Ex Parte Wetmore

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2018

12180807 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/180,807 07/28/2008
78537 7590 03/29/2018
Cantor Colburn LLP - Fox Entertainment Group
20 Church Street
22nd Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Robert Evans Wetmore
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.
FEG0426US 1772
EXAMINER
STORK, KYLER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2144
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2018 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):
usptopatentmail @cantorcolburn.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT EVANS WETMORE
Appeal2017-009184
Application 12/180,807
Technology Center 2100
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant 1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-18, the only claims pending in the patent
application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Fox Digital
Enterprises, Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-009184
Application 12/180,807
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's Invention
Appellant's invention generally relates to a method for media
subtitling. Spec. i-f 4. An understanding of the invention can be derived
from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which reads as follows:
1. A method for generating media subtitling, comprising:
configuring a web based interface with document
subtitling content in a first language along with appropriate
synchronization information with respect to the media, wherein
said synchronization information comprises, for each of plural
subtitling text portions: a count start; a count end; and text
content;
subsequent to creation and/or upload of at least a portion
of the subtitling content, providing access to such content by
personnel in different locations via the web interface; and
based on such content, permitting such personnel to
create foreign or alternative subtitling versions for each of said
plural subtitling text portions according to said count start,
count end and text content.
App. Br. 25.
Rejections on Appeal
RI Claims 1--4, 6-11, 13, and 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Lakritz
(US 6,623,529 Bl; issued Sept. 23, 2003), Wan et al. (US 2007/0189724
Al; published Aug. 16, 2007) ("Wan"), and Jung et al. (US 2005/0191035
Al; published Sept. 1, 2005) ("Jung"). Final Act. 2-7.
R2 Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Lakritz, Wan, Jung, and Walker et al.
(US 2002/0065848 Al; published May 30, 2002) ("Walker"). Final Act. 7.
2
Appeal2017-009184
Application 12/180,807
R3 Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Lakritz, Wan, Jung, and Ross (US
5,929,854; issued July 27, 1999). Final Act. 7-8.
R4 Claims 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Lakritz, Wan, Jung, and McKoen et al.
(US 2008/0281592 Al; published Nov. 13, 2008) ("McKoen"). Final
Act. 8-9.
ANALYSIS
RI
CLAIM 1
Appellant contends the combination of Lakritz, Wan, and Jung does
not teach or suggest "configuring a web based interface with document
subtitling content in a first language along with appropriate synchronization
information with respect to the media, wherein said synchronization
information comprises, for each of plural subtitling text portions: a count
start; a count end; and text content" and "based on such content, permitting
such personnel to create foreign or alternative subtitling versions for each of
said plural subtitling text portions according to said count start, count end
and text content," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 5-15; Reply Br. 2--4.
Appellant argues:
Lakritz simply relates to translation of a webpage for
visitors, the translation being in a language detected for the
visitor. As such, Lakritz simply provides content, followed by
translation of that content into another language. There is no
translation of content referring to media (there is no media at all)
in Lakritz, nor is there synchronization information correlating
3
Appeal2017-009184
Application 12/180,807
the subtitling content to the media. These limitations (or any
corresponding equivalent limitations) are entirely lacking.
Wan is simply a computerized translation service for
subtitles (e.g., simply using OCR) during playback of a title in a
given language. In no way does Wan make up for the
deficiencies of Lakritz, as has been described above.
App. Br. 8. Appellant further argues:
At best, Jung only teaches or suggests a single composed
text line of in a single, arranged subtitle stream. Further, as we
have already noted, Lakritz only teaches translation of a webpage
for visitors; and Wan only teaches use of OCR for on-the spot
translation of subtitles during playback. None of the references
teach or suggest the claimed subtitling web interface with the
claimed subtitling text fields, including count start, count end and
(first language) text content, as well as "foreign or alternative
subtitling versions" according to all of the count start, count end
and (first language) text content (thus providing two text content
portions, with the second created based on the initial).
App. Br. 14.
We find Appellant's contention unpersuasive. Appellant's arguments
do not address the actual reasoning of the Examiner's rejection. Instead,
Appellant attacks the references singly for lacking teachings that the
Examiner relied on a combination of references to show. One cannot show
non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections
are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425-26 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986). Here, the Examiner finds Lakritz teaches configuring a web based
interface with document content in a first language along with appropriate
synchronization information with respect to the media. Final Act. 2 (citing
Lakritz 5: 10-18). The Examiner finds Lakritz further teaches, subsequent to
creation and/or upload of at least a portion of the content, providing access
4
Appeal2017-009184
Application 12/180,807
to the content by personnel in different locations via a web interface and that
this permits the personnel to create foreign or alternative content versions
based on the content. Final Act. 3 (citing Lakritz 10:27-33; 12:48-54). The
Examiner finds Wan teaches translating subtitle content. Final Act. 3 (citing
Wan, Fig. 2). The Examiner finds Jung teaches synchronization information
for a subtitle system that includes a count start, a count end, and a text
content. Final Act. 3 (citing Jung, Figs. 20-21; i-fi-18-13); Ans. 9. Based on
these findings, the Examiner finds the combination of Lakritz, Wan, and
Jung teaches or suggests the disputed limitations. Final Act. 3; Ans. 10.
