Ex Parte Mansfield et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 27, 2017

13729015 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 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.
13/729,015 12/27/2012 Philip Andrew Mansfield III 337722-349401/P7086USC1 5271
133036 7590 05/01/2017
DLA Piper LLP (US)
2000 University Avenue
East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2215
EXAMINER
MCINTOSH, ANDREW T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/01/2017 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):
ApplePros Admin @ dlapiper.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PHILIP ANDREW MANSFIELD III
and MICHAEL ROBERT LEVY1
Appeal 2017-000093
Application 13/729,015
Technology Center 2100
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 26-47. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART,
1 Appellants indicate the real party-in-interest is Apple Inc. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-000093
Application 13/729,015
BACKGROUND
The disclosed invention relates to a method of defining a structured
document from an unstructured document to allow a user to be able to access
and edit the structured document as if it were produced by word processor or
image-editing application. See Spec. 2, 5.
Representative independent claims 26 and 32, reproduced from the
Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, read as follows (disputed limitations
in italics)'.
26. A non-transitory machine readable medium storing a program
which when executed by at least one processing unit analyzes a
document, the program comprising sets of instructions for:
receiving a document that comprises a plurality of primitive
graphic elements defined separately within the document, the
document having a drawing order that indicates the order in which
the primitive graphic elements are drawn when the document is
displayed;
calculating a first value for a first primitive graphic element
and a second primitive graphic element that is subsequent to the first
primitive graphic element in the drawing order by using bounds of the
first and second primitive graphic elements',
based on a comparison of the first value to other values
calculated for additional primitive graphic elements that are
subsequent in the drawing order, defining a cluster comprising at least
the first and second primitive graphic elements; and
when the bounds of the first and second primitive graphic
elements at least partially overlap, defining a single structural graphic
element within the document from the first and second primitive
graphic elements.
32. A non-transitory machine readable medium storing a program
which when executed by at least one processing unit analyzes a
document, the program comprising sets of instructions for:
receiving a document that comprises a plurality of primitive
graphic elements defined separately within the document;
2
Appeal 2017-000093
Application 13/729,015
based on values calculated for pairs of primitive graphic
elements, defining a set of successive primitive graphic elements as a
candidate compound graphic element;
when bounds of primitive graphic elements in the set of
successive primitive graphic elements at least partially overlap each
other, identifying overlapping primitive graphic elements as subsets of
primitive graphic elements within the set of successive primitive
elements', and
defining each particular subset having more than one primitive
graphic element as a single structural graphic element within the
document, the single structural graphic element comprising the
primitive graphic elements in the particular subset.
PRIOR ART AND REJECTIONS
Claims 32—36 and 42-46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Mansfield et al. (US 2007/0250497, pub. Oct. 25, 2007,
hereafter “Mansfield”). See Final Act. 3—7.
Claims 26—28, 31, 37, 38, 41, and 47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Mansfield and Bagely et al. (US 5,548,700,
iss. Aug. 20, 1996, hereafter “Bagely”). See Final Act. 7—10.
Claims 29, 30, 39, and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mansfield, Bagely, and Berkner et al. (US 2004/0145593,
pub. Jul. 29, 2004, hereafter “Berkner”). See Final Act. 10—11.
ANAFYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments in the Brief and the Examiner’s response in the Answer. We
agree with, and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings with respect to the
rejection of claims 32—36 and 42 46, to the extent the findings are consistent
with our analysis below. However, we agree with Appellants’ arguments
3
Appeal 2017-000093
Application 13/729,015
addressing the rejections of claims 26—31, 37—41, and 47. We highlight and
address specific findings and arguments below for emphasis.
102(b) Rejection of Claims 32—36 and 42—46
The Examiner finds that Mansfield teaches “when bounds of primitive
graphic elements in the set of successive primitive graphic elements at least
partially overlap each other, identifying overlapping primitive graphic
elements as subsets of primitive graphic elements within the set of
successive primitive elements,” as recited in claim 32 and recited similarly
in independent claim 42. See Final Act. 3 (citing Mansfield H 21, 33, 35,
36, 38). In addressing this particular limitation, the Examiner highlights that
Mansfield teaches “identifying groups, merging sub-groups of consecutive
elements, and . . . merging elements with overlapping bounds.” Id. (citing
Mansfield 1121, 33, 35, 36, 38).
Appellants argue that Mansfield does not teach the disputed limitation
set forth above. Specifically, Appellants assert that the Examiner has relied
on two portions of Mansfield, a cluster analysis that focuses on glyph
spacing and a region analysis that groups content elements, but that these are
two separate analyses and “not combined into any sort of single process such
as is claimed.” Br. 11—12, 15 (citing Mansfield H 21, 33, 35, 36, 38).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments because they are not
commensurate in scope with the claim language. Claim 32 recites
“identifying overlapping primitive graphic elements as subsets of primitive
graphic elements within the set of successive primitive elements,” but does
not specifically set forth any claim elements requiring a single process.
The Examiner further finds that Mansfield teaches “defining each
particular subset having more than one primitive graphic element as a single
4
Appeal 2017-000093
Application 13/729,015
structural graphic element within the document, the single structural graphic
element comprising the primitive graphic elements in the particular subset,”
as recited in claim 32, and recited similarly in independent claim 42. See
Final Act. 4. In addressing this limitation, the Examiner highlights that
Mansfield teaches “when previously identified regions overlap, the regions
are merged together into a single region” and “merging text boxes when text
boxes overlap.” Id. (citing Mansfield 36, 37).
