Ex Parte Chao et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 29, 2012

11055744 (B.P.A.I. May. 29, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte HUI CHAO and XIAOFAN LIN
____________

Appeal 2010-001288
Application 11/055,744
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, and
JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-7, 11, 33, and 34. Claims 3, 4, and 12-32 are
withdrawn. The Examiner indicates that claims 8-10 include allowable
subject matter. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2010-001288
Application 11/055,744

2
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants’ invention provides a way to automatically capture the
graphic appearance of an electronic document in a way that is capable of
accommodating variable content. (Spec. 1, ll. 29-31.)1
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed
limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. A machine-implemented method of processing an
electronic document, comprising:
receiving explicit logical blocks extracted from the
electronic document, each of the explicit logical blocks
corresponding to a content region of the electronic document
assigned a respective content style;
determining layout relationships among the explicit
logical blocks;
based on the layout relationships, generating rules
constraining layout variations among implicit logical blocks to
approximate the electronic document in appearance while
accommodating variable content, wherein each of the implicit
logical blocks corresponds to a respective one of the explicit
logical blocks and accommodates variable content having the
content style assigned to the corresponding explicit logical
block; and
storing the rules in a machine-readable medium.

1 We refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”); Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”)
filed September 22, 2009; and Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed April 22,
2009. We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed July 23,
2009.
Appeal 2010-001288
Application 11/055,744

3
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, and 34 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Harrington (US Patent Pub. 2004/0025109).
2. The Examiner rejects claims 5-7 and 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Harrington and Cooperman, (US Patent
No. 5,784,487).
3. The Examiner rejects claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Harrington and Ayers (US Patent No. 6,915,484
B1).

ISSUE
Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellants’
contentions, and the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, we have
determined that the following issue is dispositive in appeal of claims 1, 2, 5-
7, 11, 33, and 34:
Did the Examiner err in finding that Harrington discloses or
would have taught or suggested “generating rules constraining layout
variations among implicit logical blocks to approximate the electronic
document in appearance while accommodating variable content,
wherein each of the implicit logical blocks corresponds to a respective
one of the explicit logical blocks” (claim 1 (emphasis added)) within
the meaning of independent claim 1 and commensurate language in
independent claims 33 and 34?

Appeal 2010-001288
Application 11/055,744

4
ANALYSIS
Anticipation of Claims 1, 2, and 34
Appellants contend that Harrington fails to disclose “generating rules
constraining layout variations among implicit logical blocks based on the
layout relationships determined among the explicit logical blocks extracted
from an electronic document.” (App. Br. 6 (emphasis added).) We agree for
essentially the same reasons argued by Appellants. (Id.; Reply Br. 3.)
In particular, we agree with Appellants that Harrington discloses
receiving user input specifying a document template. (App. Br. 6.) We find,
as explained by Appellants, that Harrington fails to describe any electronic
document from which explicit logical blocks could be extracted. The
Examiner has not established, nor does Harrington appear to disclose, that
the input is extracted from an electronic document, as required by claim 1.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to conclude
that Harrington fails to disclose the recited features of Appellants’ claim 1,
and the rejection of claim 1 fails to establish a prima facie case of
anticipation. Appellants’ independent claim 34 includes a limitation of
commensurate scope. Appellants’ dependent claim 2 depends on and stands
with claim 1. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection
of claims 1, 2, and 34.
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 5-7 and 11
Regarding the § 103 rejection of claims 5-7 and 11, we do not find,
nor has the Examiner established, that Cooperman cures the deficiencies of
Harrington, discussed supra. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s § 103
rejection of dependent claims 5-7 and 11 for the same reasons discussed
supra.
Appeal 2010-001288
Application 11/055,744

5
Obviousness Rejection of Claim 33
Regarding the § 103 rejection of claim 33, we do not find, nor has the
Examiner established, that Ayers cures the deficiencies of Harrington for the
same reasons discussed in Appellants’ Brief. (App. Br. 21.) More
particularly, we do not find that Ayers teaches or suggests generating rules
constraining layout variations among implicit logical blocks based on the
layout relationships determined among explicit logical blocks extracted from
an electronic document. It is our view that the cited portions of Ayers
merely teach resizing the page objects for display. (Id.; Ayers, col. 1, l. 59 –
col. 2, l. 7.) Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of
independent claim 33 for the same reasons discussed supra and in
Appellants’ Brief.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1,
2, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 5-
7, 11, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
We reverse the Examiners’ rejection of claims 1, 2, and 34 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b).
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5-7, 11, and 33 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

REVERSED
Appeal 2010-001288
Application 11/055,744

6

peb