Ex Parte Hadley et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 24, 2018

13414940 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/414,940 03/08/2012
128836 7590 10/26/2018
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
Attn: IP Docketing
P.O. Box 7037
Atlanta, GA 30357-0037
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Brent L. Hadley
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
B86918 1030US.l (0008.4) 8217
EXAMINER
GARMON, BRIAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/26/2018 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):
patentadmin@Boeing.com
ipdocketing@wbd-us.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRENT L. HADLEY and PA TRICK J. EAMES
Appeal2018-007770
Application 13/414,940 1
Technology Center 2100
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, SCOTT B. HOW ARD, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOW ARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-22, which constitute all of the claims pending in this
Application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify The Boeing Company as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-007770
Application 13/414,940
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." Spec. 1: 17-19.
Claim 1, reproduced below with the relevant claim limitation
emphasized, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An 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 panoptic visualization document collection system
compnsmg:
a document parser configured to receive and disassemble
one or more electronic documents into a plurality of constituent
document components each of which includes respective media
content, the documents being disassembled according to a
predetermined type of the documents;
a colligater coupled to the document parser and
configured to colligate the document components, including for
each of one or more document components of the plurality, the
colligater being configured to:
identify one or more links between the document
component and one or more other document components
of the plurality, the one or more links being identified
according to one or more of the documents, type of
documents, or media content of the document component
and one or more other document components; and in
metadata according to some metadata schema and
associated with the document component,
provide structured information identifying the one
or more links between the document component and one
or more other document components that establish one or
more logical relationships therebetween,
2
Appeal2018-007770
Application 13/414,940
wherein the colligater is further configured to
communicate the document components and metadata as a
panoptic visualization document collection; and
a page storage and a metadata storage configured to
receive and store the document components and metadata,
respectively;
a panoptic visualization document layout system
configured to identify a subset of the document components
from the page storage based on the metadata in the metadata
storage, and generate a layout including a panoptic
arrangement of images of document components including the
subset of the document components according to the metadata
associated therewith, the panoptic arrangement being two-
dimensional and the one or more logical relationships being
expressed in the panoptic arrangement by a difference in size or
depth of at least some of the images relative to others of the
images, the images of document components including images
of the respective media content thereof; and
a panoptic visualization document navigation system
configured to select one or more navigation options according
to the metadata associated with the subset of the document
components, and communicate the one or more navigation
options to a graphical user interface for presentation to a user
along with the layout, the one or more navigation options
thereby being selectable by the user to request an adjustment of
the layout.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Horvitz
Boose
Davis
Barrus
Gerhard
US 2004/0267701 Al
US 7,246,328 B2
US 2008/0247636 Al
US 7,562,302 Bl
US 2009/0317020 Al
3
Dec. 30, 2004
July 1 7, 2007
Oct. 9, 2008
July 14, 2009
Dec. 24, 2009
Appeal2018-007770
Application 13/414,940
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-6 and 8-222 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Horvitz in view of Boose, Davis, and
Barrus. Final Act. 2-35.
Claim 7 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Horvitz in view of Boose, Davis, Barrus, 3 and Gerhard.
Final Act. 35.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this Decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants.
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments regarding the pending claims
that the Examiner erred.
The Examiner finds Davis teaches
a panoptic visualization document layout system configured to
identify a subset of the document components from the page
storage based on the metadata in the metadata storage, and
generate a layout including a panoptic arrangement of images
2 The heading of the Office Action identifies claims 1---6, 8-13, 15-20, and
22. Final Act. 2. However, the body of the rejection includes claims 14 and
22 (see id. at 30-31, 34--35) and Appellants address those claims in the
Appeal Brief (see App. Br. 6), we treat this as a harmless typographical
error.
3 Although the heading in the Final Action omits Barrus (Final Act. 35), this
appears to be a typographical error. Because claim 7 depends from claim 1,
the rejection must be based, at least, on all of the references used in rejecting
claim 1. In light of the disposition of this appeal, this typographical error is
harmless.
4
Appeal2018-007770
Application 13/414,940
of content components including the subset of the document
components according to the metadata associated therewith,
as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 7-8 (emphasis omitted); Adv. Act. 2;
Ans. 35-36. Specifically, the Examiner finds Davis teaches this limitation
because "Davis discloses metadata that is used to generate a layout of
components." Final Act. 8 (citing Davis ,r,r 17, 56); see also Ans. 36 (citing
Davis ,r 19). The Examiner further finds that because "Davis discloses a
layout based on 'metadata,' ... the data is used to generate a layout of the
components." Adv. Act. 2. The Examiner further concludes that "metadata
is 'data about data."' Ans. 36.
Appellants argue that although Davis displays images, Davis does not
teach that the images are identified based on metadata:
In paragraph [0017], Davis discloses an operator []examining,
manipulating or otherwise evaluating one or more two-
dimensional (2D) and/or three-dimensional (3D) views of a
virtual object. In paragraph [0056], Davis discloses providing
2D inspection images sufficient in number to provide full
coverage of the virtual object being inspected. Davis does not
in paragraph [0017] or [0056] disclose that the views /
inspection images are identified from page storage based on
metadata in metadata storage, as is the subset of the document
components identified for generation of the claimed layout.
Other than providing full coverage of the virtual object being
inspected, Davis is completely silent on the views / inspection
images being identified based on metadata in metadata storage.
App. Br. 7. Appellants further argue that although paragraph 17 has the
word "metadata," "[i]n this sentence, Davis clearly discloses that its 2D/3D
view precedes markup of an identified location of interest (2D/3D view ----+
markup of location of interest). In the claimed invention, on the other hand,
metadata is used in the first place to generate the layout (metadata----+
layout)." Id.
5
Appeal2018-007770
Application 13/414,940
Appellants also argue that although they agree with the Examiner's
claim construction, "[ t ]he Examiner provides absolutely no explanation for
the finding" that "Davis discloses 2D image files of the object [and the] 2D
image files are image files connected or identified based on metadata since
metadata must be present to link, combine, or relate the files." Reply Br. 3
(emphasis omitted) (quoting Ans. 36).
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments that, based on the current
record, the Examiner erred. The cited sections of Davis teach displaying an
image and, after the image is displayed, identifying a location of interest
with a markup, such as metadata. See Davis ,r 17. Moreover, none of the
sections cited by the Examiner discuss how the image is generated, let alone
the use of metadata in selecting a subset of document components for
display based on metadata. See id. ,r,r 17, 19, 56. Therefore, we agree with
Appellants that the Examiner's finding that Davis teaches the disputed
limitation is in error because it is not supported by a preponderance of the
evidence. See In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
(Examiner's burden of proving non-patentability is by a preponderance of
the evidence); see also In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967)
("The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its
rejection. It may not, because it may doubt that the invention is patentable,
resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to
supply deficiencies in its factual basis.").
Accordingly, we are constrained on this record to reverse the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1, along with the rejections of claims 8 and
15, which recite limitations commensurate in scope to the disputed
limitations discussed above, and dependent claims 2-6, 9-14, and 16-22.
6
Appeal2018-007770
Application 13/414,940
Moreover, because the Examiner has not shown that Gerhard cures
the foregoing deficiencies regarding the rejection of the independent claims,
we will not sustain the obviousness rejection of dependent claim 7 (Final
Act. 35) for similar reasons.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's decisions rejecting
claims 1-22.
REVERSED
7