Ex Parte Agapi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 18, 2013

11534500 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 18, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte CIPRIAN AGAPI and BRENT D. METZ
____________________

Appeal 2011-003077
Application 11/534,500
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
PETER P. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-003077
Application 11/534,500

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Introduction

According to Appellants, the claims are directed to dynamically
translating a software application to a user selected target language that is
not natively provided by the software application.

Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for dynamically translating application
prompts comprising:

identifying a plurality of application prompts associated
with a software application, wherein each application
prompt comprises text of original language;

detecting an attempt of the software application to render
one of the application prompts, including intercepting a
font rendering request from the software application to a
widget library, the widget library being a dynamic linked
library which produces a renderable object in response to
a font rendering request, the font rendering requesting
including the one of the application prompts;

redirecting the attempt to a dynamic translation engine;
Appeal 2011-003077
Application 11/534,500

3
the dynamic translation engine dynamically and
automatically translating the original text associated with
the prompt into translated text of a target language;

substituting the translated text for the original text; and

rendering the application prompt after the substituting
step, including routing the translated text to the widget
library to produce a translated widget to be rendered as
the application prompt.

REFERENCES
Chou
Bernth
US 5,583,761
US 6,285,978 B1
Dec. 10, 1996
Sep. 4, 2001
Chan US 2006/0100849 A1 May 11, 2006

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:

(1) Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as
being anticipated by Chou (Ans. 4-6).
(2) Claims 3 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Chou and Bernth (Ans. 7).
(3) Claims 4, 7-13, and 15-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Chou and Chan (Ans. 8-15).
Arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the
Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2011).

Appeal 2011-003077
Application 11/534,500

4
ISSUE 1
35 U.S.C. § 102(b): Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6
Appellants argue their invention is not anticipated by Chou (App. Br.
5-8). The issues presented by these arguments are:

Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in finding Chou discloses
(a) intercepting a font rendering request from the software
application to a widget library, the widget library being a
dynamic linked library which produces a renderable object in
response to a font rendering request, the font rendering
requesting including the one of the application prompts;

(b) redirecting the attempt to a dynamic translation engine;
the dynamic translation engine dynamically and automatically
translating the original text associated with the prompt into
translated text of a target language; [and]
substituting the translated text for the original text

as recited in claim 1?

ANALYSIS
Issue 1(a):
Appellants argue that while Chou discusses a dynamic linked library
(DLL), 23 or 36, used to intercept system calls, the DLL is not a font
rendering entity and does not produce renderable widgets or objects (App.
Br. 6). Instead, according to Appellants, the DLL is injected into an
application to perform monitoring (id.). Furthermore, Appellants contend
the font selector 40 of Chou is separate and removed from the DLL 36 and is
described as producing a desired font via font tables (id.).
Appeal 2011-003077
Application 11/534,500

5
We are not persuaded. We agree with the Examiner’s findings and
reasoning (Ans. 4-6; 15-18). We highlight and address specific findings and
arguments regarding claim 1 for emphasis.
As the Examiner finds, Figure 2 of Chou discloses the DLL is used
during the Run process for a GUI application (Fig. 2; Ans. 15-16; see also
col. 5, ll. 13-15). We further agree with the Examiner that Chou discloses
the DLL produces a renderable object in response to a font rendering request
(Ans. 15-16; see also Fig. 2, and description of Figure 2 (col. 5, ll. 29-36)).
Thus, Appellants’ argument that the DLL is not a font rendering entity and
does not produce renderable widgets or objects is not persuasive.
Specifically, because the DLL attaches a process or thread to the designated
active task, we determine, given a broad, but reasonable, interpretation in
light of the Specification, Chou discloses producing a renderable object.
Additionally, we determine the DLL is indeed a font rendering entity
as it produces an object sent to the display – thus rendering a font. We note
this interpretation is not inconsistent with Appellants’ Specification which
states “[t]he font rendering request 130 can be any request [having]
associated text that is to be rendered.” (Spec. 6, [0023]).
Furthermore, we note the claims do not recite any “font rendering”
and thus, Appellants’ arguments regarding the DLL producing a desired font
via font tables are not persuasive.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s finding
that Chou discloses “intercepting a font rendering request from the software
application to a widget library, the widget library being a dynamic linked
library which produces a renderable object in response to a font rendering
Appeal 2011-003077
Application 11/534,500

6
request, the font rendering requesting including the one of the application
prompts” as recited in independent claim 1.

