Ex Parte Makela

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 19, 2010

11109914 - (D) (B.P.A.I. Apr. 19, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MIKKO K. MAKELA
____________

Appeal 2009-014818
Application 11/109,914
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: April 19, 2010
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, THU A. DANG, and JAMES R. HUGHES,
Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).1 We
affirm.

1 Appellant waived attendance at an oral hearing scheduled for April 13,
2010. See Hearing Waiver Confirmation filed Mar. 3, 2010.
Appeal 2009-014818
Application 11/109,914

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention enables users to view content (e.g., web pages)
by optimizing the layout of the content for small screens (e.g., a display for a
mobile telephone). See generally Abstract; Spec. 1-3. Claim 1 is illustrative
with the key disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A method for handling absolute positioning of content in an
optimized layout on a display of an electronic device, comprising:

providing content in an original layout, the content including a
primary element;

identifying a background element within the content;

calculating a model of the content, the calculation including
determining the position of the primary element relative to the position of
the background element;

scaling the background element for use in the optimized layout; and

positioning the primary element in the optimized layout in the same
position relative to the background. element as in the original layout,
wherein the handling of the absolute positioning of the content occurs
automatically, without user input, upon accessing the content.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Amit US 2006/0103667A1 May 18, 2006
(eff. filed Oct. 28, 2004)

Appeal 2009-014818
Application 11/109,914

3
THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Amit. Ans. 3-6.2

CLAIM GROUPING
Appellant argues claims 1-25 together as a group. See App. Br. 7-18.
Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

CONTENTIONS
Regarding representative claim 1, the Examiner finds that Amit
handles absolute positioning of content in an optimized layout as claimed,
but does not explicitly teach that this handing occurs upon accessing the
content. Ans. 3-4; emphasis in original. The Examiner, however, notes that
Amit accesses content by parsing a template file and recreating the template.
Ans. 4, 7, 9. In light of this teaching, the Examiner reasons that
automatically handling absolute positioning of the content would have been
obvious since accessing content via these template reconstruction techniques
is “a necessary precursor to handling the positioning.” Id.; emphasis added.
Alternatively, the Examiner contends that it would have also been
obvious to choose either of two possible solutions: (1) access the content,
then handle positioning; or (2) access the content, perform other processing,

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed February 9,
2009; (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed March 18, 2009; and (3) the Reply
Brief filed May 15, 2009.
Appeal 2009-014818
Application 11/109,914

4
and then handle positioning. Ans. 4. The Examiner reasons that it would
have been obvious to choose handling positioning immediately from these
known options. Id.
Appellant argues that Amit does not teach or suggest handling the
absolute positioning of content automatically, without user input, upon
accessing the content as claimed. According to Appellant, Amit pertains to
a design tool that enables designers to “pre-process” or create content—not
automatically adjust content on a display upon accessing the content as
would be done when an end-user of a mobile device accesses a web page
designed for a full-size browser. App. Br. 10-12.
In this regard, Appellant emphasizes that Amit’s “handling” of
absolute positioning of content would not occur until after the designer (1)
creates the template, and (2) inputs resizing parameters into the template to
arrive at an adapted advertisement or web page. App. Br. 13-15; Reply Br.
3-7. Appellant adds that to the extent that Amit “accesses content,” it is for
the designer’s creating the template—an “access” different from that
claimed when interpreted in light of the Specification. App. Br. 17-18;
Reply Br. 6-7.
The issue before us, then, is as follows:

ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Amit would have taught or suggested handling the absolute positioning
of content in an optimized layout on a display automatically, without user
input, upon accessing the content?

Appeal 2009-014818
Application 11/109,914

5
FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
1. Amit’s system automatically resizes (e.g., shifts and rescales)
layouts of graphical objects in visual media, including layouts of templates,
final pages, sub-pages, and advertisements to preserve the designer’s
creative concept. To this end, Amit relates methods, systems, and computer
readable code for the automated and semi-automated layout (sizing and
positioning) of elements in visual media including graphical layout
elements, including advertisements. Amit, Title; Abstract; ¶¶ 0001, 0018,
0063-67, 0079-87, 0173, 0192; Figs. 2-6.
2. In some embodiments, the layout is performed according to a
specified “dynamic template” or existing advertisement, yet the final result
may have a different size from the specified dynamic template or
advertisement. Amit, ¶ 0173.
3. A “layout template” is data specifying placeholders (location) and
size for which graphical elements (e.g., pictures and text) are to be sized and
placed within a layout frame. Amit, ¶ 0170.
4. A “dynamic layout template” is a template where the actual
graphical elements are placed within a layout frame as specified in a layout
template in conjunction with “resize parameters.” Amit, ¶ 0170.
5. In certain embodiments, the dynamic layout template is defined by
the user or computer program. In other embodiments, the dynamic layout
template is extracted from a final graphic media document (e.g., an
advertisement). Amit, ¶ 0170.

