Ex Parte Hadley et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 23, 2017

13608601 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2017)

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.
13/608,601 09/10/2012 Brent L. Hadley B86918 1140US.1 (0031.9) 4824
128836 7590 02/27/2017
Wnmhle Parlvle SanHriHae Rr Rioe T T P
EXAMINER
Attn: IP Docketing
P.O. Box 7037
GARMON, BRIAN
Atlanta, GA 30357-0037 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2017 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):
ipdocketing @ wcsr. com
patentadmin @ B oeing. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRENT L. HADLEY, PATRICK J. EAMES,
STEPHEN P. MILLER, JOSEPH F. FLOYD, and CARRIE A. LAPONZA
Appeal 2016-006836
Application 13/608,6011
Technology Center 2100
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Non-Final
Rejection of claims 1—21, which constitute all of the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). See Ex parte
Lemoine, 46 USPQ2d 1420, 1423 (BPAI 1994) (precedential).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify The Boeing Company as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-006836
Application 13/608,601
THE INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed invention is directed “to panoptic
visualization of documents and, in particular, to panoptic visualization of
documents or their document components in a manner that reflects logical
relationships between the documents/components according to the structure
thereof.” Spec. 1:22—25.
Claim 1, reproduced below with emphases added to identify the
disputed elements, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An apparatus for implementation of a system for panoptic
visualization of a document, the apparatus comprising a
processor and a memory storing executable instructions that in
response to execution by the processor cause the apparatus to
implement at least:
a document parser configured to receive and disassemble
an electronic document into a plurality of constituent pages that
are groupings of media content of the electronic document
between basic breaking points, each page including a unique
identifier and respective media content, the document having a
structure defined according to a particular schema;
a colligater coupled to the document parser and configured
to colligate the pages, including being configured to provide
associated metadata for each page of the plurality, the associated
metadata for each page being according to some metadata
schema and providing structured information identifying a link
between the page and one or more other pages of the plurality,
and including the unique identifier for each of the one or more
other pages, the link establishing a logical relationship between
the respective pages according to the structure of the document;
and
a layout engine configured to generate a layout of pages
of the document, the layout including a panoptic arrangement of
visual representations of the pages of the layout according to the
associated metadata of the respective pages, the associated
metadata for at least one page of the layout including
information identifying one or more links between the respective
2
Appeal 2016-006836
Application 13/608,601
page and one or more other pages of the layout, and including
the unique identifier for each of the respective one or more other
pages of the layout, the visual representations of the pages of the
layout being images of the pages, the image of each page of the
layout including an image of the respective media content of the
page, and
wherein the layout engine is configured to communicate
the layout.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Horvitz et al. US 2004/0267701 A1 Dec. 30, 2004
Petrou et al. US 7,783,644 B1 Aug. 24, 2010
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4—9, 11—16, and 18—21 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Horvitz. Non-Final Act. 3—11.
Claims 3, 10, 17 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Horvitz in view of Petrou. Non-Final Act. 12—14.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we consider
all evidence presented and all arguments actually made by Appellants. We
do not consider arguments that Appellants could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs and we deem any such arguments waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(vii); see also Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI
2010) (precedential).
3
Appeal 2016-006836
Application 13/608,601
We disagree with Appellants’ arguments with respect to claims 1—21,
and we incorporate herein and adopt as our own: (1) the findings and
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken (Non-Final Act. 3—16), and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in
the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ arguments (Ans. 14—18).
We incorporate such findings, reasons, and rebuttals herein by reference
unless otherwise noted. However, we highlight and address specific
findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.2
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Horvitz discloses a
layout engine that uses metadata including “information identifying one or
more links between the respective page and one or more other pages of the
layout, and including the unique identifier for each of the respective one or
more other pages of the layout,” as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 5—8;
Reply Br. 2—6. More specifically, Appellants argue Horvitz merely
discloses metadata that ‘“captures such information as the when and/or how
often different components were created, modified, or accessed,’ or ‘such
information as the time, nature, and duration of accesses [of the documents
or components].”’ App. Br. 6 (quoting Horvitz H 31, 33). Additionally,
Appellants argue the Examiner’s reliance on Figure 1 is misplaced as it
“includes three subcomponent Is and three subcomponent 2s, and therefore
cannot even be considered ‘unique’ numbers.” App. Br. 8; see also Reply
2 Rather than reiterate the entirety of the arguments of Appellants and the
positions of the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Dec. 4, 2015);
the Reply Brief (mailed June 22, 2016); the Non-Final Office Action (mailed
July 7, 2015); and the Examiner's Answer (mailed Apr. 22, 2016) for the
respective details.
4
Appeal 2016-006836
Application 13/608,601
Br. 3. Furthermore, Appellants argue the Examiner erred in determining the
prior art only needed to disclose a link or a unique identifier and not a link
and a unique identifier. App. Br. 6.
The Examiner finds Horvitz discloses all of the elements of the layout
engine recited in claim 1, including the elements relating to the metadata.
Non-Final Act. 5, 15—16; Ans. 14—17. More specifically, the Examiner finds
Horvitz discloses decomposing a file
at “basic breaking points” to create the subdocuments (see
Horvitz, Page 2, Paragraph 21 and Page 3, Paragraph 31 ).
