Ex Parte Chiculita et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 14, 2018

13752682 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 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.
13/752,682 01/29/2013 Alexandru Chiculita 058083-0851159 5964
(2380US01)
72058 7590 03/16/2018
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Adobe Systems, Inc. 58083
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309-4530
EXAMINER
JUNG, SEUNG WOON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2144
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/16/2018 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):
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
KT S Docketing2 @ kilpatrick. foundationip .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALEXANDRU CHICULITA and ALEXANDRU COSTIN
Appeal 2017-006164
Application 13/752,682
Technology Center 2100
Before THU A. DANG, JUSTIN BUSCH, and JASON M. REPKO
Administrative Patent Judges.
BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—11 and 15—23, which are all the pending claims.1 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 12—14 were canceled.
We reverse.
1 In response to a Notification of Non-Compliant Appeal Brief, mailed
August 12, 2016, which indicated claim 19 included brackets and was not a
“clean” copy of the claims, Appellants filed a corrected Claims Appendix.
Appellants’ replacement Claims Appendix omitted dependent claims 22 and
23. We deem this error harmless because the originally filed Claims
Appendix includes a clean copy of claims 22 and 23 and none of the pending
rejections directly address the limitations additionally recited in claims 22
and 23. Appellants omitted claim 23 from the “Status of Claims” section
identifying which rejections are appealed. Because the Notice of Appeal
states the appeal is from the Examiner’s last decision, we treat the rejection
of all claims as appealed.
Appeal 2017-006164
Application 13/752,682
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ invention relates “generally to computer-implemented
methods and systems [for] in-context editing of websites and other output
presentations via automatic pattern detection.” Spec. 11. In particular, the
system and method identify patterns in web pages corresponding “to
elements in a source file used to generate the web page.” Id. 114. The
system and method can identify patterns independent of any tags or other
delineations of web-page elements indicating correspondence with source
file elements. Id. One exemplary identifiable pattern is “a grid layout for
organizing content.” Id. 116. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent claims.
Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by an editor application executed by a
processing device, an output presentation, the output
presentation generated based on a source element from a source
file;
identifying, by the editor application, a pattern in a visual
presentation of a plurality of output elements as displayed in the
received output presentation, wherein the pattern corresponds to
the source element;
receiving, by the editor application, a modification to an
output element from the plurality of output elements in the
received output presentation;
based on identifying the pattern, determining, by the editor
application, a corresponding modification to the source element
that corresponds to the modification to the output element; and
responsive to receiving the modification to the of the
plurality of output elements, applying, by the editor application,
the corresponding modification to the source element.
2
Appeal 2017-006164
Application 13/752,682
REJECTIONS2
Claims 1, 8, 15, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter. Final Act. 4—6.3
Claims 1—4, 6—11, 15—18, 20, 21, and 23 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Toebes (US 2009/0031225 Al; Jan. 29,
2009). Final Act. 8-15.
Claims 5 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious in view of Toebes and Braud (US 2013/0174019 Al; July 4, 2013).4
Final Act. 16—17.
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious in
view of Toebes, Sharma (US 8,042,036 Bl; Oct. 18, 2011), and Dames
(US 2008/0313532 Al; Dec. 18, 2008). Final Act. 17-19.
ANALYSIS
Claim Construction of Pattern
The Examiner finds the term “pattern” is not well-defined in the
claim. Final Act. 5; Ans. 19 (“the [Specification is silent providing clear
definition of ‘pattern’”). The Examiner also finds Appellants’ Specification
consistently discloses a pattern “as layout elements in a layout file or data
2 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 1, 8, 15, 21, 22, and 23
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph and the rejection of claims 6, 20, and
23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Ans. 2.
3 The Examiner’s rejection also includes claim 13. Final Act. 6—7.
However, Appellants previously canceled claim 13.
4 The Examiner states Braud “has priority date back to 04/04/2003.” Final
Act. 16. Appellants do not dispute Braud’s priority date.
3
Appeal 2017-006164
Application 13/752,682
indicative of a record of a database.” Ans. 19 (citing Spec. Tflf 15—16, 39,
46-47, 52-53, Figs. 3-5).
The Examiner construes the term pattern “as certain output element in
the output presentation that corresponds to certain source element in the data
source or source file as described in” paragraph 14 of Appellants’
Specification. Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 19 (citing Spec. Tflf 14—15).
