Ex Parte Sheridan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 22, 2018

12623188 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/623, 188 11120/2009
121363 7590 03/26/2018
Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.
(Adobe Systems Incorporated)
Intellectual Property Department
2555 Grand Blvd
Kansas City, MO 64108
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Shawn C. Sheridan
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.
Bl 114/ADBS.209196 5811
EXAMINER
NAZAR, AHAMED I
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2178
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/26/2018 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):
IPDOCKET@SHB.COM
IPRCDKT@SHB.COM
mjjordan@shb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHAWN C. SHERIDAN and MICHAEL A. NINNESS
Appeal2017-008044 1
Application 12/623, 188
Technology Center 2100
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final rejection of claims 1-20, which are all of the pending
claims. See Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Adobe Systems Incorporated is identified as the real party in interest. See
Br. 3.
Appeal2017-008044
Application 12/623, 188
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' disclosure relates to allowing "a user to apply a master
page to a layout such as a page layout and thereby allow the layout to
incorporate graphical elements from the master page." Spec. i-f 16. Claims
1, 9, and 17 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference
(with emphases added):
1. A method comprising:
applying a master page layout template to a first page
layout template, the master page layout template defining at
least one graphical element to be applied to page layout
templates comprising the first page layout template and a
second page layout template, each page layout template of the
page layout templates defining at least one graphical element to
be applied to one or more pages to output the one or more
pages;
receiving transformation instructions for the master page
layout template from an interface presented with the first page
layout template, the transformation instructions executable on
the master page layout template to generate an altered version
of the at least one graphical element of the master page layout
template;
in response to the receiving of the transformation
instructions:
executing the received transformation instructions on the
master page layout template using one or more processors to
generate a transformed version of the master page layout
template that includes the altered version of the at least one
graphical element while retaining an original version of the
master page layout template that is unaltered by the
transformation instructions; and
applying the transformed version of the master page
layout template to the first page layout template such that the
first page layout template is caused to incorporate the altered
version of the at least one graphical element from the
transformed version of the master page layout template in the
interface; and
2
Appeal2017-008044
Application 12/623, 188
applying the original version of the master page layout
template to the second page layout template after the applying
of the transformed version of the master page layout template
to the first page layout template, such that the second page
layout template is caused to incorporate the at least one
graphical element from the original version of the master page
layout template.
The Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1-6 and 10-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Spells (US 7,467,351 Bl; Dec. 16, 2008) and
Collins (US 2006/0265659 Al; Nov. 23, 2006). Final Act. 2.
Claims 8 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Spells, Collins, and Gignac (US 2004/0239982 Al; Dec.
2, 2004). Final Act. 9.
Claims 7, 9, 15, and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Spells, Collins, Gignac, and "Page Control 2.2
Supports CS4, Adds Features," CreativePro.com web page,
http://www.creativepro.com/ article/page-control-22-supports-cs4-adds-
features, published Dec. 17, 2008 (last visited March 2018. Final Act. 10.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the appealed rejections for error based upon the
issues identified by Appellants and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Cf In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
("[I]t has long been the Board's practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the [E]xaminer's rejections"). We are not persuaded the
3
Appeal2017-008044
Application 12/623, 188
Examiner erred, and we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth
by the Examiner to the extent consistent with our analysis below.
Regarding the claimed "executing" step, Appellants argue the
Examiner erred because Spells "specifically states that a new layered master
page is created," and edits made to the new page are not made to the claimed
"layered master page" as asserted in the Final Rejection. Br. 10 (citing
Spells 10:11-31).
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Spells teaches "one copy of
the layered master page may be edited while maintaining the original layered
master page layout," which teaches that the copy is edited "to generate a
transformed version of the master page layout template" as required by the
claim. Ans. 2 (citing Spells 10:29-31). Appellants do not persuade us the
Examiner erred in finding the master page copy and editing instructions of
Spells teach or suggest the recited executing ... transformation instructions.
See Final Act. 4.
Regarding the claimed "receiving" step, Appellants argue Spells
cannot teach or disclose "receiving transformation instructions for the master
page layout template from an interface presented with the first page
layout template" because the editing described in the cited portion "is
specific to the master page" (Br. 11 (citing Spells 7: 15-29)) and Spells
explicitly states "when editing the master page the child page objects are not
seen" (Br. 11 (citing Spells 5:11-12)).
