Ex Parte Antebi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 13, 2018

13011627 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2018)

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.
13/011,627 01/21/2011 Oudi Antebi 5067-M01-06 5032
76019 7590 03/14/2018
ATAULLAH ARJOMAND
ARJOMAND LAW GROUP, PLLC
335 FRONT STREET SOUTH
ISSAQUAH, WA 98027
EXAMINER
VAUGHN, GREGORY J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2178
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/14/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte OUDI ANTEBI, ROY ANTEBI, REEM BENSIMHON,
LEV WAISBERG,
and
ARTHUR TEPLITZKI
Appeal 2017-010395
Application 13/011,6271
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOVAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Non-Final Rejection of claims 1—20, which are all the claims
pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Jive Software, Inc.
App. Br. 1.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed January
16, 2017; Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed August 1, 2017; Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.”) mailed June 1, 2017; Non-Final Office Action (“Non-Final
Act.”) mailed September 8, 2016; and original Specification (“Spec.”) filed
January 21, 2011.
Appeal 2017-010395
Application 13/011,627
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants ’ Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to methods and systems for “distributed
document processing, management, and merging” using “plug-in software
components that are integrated with document processing software suites”
and “provide a set of integrated interfaces for collaborative document
processing in conjunction with multiple remote file, data, and application
service providers.” Spec. 1:4—9; Abstract. An example integrated document
processing interface 600 of Appellants’ invention is shown in Figure 6, as
reproduced below, with additional markings for illustration.
goo FIGURE 6
As shown in Figure 6, integrated document processing interface 600
includes a plug-in component 606 (e.g., a toolbar, a new menu, or other user
interface components) having a set of buttons 608 for activation of various
2
Appeal 2017-010395
Application 13/011,627
functions including a dashboard button 618. Spec. 18:6—8; 27:21—28:5.
Upon activation of the dashboard button 618, a dashboard panel is presented
having different metadata presentation areas such as file information of
document 612, author information, presence information, and related files
information. Spec. 28:2—5.
Claims 1, 9, and 15 are independent. Representative claim 1 is
reproduced below with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A computer system having a software plug-in
component, configured to be plugged into and integrated with a
third-party pre-existing host application program, configured
to run on the computer system, to add functionality within the
third-party pre-existing host application program, wherein the
software plug-in component is configured to run within the host
application program and interact with the host application
program via a service interface, that when executed on a first
client computing device causes the first client computing device
to:
present an integrated user interface configured to provide
a set of buttons including a dashboard button, wherein
activating the dashboard button causes metadata about a first
copy of a document to be collected from local and remote
sources and presented in a dashboard area;
detect changes to the first copy of the document;
periodically check whether a second copy of the
document on a second client computing device has been
changed;
if the second copy of the document has been changed,
update the first copy of the document to include the changes
made to the second copy of the document.
App. Br. 15—18 (Claims App’x).
3
Appeal 2017-010395
Application 13/011,627
Examiner’s Rejection & Reference
Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Tsao (US 2003/0149708 Al; published Aug. 7, 2003). Non-
Final Act. 3—12.
Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellants’ arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is
whether Tsao discloses: (i) a software plug-in component configured to run
within a host application program and interact with the host application
program via a service interface as recited in independent claim 1, and
similarly recited in independent claims 9 and 15; and (ii) a dashboard button,
wherein activating the dashboard button causes metadata about a first copy
of a document to be collected from local and remote sources and presented
in a dashboard area, as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 5—13; Reply Br. 2—\.
ANALYSIS
In support of the anticipation rejection of claim 1, and similarly,
claims 9 and 15, the Examiner finds Tsao’s Data Object Oriented Repository
(DOOR) teaches the claimed “software plug-in component, configured to be
integrated” with “a third-party pre-existing host application program”
described in Tsao’s paragraph 2. Ans. 3-A (citing Tsao ]Hf 2, 7); Non-Final
Act. 3 (citing Tsao 1177). Particularly, the Examiner finds Tsao’s DOOR is
part of a Data Object Oriented Repository System (DOORS) that “provide[s]
‘a common user interface for at least one application program’f thereby
teaching the executed software plug-in component causes a first client
computing device to “present an integrated user interface configured to
4
Appeal 2017-010395
Application 13/011,627
provide a set of buttons including a dashboard button,” as recited in claim 1.