Appellants argue the Examiner’s construction is unreasonably broad
because nothing in Appellants’ Specification defines pattern as broadly
encompassing “any element in a web page.” App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 4.
Appellants contend the Examiner’s construction is inconsistent with the
plain language of “pattern” as used in the claims and neither Appellants’
Specification nor any other evidence supports the Examiner’s unreasonably
broad construction. Reply Br. 4—5. Appellants argue the Specification
merely describe exemplary patterns that “are ‘indicative of the template file’
or ‘indicative of the data source,’ but never defines the pattern itself as
being a layout element or record in the data source.” Id. at 5. Appellants
argue the Specification “clearly indicates the pattern is a visual arrangement
or interrelationship of output[] elements rather than simply a layout element
or database record.” Id. (citing Spec. 16, 39). Appellants assert no
special definition of “pattern” is needed because it should be ascribed its
plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the
art and there is no evidence to the contrary. Reply Br. 5—6.
We agree with Appellants. The portions of Appellants’ Specification
that the Examiner cites do not rise to the level of a definition; rather, they
merely provide context regarding what types of source elements may
correspond to identified patterns. The Examiner’s basis for construing
4
Appeal 2017-006164
Application 13/752,682
pattern broadly was an interpretation of Appellants’ Specification as
equating the pattern to the source elements, but the Specification merely
indicates that there is a correspondence between the pattern identified in the
visual output and the source elements. Spec. 114 (“The editor application
can identify patterns in the web page that correspond to elements in a source
file used to generate the web page”).
Therefore, we agree with Appellants that pattern should be construed
according to its plain and ordinary meaning. The Examiner states the “literal
meaning,” which we understand to be the what the Examiner views is the
plain and ordinary meaning, of “pattern” “could be ‘a repeated form or
design’ or ‘the regular and repeated way in which something happens or is
done.’” Ans. 5. Appellants suggest that the plain and ordinary meaning of
“pattern” is “a visual arrangement or interrelationship of output[] elements
rather than simply a layout element or database record.” Reply Br. 5.
Moreover, the claim language itself provides context for how a person
of ordinary skill in the art would have understood what is meant by a pattern.
To reiterate, the claims recite “identifying ... a pattern in a visual
presentation of a plurality of output elements as displayed in the received
output presentation, wherein the pattern corresponds to the source element.”
Accordingly, the claim does not recited simply “a pattern,” but a pattern in a
particular displayed visual presentation of multiple output elements. Thus, it
is not merely one source element (or even multiple source elements) because
those elements are not displayed. Given the context of the claim language
and the rest of Appellants’ Specification, we construe the recited “pattern in
a visual presentation of a plurality of output elements as displayed in the
received output presentation” as “an arrangement or interrelationship of
5
Appeal 2017-006164
Application 13/752,682
output elements that make up at least a part of the visual presentation of the
output presentation.”
Rejection of Claims Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, Second Paragraph
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 8, 15, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and claim
the subject matter Appellants’regard as the invention. Final Act. 4—6. In
particular, the Examiner finds the claims recite a correspondence between
one source element and a plurality of output elements and the Specification
lacks sufficient description of the source file and source elements. Id. at 5.
The Examiner also finds the term “pattern” is not well-defined in the claim
and the recited determining a corresponding source element “cannot be done
simply by identifying a pattern in a visual presentation,” as recited in the
claims. Id. The Examiner also finds “it is impossible to relate a pattern to a
source element” as recited “because [the] visual presentation may not have
any information about source element.” Id. at 6.
In response to Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, the
Examiner acknowledges that “the main concern is that the specification
lacks any specific definition of what is meant by source element.” Ans. 23
(quoting App. Br. 12 (internal quotations omitted)). The Examiner finds
“there is a specific requirement that multiple output elements should be
generated by [a] single source element and identifying [a] pattern should []
correspond^ to the single source element.” Ans. 23. The Examiner finds
Appellants’ Specification describes at least three different exemplary source
elements related to identifying a pattern in a visual presentation of a plurality
of output elements where the result of modifying the different element types
would be different. Id. The Examiner further finds a single source element
6
Appeal 2017-006164
Application 13/752,682
does not correspond to the plurality of output elements because it only
describes a single output element. Id. at 23—24. Finally, the Examiner
determines the three examples “may not define metes and bounds of the
single ‘source element.’” Id. at 24.