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Spells teaches "the master
page layout may be copied and objects on the copy may be changed" and
"[t]he editing may be implemented by double clicking the master page on
the presenting user interface." Ans. 3 (citing Spells 7: 15-29, 10: 11-31 ).
4
Appeal2017-008044
Application 12/623, 188
Appellants' argument that Spells fails to teach or disclose receiving
instructions for the master page layout template from an interface presented
with the first page layout template is contradicted by Spells' teaching that
"when editing the child page, the layered master page objects are seen."
Spells 5: 12-14. Further, Appellants' arguments are not commensurate in
scope with the claim, in which an interface need only be "presented with the
first page layout template."2 We find Spells teaches or suggests the interface
as claimed. See, e.g., Spells Fig. 1.
Regarding the claimed "applying the transformed version" step,
Appellants argue the Examiner erred, because
Spells does not teach or disclose the new layered master page is
created with any child pages, let alone the same child pages as
the layered master page, the ability for a child page to ever
switch from being a child of one master page to another, or the
ability of a child page to be a child of two master pages
simultaneously (especially where the layered master pages have
the same objects).
Br. 11-12.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that
[i]t is clear that the edited duplicate of the original master page
may be applied to a page such that the page would be a child
page of the master page by inheriting objects from the master
page. Objects being edited on the master page would
automatically be applied to the child page. This is may be the
essence of utilizing a master page to applying a theme and/or
common look and feel to a document of one or more pages.
2 Should there be further prosecution of this application, the Examiner may
wish to consider whether the disclosure contains adequate written
description support for "an interface presented with the first page layout
template." See, for example, Spec. i-f 29 and Fig. 2A.
5
Appeal2017-008044
Application 12/623, 188
Ans. 4 (citing Spells 6:54---61, 7:15-29, and 10:11-31). Appellants have not
provided a meaningful analysis of the disputed claim terms or the cited
specific textual portions of Spells upon which the Examiner relied in the
rejection. That is, Appellants' arguments fail to compare and contrast the
claim limitations with the Examiner's specific findings to show error therein.
See Ans. 3--4 (citing Spells 6:54---61, 7:15-29, and 10:11-31). Nor do
Appellants challenge the Examiner's findings in the Answer. Accordingly,
we are not persuaded of Examiner error.
Regarding the claimed "applying the original version" step,
Appellants argue the Examiner erred, because "Collins describes creating an
exception to inheritance of a property such that the property having an
exception associated with it is not inherited from a parent level." Br. 12
(citing Collins i-f 14). Appellants contend
the proposed combination still would not teach or disclose "the
second page layout template is caused to incorporate the at least
one graphical element from the original version of the master
page layout template." This is because in the proposed
combination, the transformed version of the master page layout
template would still be applied to the child page.
Br. 13.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Collins teaches that the
master page level, layout page level and slide page level and the
utilization of exception to an inherited property between the
three levels such that changes made at made at the slide master
level may be inherited by the layout page level but not by the
slide page level because the slide page may be configured to not
inherit changes made to the layout level.
Ans. 5 (citing Collins i-fi-1 14--16). The Examiner also correctly finds Collins
teaches "that changes to background object at the [slide] master may be
6
Appeal2017-008044
Application 12/623, 188
propagated to the layout level but not to the slide page." Ans. 5 (citing
Collins i-fi-151-53); see also Final Act. 5. Appellants' proposed alternative
combination of Spells and Collins, in which "the transformed version of the
master page layout template would still be applied to the child page," is not
responsive to the Examiner's findings, in which the combination of Spells
and Collins teaches that edits may not propagate to certain pages. See Br.
13; Final Act. 5---6. Appellants do not persuasively show why one of
ordinary skill in the art would not combine the references as found by the
Examiner. "[T]he test [for obviousness] is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combined references teach
or suggest the disputed limitations. See Final Act. 5---6
Appellants additionally argue dependent claims 6 and 13 separately
(see Br. 15), but we are not persuaded of error as Appellants do not persuade
us the combination of references fails to suggest the claim limitations. See
Final Act. 8-9; cf In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir.
1991) ("It is not the function of this court to examine the claims in greater
detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over
the prior art.")
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 6, and
13. We similarly sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 9
and 17 not separately argued with particularity (see Br. 13-14, 17-18), as
well as the rejections of dependent claims 2-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14--16, and 18-
20 which are not separately argued. (see Br. 14--18).
7
Appeal2017-008044
Application 12/623, 188
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8