Appeal 2009-014818
Application 11/109,914

6
6. “Resize parameters” enable automatically changing the size and
location of layout elements in graphical design media (e.g., advertisements
or web pages) to automatically adjust the graphical design media to altered
external dimensions. Amit, ¶ 0177.
7. In particular embodiments, the designer can supply a set of
parameters with creative artwork or template to enable automatic layout of
the final advertisement according to the template and dynamic size
requirements. Amit, ¶ 0174.
8. These parameters can be calculated from existing samples of
artwork or templates. Moreover, the process of deriving appropriate
parameters is itself automatable by instructing a computer to characterize
physical properties of graphical motifs, and then use statistical or machine-
learning techniques (e.g., neural networks, expert systems, etc.) to recognize
patterns for recurring motifs. Amit, ¶¶ 0175-76.
9. In some embodiments, the parameters can be calculated
automatically (instead of being entered by a designer) from two or more
variants of the same advertisement. Amit, ¶ 0184.
10. In particular embodiments, the user provides one or more
templates from which a graphical media document is produced. In specific
documents, the content of these templates is electronically stored.
Subsequently, (1) a file is parsed, or (2) data structures representing the
template are recreated. Appropriate transformations are then applied to the
template(s) to produce a graphical media document. Amit, ¶ 0194.
11. “[T]he present invention provides machine readable code for
implementing any of the methods described herein. In some embodiments,
the machine readable code provides user menus for specifying resize
Appeal 2009-014818
Application 11/109,914

7
parameters and/or layout frames sizes [sic] and/or one or more dynamic
and/or static layout templates.” Amit, ¶ 0226.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
During patent examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of the Specification as it would be interpreted by
skilled artisans. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir.
2005) (en banc) (citations omitted). This interpretation, however, must not
import limitations from the Specification into the claims. See id. at 1323
(“[A]lthough the specification often describes very specific embodiments of
the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to
those embodiments. . . . [C]laims may embrace different subject matter than
is illustrated in the specific embodiments in the specification.”) (citations
and internal quotation marks omitted).

ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of representative claim 1 which calls for, in pertinent
part, handling the absolute positioning of content in an optimized layout on a
display automatically, without user input, upon accessing the content.
First, despite Appellant’s contention to the contrary (App. Br. 17-18),
Appellant’s Specification does not define the term “accessing content,” let
alone limit our interpretation of that term to web pages that an end-user
would access via a mobile phone. At best, Appellant’s description of this
content in the cited passages in the Specification (App. Br. 17) is exemplary
and pertains to a preferred embodiment: a finding further bolstered by
Appeal 2009-014818
Application 11/109,914

8
Appellant’s use of the term “e.g.” preceding this “definition.”3 Although we
interpret “accessing content” with its broadest reasonable interpretation in
light of the Specification, Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316, we nonetheless decline
to confine our interpretation of “accessing content” to this preferred
embodiment. To do otherwise would impermissibly import limitations from
the Specification into the claims. See id. at 1323. The Examiner’s point in
this regard (Ans. 9) is well taken.
The Examiner equates this content access with Amit’s ability to
retrieve content of a template by either (1) parsing a stored file, or (2)
recreating the data structures representing the template. Ans. 4, 7, 9; FF 10.
We find no error in this interpretation, particularly since this previously-
stored template content would be recovered (i.e., accessed) for subsequent
transformations to produce a graphical media document. See FF 10.
And Amit at least suggests handling positioning of the content
automatically upon this access. First, Amit is replete with teachings that its
layout procedure (i.e., the sizing and positioning of elements in visual
media) can be automated. See, e.g., FF 1, 5, 8, 9, 11. In one
implementation, the layout is performed according to a specified “dynamic
template,” which specifies the placement of graphical elements within a
layout frame in conjunction with “resize parameters.” FF 2-4.
Notably, not only can the dynamic layout template be defined either
by the user or a computer program—a definition which itself suggests an
automated process—it can also be extracted from a final graphic media

3 See App. Br. 17 (“[T]he specification of the present application is clear that
accessing content is defined as, e.g., a web page that an end-user accesses
via a mobile phone, for example, that is to be rendered immediately and
automatically upon accessing that content.”) (emphases added).
Appeal 2009-014818
Application 11/109,914

9
document, a process which likewise suggests an automated extraction. See
FF 5. Although Appellant’s argument that the dynamic layout template is
“created by a designer” (Reply Br. 4) applies to some embodiments, it
nevertheless does not squarely address this computer-based template design
alternative. Amit’s word choice here is clear and unambiguous: the user or a
computer program can define the dynamic layout template. FF 5.
We reach a similar conclusion regarding Amit’s “resize parameters”
which enable automatically changing the size and location of layout
elements. FF 6. Here again, while the designer can supply these parameters
(FF 7) as Appellant argues (App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 5), they can nonetheless
be determined automatically. That is, these parameters can be automatically
determined by instructing a computer to characterize physical properties of
graphical motifs, and then use statistical or machine-learning techniques
(e.g., neural networks, expert systems, etc.) for pattern recognition. FF 8.
That Amit expressly states that the parameters can be calculated
automatically instead of being entered by a designer (FF 9; emphasis added)
only bolsters this conclusion.
In light of these teachings which contemplate automatic operation, we
find no error in the Examiner’s position that handling absolute positioning of
content in an optimized layout in Amit would occur automatically upon
accessing previously-stored template content (FF 10). Not only does Amit
at least suggest automatically defining the dynamic layout template and its
associated sizing and positioning functions (see FF 1-5) as part of these
“applied transformations” (FF 10), but Amit also automatically determines
the associated resize parameters as well (FF 8-9).
Appeal 2009-014818
Application 11/109,914

10
Lastly, Amit further contemplates this automatic functionality by
stating that machine readable code can be used to implement any of the
described methods (FF 11)—methods which include both accessing and
positioning content as noted above.4
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 1, and claims 2-25 which fall with claim 1.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-25 under § 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-25 is affirmed.

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

4 Although Amit indicates that this machine readable code can provide
user menus to specify the dynamic layout template and resize parameters “in
some embodiments” (Id.), this machine readable code is by no means limited
to these embodiments. Accord FF 11 (limiting the machine readable code’s
providing user menus to the second sentence of ¶ 0226, but not the first).

Appeal 2009-014818
Application 11/109,914

11
pgc

ALSTON & BIRD LLP
BANK OF AMERICA PLAZA
101 SOUTH TRYON STREET, SUITE 4000
CHARLOTTE, NC 28280-4000