Appellants argue the Examiner improperly construes “a source
element” to be limited to only a single source element, which is contrary to
the rule that “a” means one ore more. Reply Br. 3 (citing SanDisk Corp. v.
Kingston Tech. Co., Inc., 695 F.3d 1348, 1360-61 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing
Baldwin Graphics Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, 512 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).
Appellants contend their Specification provides sufficient disclosure,
including examples, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have understood what was meant by “source element.” App. Br. 13 (citing
Spec. 19, 23); Reply Br. 2. Appellants argue the fact that the
Specification discloses various types of source elements that may be
modified in different ways depending on the circumstances merely indicates
that “source element” has broad scope, but does not render the term
indefinite. Reply Br. 2—3. Appellants contend the Examiner fails to
sufficiently explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be
able to determine the types of elements that the recited “source elements”
encompass in light of the Specification.
We are persuaded the Examiner erred. During examination of a
patent application, pending claims are given their broadest reasonable
construction consistent with the specification. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393,
1404—05 (CCPA 1969); In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The patent statute requires that a claim “particularly
point[] out and distinctly claim[] the subject matter which the applicant
7
Appeal 2017-006164
Application 13/752,682
regards as [the] invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph; see In re
Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“claims are required to be
cast in clear—as opposed to ambiguous, vague, indefinite—terms”); see also
Ex parte Me Award, Appeal 2015-006416, 2017 WL 3669566, at *5 (PTAB
Aug. 25, 2017) (precedential) (explaining that the USPTO finds a “claim is
indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.”
(quoting Packard, 751 F.3d at 1314)).
The claims recite that the output presentation is “generated based on a
source element from a source file.” Therefore, as Appellants argue, the
claim requires that the output presentation is generated based on at least one
source element, but it does not limit the presentation to be generated based
on only that source element. Similarly, the claims recite that the identified
“pattern corresponds to the source element.” Thus, the claim requires the
pattern to correspond to at least the source element on which generation of
the output presentation is based, but does not limit the correspondence of the
identified pattern to only that source element. Thus, the Examiner’s
indefmiteness conclusion relies on a construction inconsistent with our
construction.
Furthermore, the Examiner’s finding that different types of source
elements would require different types of modifications is related to the
breadth of the claims and does not provide sufficient evidence that a person
of ordinary skill in the art would have found the scope of the claims unclear.
Appellants’ claims are not indefinite merely because there are different types
of source elements encompassed by the claim. In re Gardner, 427 F.2d 786,
788 (CCPA 1970) (“Breadth is not indefmiteness.”).
8
Appeal 2017-006164
Application 13/752,682
For the reasons discussed herein, we agree that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1, 8, 15, and 21 as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.
Rejection of Claims Under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102,103
The Examiner rejects claims 1—4, 6—11, 15—18, 20, 21, and 23 as
anticipated by Toebes. Final Act. 8—15. The Examiner rejects claims 5 and
19 as obvious in view of Toebes and Braud and claim 19 as obvious in view
of Toebes, Sharma, and Dames. Final Act. 16—19. Of particular relevance
to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner finds Toebes’ identification of
dynamic components of a web page discloses the recited identifying a
pattern step. Final Act. 8—9 (citing Toebes Tflf 17—18). As discussed above,
the Examiner “interprets] the pattern as certain output element in the output
presentation that corresponds to certain source element in the data source or
source file as described in” paragraph 14 of Appellants’ Specification. Id.
at 8. Thus, because Toebes’s dynamic components are used to generate
representational web pages, the Examiner finds the dynamic components
disclose the pattern. Id. The Examiner also states that the identifying and
determining steps are “comparable to Toebes’ defining a markup description
of each web page in terms of the logical components that collectively form
the web page, and following the generation of the representational web
page.” Ans. 21—22 (citing Toebes Tflf 26—35, Figs. 4—5).5
5 The Examiner also finds that, similar to Toebes, certain embodiments in
Appellants’ Specification use tags in an edited web page. See Ans. 21
(citing Spec. Tflf 46-47). Appellants’ disclosure of embodiments, however, is
not relevant to whether Toebes discloses the subject matter recited in
Appellants’ claims.
9
Appeal 2017-006164
Application 13/752,682
As discussed above, Appellants argue the Examiner improperly
interprets pattern too broadly. App. Br. 6. Appellants contend Toebes does
not disclose the identifying a pattern step when pattern is properly construed.