Ans. 3, 5; Non-Final Act. 3^4 (citing Tsao ^fl[ 2, 7, 59, 75, 177, Fig. 3). The
Examiner also finds Tsao’s DOOR system “provides[] ‘an integrated multi­
application data processing system'''’'’ enabling work recovery using macro
operations, thereby teaching the plug-in component is configured “to add
functionality within the third-party pre-existing host application program” as
claimed. Ans. 3, 5 (citing Tsao 17); Non-Final Act. 4 (citing Tsao Tflf 117—
121). The Examiner further finds Tsao’s “applicationprogram interfaced
provided by Tsao’s DOORS development platform, teaches the claimed
“service interface” by which the software plug-in component interacts with
the third-party pre-existing host application program. Non-Final Act. 3
(citing Tsao 1 89).
Appellants acknowledge Tsao’s DOOR data repository and system
teach an application program that adds functionality to a computer system as
a whole, but contend “[mjerely adding functionality to the system does not
make [Tsao’s] software program the same as a plug-in” that “adds
functionality within an existing application.” App. Br. 10; see also Reply
Br. 3. Appellants argue “DOORS is a standalone part of the whole system
10, not a plug-in in any of [Tsao’s] other applications,... as also evidenced
by showing no service interface or API directly between DOORS and
any of the applications 42.” App. Br. 9 (citing Tsao H 67—76, Fig. 2).
5
Appeal 2017-010395
Application 13/011,627
Tsao’s Figure 2 is reproduced below with additional markings for
illustration.
'DATA OBJECT ORTENTEB REPOSITORY (DOORs 34
APPLICATION
A FILES 35
AIDING DATA
_A 3? AND
A OBJECTS 3&
alt ; 30
Fig. 2
RATA OE JECT ORIENTED
REPOEiTORT SYRERM (DOORS) 10
Tsao’s Figure 2 shows a Data Object Oriented Repository (DOOR) 34
included in a data processing system 10 (accordingly also designated as Data
Object Oriented Repository System (DOORS) 10). DOORS 10 further
includes a program framework 40 for operating plural application programs
42 to achieve integrated access to the DOOR 34 with a consistent “look and
feel” at an operator interface 20. Tsao 67—69.
In response, the Examiner again takes the position that Tsao’s
“application program interfaceprovided by the DOORS development
platform, teaches the claimed “service interface” by which Tsao’s DOORS
(including an alleged plug-in component) is configured to interact with a
third-party pre-existing host application program. Ans. 4 (citing Tsao 1 89).
6
Appeal 2017-010395
Application 13/011,627
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments and disagree with the
Examiner’s position. Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is a question of
fact. Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2001). A claim is
anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found,
either expressly or inherently described in a single prior art reference.
Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631
(Fed. Cir. 1987). During examination, claim terms (not prior art) are given
their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In
re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Contrary to the Examiner’s position, Tsao only teaches a standalone
application subsystem (the DOOR 34) of a system (DOORS 10), not a
software plug-in component that is “integrated into and executing within a
host application program” via “a service interface that is compatible with
the hosting application to be integrated (or linked) with the hosting
application,” as required by claim 1. App. Br. 6, 9; see also App. Br. 7—8,
12; Reply Br. 2. The “application program interface” in Tsao’s paragraph
89 is merely a user interface of the DOORS application development
platform “for use by developers of DOORS applications” to “develop and
package just specialized data object types” compatible with the DOOR data
repository. See Tsao 7, 67, 89.
This is in contrast to Appellants’ claimed “service interface,” which is
not a user interface', rather, the claimed “service interface” enables
integration and execution of the plug-in component within the host
application program to cause presentation of an “integrated user interface,”
as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 10, 13. That is, the claimed “service
interface” enables the plug-in component to be “compatible with the hosting
7
Appeal 2017-010395
Application 13/011,627
application” and “integrated (or linked) with the hosting application” to
provide added “functionality to [the] existing host application without
having to recompile the host application.” App. Br. 9.
Tsao discloses additional interfaces (e.g., a “common user interface”
and an “operator interface,” see ]Hf 7, 69); however, these interfaces are
merely user interfaces that enable “plural application programs 42 to achieve
integrated access to the DOOR 34 with a consistent ‘look and feel’.” See
Tsao 69, 78; App. Br. 9. Tsao’s interfaces do not disclose the claimed
“service interface.” As Tsao’s DOOR “is a standalone part of the whole
system 10,” not a plug-in in any of Tsao’s applications 42, there is “no
service interface or API directly between DOORS and any of the
applications 42.” App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 3; see also Tsao 1 69 (“the DOOR
34 is normally an included part of the data processing system 10, which is
accordingly also designated Data Object Oriented Repository System
(DOORS) 10”).