Metadata such as the time, nature, and duration of access of the
documents is captured. This information is used to link the
documents in a “geometric layout” of the documents (see
Horvitz, Page 3, Para. 33). Also see Fig. 1, the data store includes
numbered processed items with numbered subcomponents. In
other words the subcomponents can be identified by the item
number and subcomponent number. The document identifiers
are unique in that the item number and subcomponent number
combination is unique (ITEM l/SUBCOMPONENT_l).
Ans. 15. The Examiner further finds Figure 1 recites unique identifiers:
“Regarding Figure 1, Horvitz discloses unique identifiers in that the files are
given directory names. In other words, ITEM_ l/SUBCOMPONENT_l,
ITEM_1 /SUBCOMPONENT_2, and so on.” Ans. 17.
We are not persuaded by Appellants arguments that the Examiner
erred. Instead, we agree with the Examiner that Horvitz figure 1 discloses
each of the components on the various items is assigned a unique identifier.
For example, item 1 has various components assigned individual numbers
from 1 to X. Horvitz Figure 1. We also agree with the Examiner that the
identifier processed item 1, subcomponent 1 is different from the identifier
processed item 2, subcomponent 1. We, therefore, agree with the Examiner
5
Appeal 2016-006836
Application 13/608,601
that all of the items in the data store 130 have a unique identifier stored in
the metadata. Id.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in
finding Horvitz discloses metadata including links as recited in claim 1.
Reply Br. 4—5. Specifically, although Appellants agree that “Horviz
discloses metadata that captures the time, nature, and duration of accesses of
documents or components,” Appellants argue “Horvitz does not disclose that
the time, nature or duration of access of a document/component links that
document/component to any other document/component, as does the
metadata of the claimed invention.” Id.3
Appellants’ argument was presented for the first time in the reply
brief, and, therefore, has been waived. Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473,
1473—74 (BPAI 2010) (informative opinion) (absent a showing of good
cause, the Board is not required to address an argument newly presented in
the reply brief that could have been presented in the principal brief on
appeal); 37 C.F.R. §41.41 (b)(2) (same). Specifically, although Appellants
included links in the summary of the claim language recited in the Appeal
Brief (App. Br. 6), “[a] statement which merely points out what a claim
recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the
claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii); see also Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d
1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (Because Appellants did not
“present arguments on that particular issue ... the Board will not, as a
3 Appellants also argue the Examiner erred in finding that it would have
been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to sue unique identifiers.
Reply Br. 5. Because we did not rely on that finding in affirming the
rejection, the argument is moot.
6
Appeal 2016-006836
Application 13/608,601
general matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the
rejection.”).
Even if we did consider the argument, we would still not be persuaded
that the Examiner erred in finding Horvitz discloses links.
During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation while reading claim language in light of the specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad, of
Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In construing the
claims, we consult the patent’s specification to help clarity the meaning of
claim terms, because the claims “must be read in view of the specification,
of which they are a part.” Trading Technologies Intern, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc.,
595 F.3d 1340, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Markman v. Westview
Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed.Cir.1995) (en banc), affd, 517 U.S.
370, 116 S. Ct. 1384, 134 F.Ed.2d 577 (1996)). Although we will not read
limitations from the specification into the claims, In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d
1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993), as a general rule, “there is a strong presumption
against a claim construction that excludes a disclosed embodiment.” See In
re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1324 (Fed.
Cir. 2011).
The Specification identifies an example of links being the connection
between the sequences of pages of a common document. Spec. 11:23—27.
Accordingly, we construe the claim term “links” as being broad enough to
include sequence information about the pages of a document.
Horvitz discloses the structure of the document, including the
sequence of the pages, is used to display the document. Horvitz | 31. The
page number sequence is used to display an exploded view of the document.
7
Appeal 2016-006836
Application 13/608,601
Id. 132. Although Horvitz identifies certain captured metadata, such as
time, nature, and duration of access, nothing in Horvitz indicates that is the
only metadata captured. See Horvitz || 31, 33. To the contrary, because the
pages are in shown in sequence, data relating to the proper sequence of
pages (metadata)4 must have been created and used by the layout generator.
See Ans. 15 (Horvitz discloses metadata including information that “is used
to link the documents in a ‘geometric layout.’”).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, along
with the rejection of claims 8 and 15, which are argued on the same grounds
(App. Br. 8), and claims 2, 4—6, 9, 11—14, 16, and 18—21, which are not
argued separately (id. ).
With respect to dependent claims 3,10, and 17, Appellants merely
contend that because the additional reference used in the rejections of these
claims (Petrou) does not cure the shortcomings of Horvitz applied against
the independent claims, the Examiner failed to make a prima facie case of
obviousness for these claims. App. Br. 9. Because we determine that the
rejection of the independent claims is not erroneous for the reasons
discussed above, we sustain the rejection of these claims.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s decisions rejecting
claims 1—21.
4 The Examiner concludes that the broadest reasonable construction of
metadata is data about data. Non-Final Act. 15. We agree.
8
Appeal 2016-006836
Application 13/608,601
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
9