Id. Appellants further assert Toebes is fundamentally different because it
uses embedded tags to identify client-side modifications to web pages that
are communicated to the server-side application in order to make changes to
portions of the web page on the server side with the corresponding tags. Id.
at 8—9 (quoting Toebes H 11—12, 17—18, Fig. 1). Thus, Appellants assert
Toebes does not identify “a pattern in a visual presentation of a plurality of
output elements as displayed in the received output presentation, wherein
the pattern corresponds to the source element,” as recited in the claims,
because Toebes’s mechanism (i.e., using a tagged version of a web page)
does not rely on the recited feature of identifying a pattern in the display
output elements. Id. at 9.
Toebes’s cited portions disclose an “Editor Application” that defines
“a markup description of each web page(s) in terms of logical components”
that are used to generate representation web pages. Toebes 117. The
representational web pages incorporate embedded tags that identify each of
the components and allow one to edit the web page regardless of which
editor is used. Id. A representational web page is sent to a client to be
rendered in a client browser so as to emulate the original page. Id. The
embedded tags are used to identify effects that client-side edits may have on
the identified components when communicating commands from the client
to the server. Id. at 18. Paragraphs 26—35 of Toebes provide additional
details.
10
Appeal 2017-006164
Application 13/752,682
Toebes disclose an “Editor Application” that breaks up a web page
into nested logical components and labels each component with an identifier,
including a name and editable attributes. Toebes 126. To identify the
components, Toebes uses at least four “identifying parameters: Child,
Parent, Type, and Content.” Id. The Child and Parent parameters describe
the relationship between components and the Type parameter classifies the
component. Id. 27—29. Examples of Types include “hi” (a first-level
HTML header), “img” (an image), and “DIV” (particular HTML element).
Id. 129, Table 1. For some component types, the Content parameter may
include information; for example, for image components, the Content
parameter may be the location of the image. Id. 129, Table 1.
Toebes also contemplates other methods of defining and identifying
components. Id. 132, Table 11. Toebes uses the defined and identified web­
page components to generate representational web pages that include
embedded tags having the components’ information. Id. 1 33. This allows
the server and client to reference the tags to interpret commands passed
between them when editing the web page. Id. Tflf 33—34. Information
embedded within an edited web page representation can be uploaded to the
server and parsed in order “to recreate the information that server 104 may
use to manage the programmatic representation of the web page.” Id. 134.
Toebes discloses that cascading style sheets (CSS) provide “the visual style
attributes of the web page components [and] the representational web page
uses the structure of the HTML to encode information about the logical
components that make up the web page.” Id. 135.
Although Toebes and Appellants’ recited claims both relate to
updating a server-side web page based on edits made on the client side, we
11
Appeal 2017-006164
Application 13/752,682
see nothing in the sections of Toebes relied upon by the Examiner that
discloses “identifying a pattern in a visual presentation of a plurality of
output elements as displayed in the received output presentation, wherein
the pattern corresponds to the source element,” as recited in the claims. As
discussed above, when properly construed, the recited pattern is “an
arrangement or interrelationship of output elements that make up at least a
part of the visual presentation of the output presentation,” which is more
than simply a single element. We disagree with the Examiner’s finding that
Toebes discloses the recited identifying a pattern because nothing in the
cited sections of Toebes relates to identifying a visual arrangement or
interrelationship of output elements. As Appellants argue, Toebes uses a
tagged version of a web page to identify and track changes. See App. Br. 9.
Because Toebes uses tags to identify elements, Toebes is not dependent on
and, more importantly, does not disclose the identifying a pattern step.
Accordingly, constrained by this record, we are persuaded the
Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1. For similar reasons, we
are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 8 and 15,
which recite commensurate limitations, and claims 2-4, 6, 7, 9—11, 16—18,
20, 21, and 23, which depend from and incorporate the limitations of one of
claims 1, 5, and 15. Similarly, because the Examiner does not rely on
Braud, Sharma, or Dames to cure the identified deficiency in the rejection of
claims 1 and 15, from which claims 5, 19, and 22 ultimately depend, we also
are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 5, 19, and 22 for the
same reasons.
12
Appeal 2017-006164
Application 13/752,682
SUMMARY
On this record and for the reasons discussed above, we do not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 8, 15, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph or the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—11, and 15—23
under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—11 and 15—23.
REVERSED
13