Issue 1(b):
Appellants assert the font selector 40 of Chou is not involved with the
creation of the translations (ASTT 39) (App. Br. 7). Instead, according to
Appellants, the font selector is used during the run process as opposed to the
learn process, while the translation process is built during a learn process
and not the run process (id.). Therefore, Appellants contend, the ASTT is a
learned table, specific to the particular application and performed for each
application (id.). The Appellants assert, in contrast to their recited invention,
Chou replaces the text rather than translates the text, as translation occurs in
the learn process, not the run process (id.).
We are not persuaded. We agree with the Examiner’s findings and
reasoning (Ans. 4-6; 15-18). We emphasize the following. We find Chou
describes a dynamic translation engine that dynamically and automatically
translates the original text into translated text (Ans. 5; 17; see also col. 6, l.
62 through col. 7, l. 20). Appellants have not presented sufficient evidence
or argument to persuade us of error in the Examiner’s findings or
interpretation of “translation.” Similarly, we are not persuaded by
Appellants’ arguments that Chou does not disclose the dynamic translation
engine dynamically and automatically translating the original text associated
with the prompt into translated text of a target language and substituting the
translated text for the original text (see App. Br. 7-8). Again, we agree with
the Examiner’s findings (Ans. 5; 17).
Appeal 2011-003077
Application 11/534,500

7
Therefore, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s finding
that Chou discloses “redirecting the attempt to a dynamic translation engine;
the dynamic translation engine dynamically and automatically translating the
original text associated with the prompt into translated text of a target
language; [and] substituting the translated text for the original text” as
recited in claim 1.

Claims 2 and 5:
With respect to Appellants’ arguments regarding claims 2 and 5 (App.
Br. 10), we are not persuaded Chou does not use a dynamic translation
process. We emphasize the term “dynamic translation process” is not
explicitly defined in the Specification, and Appellants have not presented
sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us the Examiner’s interpretation
is in error. Claim 6 was not independently argued and therefore, falls with
its independent claim, claim 1.

Conclusion:
Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for anticipation by Chou.

ISSUE 2
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 3 and 14
Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Chou and Bernth
because no motivation exists to combine the references and the Examiner
Appeal 2011-003077
Application 11/534,500

8
has not provided a motivation (App. Br. 8-9). Specifically, Appellants
question the motivation of combining a complex translator as taught by
Bernth with Chou’s invention because in Chou, translation does not occur in
run-time and the user has the ability to easily edit the translations before run
time (App. Br. 8).
Thus, the issue presented by these arguments is:
Issue 2: Has the Examiner erred by improperly combining the
teachings of Chou and Bernth?

ANALYSIS
We are not persuaded. The Examiner has articulated reasoning with a
rational underpinning – to ensure the translation was accurate before
replacing text and to allow a user to use a threshold/confidence indication
for translation accuracy (Ans. 7; 18). We agree. Appellants have not
proffered sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us an ordinarily
skilled artisan would not have been motivated to combine the translator of
Bernth with the system of Chou.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in combining
the teachings of Chou and Bernth. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 3 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over
Chou and Bernth.

Appeal 2011-003077
Application 11/534,500

9
ISSUE 3
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 4, 7-13, and 15-20
Appellants argue, in their argument with respect to claim 1, Chou
does not disclose the widget library as claimed in claims 7 and 17 (App. Br.
6-8).
Appellants further assert their invention is not obvious over Chou and
Chan because the Examiner relies on Chou as teaching intercepting font
rendering requests made by a software application however, according to
Appellants, the cited portion describes the text being intercepted “before
Windows 41 displays text” (App. Br. 9). Specifically, Appellants contend
Chou teaches intercepting operating system messages used to call window
elements whereas Appellants claim intercepting font rendering requests to a
widget library available to software applications (id.).
The issue presented by these arguments is:
Issue 3: Has the Examiner erred in concluding the combination of
Chou and Chan teaches or suggests “intercepting a font rendering request
generated by the application to a widget library, the widget library being a
dynamic linked library which produces a renderable object in response to the
font rendering request,” as recited in independent claim 7 and
commensurately recited in independent claim 17?

ANALYSIS
As set forth above in Issue 1(a), we are not persuaded by Appellants’
arguments regarding claims 7 and 17 as argued with claim 1. Nor are we
persuaded by the additional arguments presented. As discussed above, “font
Appeal 2011-003077
Application 11/534,500

10
rendering request” is not explicitly defined and we are not persuaded the
Examiner’s interpretation is in error. Furthermore, we agree with the
Examiner’s findings and reasoning (Ans. 8-15 and 19). Claims 4, 8-13, 15,
16, and 18-20 are not separately argued and thus, these claims fall with their
respective independent claims.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 4, 7-13, and 15-20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Chou and Chan.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Chou is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Chou and Bernth is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 7-13, and 15-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chou and Chan 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

tj