Appellants argue that the Examiner relies improperly on Mansfield’s
teaching of merging of text boxes because text boxes are not primitive
graphic elements. See Br. 13, 16. Appellants contend that the merging of
regions through semantic analysis is different from the cluster analysis. See
id. at 13—14, 16—17. Finally, Appellants assert that Mansfield does not
describe “defining each particular subset having more than one primitive
graphic element as a single structural graphic element,” because Mansfield
only teaches merging regions based on region profiles where the region
profiles include a set of rules that permit the merging of regions. See id. at
14, 17.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. In the Answer, the
Examiner reiterates that Mansfield discloses the merging of regions into a
single region and again notes the example of overlapping text boxes being
merged into one. See Am,. 14. The Examiner further explains that text
boxes are composed of words and characters and thus, the merging of text
boxes represents the merging of primitive elements. See id. The Examiner’s
analysis regarding the composition of a text box is unnecessary because
Appellants’ argument that a text box is not a primitive graphic element is
conclusory and does not explain adequately why the broadest reasonable
5
Appeal 2017-000093
Application 13/729,015
interpretation of a primitive graphic element precludes a text box. Hence,
the Examiner did not err in finding in the Final Action that the merging of
overlapping text boxes teaches “defining each particular subset having more
than one primitive graphic element as a single structural graphic element
within the document, the single structural graphic element comprising
primitive graphic elements in a particular subset.” Final Act. 4. Appellants’
additional arguments are directed to the distinction between the clustering
analysis and semantic reconstruction and the rules for merging regions. See
Br. 13—14, 16—17. Because we agree with the Examiner’s finding that
Mansfield’s text box describes a primitive graphic element and that merging
overlapping text boxes describes the disputed limitations, we are not
persuaded by these additional arguments.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claims 32 and 42. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claims 32 and 42, and dependent claims 33—36 and 43 46 not
separately argued. See Br. 10-17.
103(a) Rejections of Claims 26—31, 37-41, and 47
The Examiner finds that Mansfield teaches “calculating a first value
for a first primitive graphic element and a second primitive graphic element
that is subsequent to the first primitive graphic element in the drawing order
by using bounds of the first and second primitive graphic elements,” as
recited in independent claims 26 and 37, by disclosing a cluster analysis
method that groups content elements based on values and spacing
differences. See Final Act. 7 (citing Mansfield ]Hf 24, 25, 33, 35). The cited
disclosures of Mansfield relied upon by the Examiner teach calculating
distance values for document elements and using the calculated distances to
6
Appeal 2017-000093
Application 13/729,015
group elements into words, lines of text, or columns. See Mansfield ]Hf 24,
25, 33,35.
Appellants argue that the combination of Mansfield and Bagely does
not teach the disputed limitation noted above. See Br. 8—9. Specifically,
Appellants argue that Mansfield performs a cluster analysis that calculates
values related to the position of document elements, but does not calculate
any values for graphic elements subsequent in a drawing order. See id.
Appellants’ argument is persuasive of Examiner error. The Examiner
does not direct us to any disclosure in Mansfield that teaches “calculating a
first value for a first primitive graphic element and a second primitive
graphic element that is subsequent to the first primitive graphic element in
the drawing order by using bounds of the first and second primitive
graphic elements,” as recited in claims 26 and 37. The Examiner finds that
“Mansfield further discloses a document such as a PDF document created
from a virtual print driver that includes glyphs and are drawn in an order for
display based on the PDF drawing instructions.” Final Act. 12 (citing
Mansfield 115). The Examiner also finds “Mansfield teaches locations of
elements are identified . . . [i]n some embodiments, the locations of the
elements are organized in an order.” Ans. 17 (citing Mansfield 124). In the
Answer, the Examiner directs us to Mansfield’s disclosure of cluster analysis
that calculates the horizontal spacing of the character elements on the
document and states that “the locations of the elements are organized in an
order.” Id. (citing Mansfield 124).
The Examiner does not explain sufficiently how the aforementioned
examples teach or suggest the drawing order as claimed because neither
example teaches calculating a first value for a first graphic element and a
7
Appeal 2017-000093
Application 13/729,015
second graphic element that is subsequent to the first graphic element in the
drawing order, where the drawing order indicates the order in which the
primitive graphic elements are drawn when the document is displayed, as
required by claim 26. First, Mansfield’s example of a PDF created by a
virtual print driver teaches only that an output PDF contains its text and
other content elements encoded as graphic elements. See Mansfield 115.
The Examiner does not adequately explain how Mansfield teaches how
calculations would be made based on first and second primitive graphics in
any drawing order in the PDF. See Final Act. 12.
Second, as pointed out by Appellants, in Mansfield’s cluster analysis,
primitive graphic elements are not chosen based on the drawing order, but
are instead chosen based on the location of the character elements on the
document. See Br. 20—21. The horizontal spacing differs from the drawing
order described explicitly in claim 26 as “indicating] the order in which the
primitive graphic elements are drawn when the document is displayed.” See
Br. 20-21; see also Spec. 1411 (describing the drawing order). In contrast,
Mansfield’s teaching of horizontal spacing and spacing between elements
would merely indicate where a particular element is located in a document.
See Mansfield 124.
As applied by the Examiner, the teachings of Bagely do not remedy
the aforementioned deficiencies of Mansfield. See Final Act. 8. For these
reasons, we are constrained to reverse the rejection of independent claims 26
and 37 and dependent claims 27—28, 31, 37, 38, 41, and 47 over Mansfield
and Bagely. As applied by the Examiner, the teachings of Bagely and
Berkner do not remedy the aforementioned deficiencies of Mansfield. See
Final Act. 10—11. Accordingly, for the same reasons as those addressing
8
Appeal 2017-000093
Application 13/729,015
claims 26 and 37, we are constrained to reverse the rejection of dependent
claims 29, 30, 39, and 40, over Mansfield, Bagely, and Berkner.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 32—36 and 42-46.
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 26—31, 37-41, and 47.
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).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9