andrade, that the Examiner “does not specifically articulate an argument that Andrade discloses” the disputed limitation. Id. at 15-16. We do not agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred in finding step [6][iii] described by the combination of Glasgow and Andrade. The Examiner cites Glasgow, not Andrade, as disclosing step [6][iii] of “wherein if the content of the selected data . . . is modified, source location data included in the metadata associated with the selected data is maintained.” (Emphasis added.) Final Act. 5-6. The Examiner adequately explains how paragraph 29 of Glasgow describes maintaining the “original/source location data” when content is copied and pasted. Id. Appellant does not address this finding or the explanation by the Examiner. In addition to this, paragraph 33 of Glasgow, cited by the Examiner for modifying the content data by reformatting it for display on a different operating system (Final Act. 4-5), does not describe any change to the meta data after it has been stored on network clipboard (Glasgow ¶ 32), thus indicating that the metadata is maintained as required by the rejected claim. In sum, Appellant’s argument regarding step [6][iii] of claim 1 is directed at the wrong reference because the Examiner found that the disputed limitation of claim 1 is described by Glasgow, not Andrade. See Nat’l Steel Car, Ltd. v. Canadian Pac. Ry., Ltd., 357 F.3d 1319, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (rejecting argument directed at the wrong reference). For the foregoing reasons, the obviousness rejection of claim 1 is affirmed. Claims 9, 15, and 21 are argued by Appellant with claim 1 and therefore fall with it. Appeal 2021-000814 Application 13/966,943 7 Claim 28 Claim 28 depends ultimately on claim 1, and further recites “wherein the source location corresponds to a website.” Appellant denies this is described in Glasgow. Appeal Br. 17. This argument has no merit. Andrade discloses that the source can be a webpage. Andrade ¶¶ 9, 13, 31, 32. Claim 29 Claim 29 depends ultimately on claim 1, and further recites “wherein the tracking data comprises information pertaining to a portion of the website from which the selected data is obtained.” Appellant contends that “both Glasgow and Andrade failing to disclose the feature recited in claim 29.” Appeal Br. 18-19. Paragraph 10 of Andrade, as cited by the Examiner (Final Act. 13), discloses: When copying digital information (including but not limited to text, image, audio, and video data), it is often useful to track the source of the information, including both the immediate source (e.g. a webpage from which text is copied) and the original source (e.g. a book in which the text was originally published) of the copied information. The cited passage expressly discloses “track[ing] the source of the information” when it is copied from a webpage, such as “text, image, audio, and video data.” Text, images, and audio and video do not constitute the complete webpage, but instead are a “portion” of it. Appellant’s argument is therefore unavailing. Appeal 2021-000814 Application 13/966,943 8 Claim 30 Claim 30 depends ultimately on claim 1, and further recites “wherein the tracking information comprises historical information pertaining to a use of a source or destination of the selected data.” The Examiner cites paragraph 10 of Andrade as disclosing the limitation recited in claim 30. Final Act. 13. Appellant argues that the disclosure in Andrade of tracking source information of the immediate source and original source “is different” from the claim limitation. Appeal Br. 20. Appellant also states that the Examiner “fails to provide any articulation of an argument of how Andrade discloses such a feature, or any motivation for combining such purported teachings of Andrade with the purported teachings of Glasgow to derive the presently claimed combination of features.” Id. This argument does not persuasively demonstrate error in the Examiner’s rejection. Paragraph 10 of Andrade describes tracking “both the immediate source (e.g. a webpage from which text is copied) and the original source (e.g. a book in which the text was originally published) of the copied information.” The “historical information” is the original source from which text appearing on the webpage was copied. Appellant does not address this disclosure in Andrade or explain how it is “different” from what is recited in the claim. Claim 31 Claim 31 depends ultimately on claim 1, and further recites “wherein the further clipboard command comprises a paste of the selected data, and the selected data corresponds to a plurality of entries in the clipboard.” The Appeal 2021-000814 Application 13/966,943 9 Examiner finds that this limitation is described in paragraph 22 of Glasgow. Appellant states that Glasgow “does not disclose that a plurality of entries in a clipboard can be pasted with a single command.” Appeal Br. 21 This argument does not persuade us that the Examiner erred. Glasgow discloses that data stored on a clipboard can be pasted into applications executing on a personal computer. Glasgow ¶ 22. Glasgow discloses that the “host device clipboard 110 is a local clipboard for temporarily storing data that has been cut or copied from a document created by the host application 112.” Id. ¶ 21. The host application is not limited to one application, but Glasgow explain that it “should be appreciated that the host application 112 may include any type and number of applications that may be used to create data.” Id. (emphasis added). In other words, Glasgow does not restrict the data copied on to the clipboard from being from only a single source or even a single application. It would be obvious that a user desiring, for example, to share pictures with other family members as described by Glasgow (at ¶ 31), may choose to paste more than one picture on to the clipboard. Glasgow also describes a “‘paste’” button, which is a “clipboard command” for pasting data as recited in claim 30. Id. ¶ 32. Thus, it would be obvious to use the clipboard paste command to paste the pluralities of entries from the clipboard (e.g., a plurality of pictures to share with family members) into the target electronic device. Andrade also describes using a single paste command to paste multiple entries: “Thus, in one embodiment, from a single paste or insert command received from a user, multiple insertions result (e.g. the pasted text, a footnote reference, and the footnote itself).” Andrade ¶ 33. For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claim 31 is affirmed. Appeal 2021-000814 Application 13/966,943 10 Claims 2-8, 10-14, 16-20, and 23-31 Appellant relies on the same arguments for dependent claims 2-8, 10- 14, 16-20, and 23-31 as for claim 1. Appeal Br. 21. Because separate arguments were not provided for these claims, these claims fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)(2013). CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-21 and 23-31 is affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-21, 23-31 103(a) Glasgow, Andrade 1-21, 23-31 TIME PERIOD 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) (2013). AFFIRMED