Thus, we find Tsao does not teach a software plug-in component
configured to interact with a third-party pre-existing host application
program via a service interface, as recited in claim 1. We also find Tsao also
does not teach a “service interface” that enables integration of a plug-in
component within a third-party pre-existing host application program to
enable merging documents or slide presentation documents, as recited in
claims 9 and 15. App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 3, 5.
With respect to claim 1, Appellants also argue Tsao does not teach “a
dashboard button, wherein activating the dashboard button causes metadata
about a first copy of a document to be collected from local and remote
sources and presented in a dashboard area.” App. Br. 5, 11, 13. Particularly,
8
Appeal 2017-010395
Application 13/011,627
Appellants argue “[e]ven though DOORS may display some metadata such
as a filename,... it does not fetch remote metadata ... in response to the
activation of a dashboard button.” App. Br. 13. We concur with Appellants.
The Examiner initially refers to Tsao’s “application switch bar” in
Figure 3 as disclosing “a dashboard and buttons” whereby “[activating one
of the buttons will cause the presentation of a copy of a document and
metadata related to the copy of the document,” where the “[mjetadata
includes a document file name, which is shown in Figure 5.” Non-Final Act.
4 (citing Tsao 1 59, Figs. 3, 5). In the Answer, the Examiner further
explains that “Tsao discloses fetching from local and remote sources”
because “Tsao discloses the system with remote access capabilities in Figure
I at reference sign 32,” and Tsao’s Figure 5 “show[s] metadata that has been
fetched, shown as the file name: ‘CiDataBookl.eio’.” Ans. 5 (citing Tsao
II 178-179, Figs. 1,5).
Tsao’s Figures 3 and 5 are reproduced below with additional markings
for illustration.
LINEAR ARRAY OF PROGRAM ICONS 44
--------------------------------------
Fig. 3 44~'/
Tsao’s Figure 3 shows an application switch bar 44 of program framework
40 of Figure 2, the switch bar including a linear array of program icons 46
for launching respective associated application programs 42. Tsao H 59, 84
9
Appeal 2017-010395
Application 13/011,627
Tsao’s Figure 5 shows a shared application user interface 60 having three
applications simultaneously open (a spreadsheet program 68, a word
processing application 66, and a slide presentation program 67). User
interface 60 also includes a common menu 62, application switch bar 44,
status bar 64, and tool bar 65. Tsao H 61, 95.
We disagree with the Examiner’s position. Tsao’s Figure 3 teaches “a
linear array of program icons 46 for launching respective associated
application programs 42,” not a dashboard button whose activation causes
metadata about a first copy of a document to be collected from local and
remote sources and presented in a dashboard area. See Tsao 1 84, Fig. 3.
Tsao’s Figure 1 merely shows a communication network 30, and Tsao’s
Figure 5 merely shows multiple application windows viewed at the same
10
Appeal 2017-010395
Application 13/011,627
time to allow “viewing simultaneously data in a spreadsheet and as linked to
a word processor while performing menu actions in both applications.” See
Tsao 94—95. As recognized by Appellants, “having a communication
network 30 and a filename on [a] user interface is not the same as
DOORS fetching metadata from remote sources in response to activating
the dashboard button.” App. Br. 11. Tsao’s Figure 5 at most shows
metadata (e.g., a filename of a file) is available locally and is therefore
collected from local sources when the file is accessed and opened by Tsao’s
word processor, but Tsao does not teach a dashboard button causing
metadata that does not exist locally “to be collected from . . . remote sources
and presented in a dashboard area” as claimed. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 4.
Thus, we agree with Appellants that Tsao’s “DOORS does not fetch
metadata from remote sources in response to activation of a dashboard
button.” Reply Br. 4.
Because Tsao does not teach the “service interface” limitations of
independent claims 1, 9, and 15, and the “dashboard button” limitation of
claim 1, we decline to sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims
1, 9, and 15, and their respective dependent claims 2—8, 10-14, and 16—20.
Because the above-discussed issues are dispositive as to the rejections of all
claims on appeal, we do not reach additional issues raised by Appellants’
arguments as to the rejection of claims 1, 9, and 15.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have demonstrated
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
11
Appeal 2017-010395
Application 13/011,627
DECISION
As such, we REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20.
REVERSED
12