Appellant's arguments do not address the combined teachings of the
references and, therefore, are unpersuasive of error. The Examiner's
findings are reasonable because the skilled artisan "[would] be able to fit the
teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle" since the
skilled artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR
Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420, 421 (2007). Appellant does not
present evidence persuasive to show that the resulting arrangement was
"uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" or
"represented an unobvious step over the prior art." See Leapfrog Enters.,
Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR,
550 U.S. 398 at 419-20).
Appellant's arguments that to satisfy the disputed limitations, "the text
field must have alternative subtitling versions therein, for each of a plurality
of count-start to count-end subtitling portions" and that modifying the
teachings of Lakritz with the teachings of Jung "would not result in a text
field with two entries (one of which being a foreign or alternative subtitling
version in addition to the first version), but instead would only result in
5
Appeal2017-009184
Application 12/180,807
wholesale translation of the entire web interface" (Reply Br. 3--4 (citing
Spec., Fig. 1)), are unpersuasive because they are not commensurate with the
scope of the claim. Claim 1 does not require that the foreign or alternative
subtitling versions are included in the subtitle content. Instead, claim 1
merely requires that the personnel are "permit[ ed] ... to create" the foreign
or alternative subtitling versions for each of the plural subtitling text
portions.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
finding the combination of Lakritz, Wan, and Jung teaches or suggests the
disputed limitations.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1; and independent claim 17, which recites similar limitations and is
not argued separately with particularity. See App. Br. 17-18.
CLAIMS 2 AND 4
Appellant contends the combination of Lakritz, Wan, and Jung fails to
teach or suggest "wherein once any desired alternative versions are
generated, the web document(s) are converted into a final display format," as
recited in claim 2 2 and "wherein the document content is created locally and
uploaded to the interface," as recited in claim 4. App. Br. 15. Appellant
argues
while Lakritz may describe conversion of "a document" to a
final format and local creation of "a document" followed by
upload to a web interface, it only does so in a generic sense, and
not at all as it relates to "the document", including all of the
2 In the event of further prosecution of the application, the Examiner may
wish to consider whether claim 2 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, as it
lacks antecedent basis for "the web document(s)."
6
Appeal2017-009184
Application 12/180,807
claimed fields and plural, alternate subtitle content described by
independent claim 1.
Id. (citing Lakritz 11 :52---60) (internal citations omitted).
One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
See In re Keller, 642 F .2d at 425-26. As discussed supra, the Examiner
relies upon the combined teachings of Lakritz, Wan, and Jung for teaching
or suggesting the claimed "document." Appellant's argument fails to
address the Examiner's findings regarding the combined teachings of the
references and, therefore, is unpersuasive of error.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 2 and 4.
CLAIM3
Appellant contends the combination of Lakritz, Wan, and Jung fails to
teach or suggest "wherein the document content is created via the web
interface," as recited in claim 3. App. Br. 15. Appellant argues "[w]hile
Lakritz does generally describe creation of a document via a web interface,
it does not describe creation of a document including all of the claimed
fields and plural, alternate subtitle content described by independent claim
1." Id.
Appellant's arguments are similar to the arguments presented
regarding the patentability of claims 2 and 4. Accordingly, we are
unpersuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 3 for the reasons
discussed supra with respect to claims 2 and 4.
7
Appeal2017-009184
Application 12/180,807
CLAIM6
Claim 6 recites "wherein versions or changes made by a user
accessing the interface are shared amongst any or all other users." The
Examiner finds Lakritz teaches or suggests the limitations recited in claim 6.
Final Act. 4 (citing Lakritz, Fig. 7; 9:44--57). In particular, the Examiner
finds "Lakritz discloses a plurality of users (translators) anywhere in the
world linked through the workflow pipeline to create a translated version of
a webpage" and Lakritz teaches that "[t]he manager's console provides
management and reporting status for this translation." Ans. 13 (citing
Lakritz 10:5-13, 12:48-54).
Appellant contends the combination of Lakritz, Wan, and Jung fails to
teach or suggest the limitations recited in claim 6. App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 4.
Appellant argues Lakritz "merely refers to detection of an update by a
Manager's Console, followed by a one-touch translation followed by routing
to 'individual Translation Resources"' and Lakritz's teaching regarding
detection of an update by a Manager's Console "is just description of
individual system resources and document queues, not plural users having
access to versions or changes made to the document, as in independent claim
1." App. Br. 15. Appellant argues "Lakritz only describes single routing of
a document for translation" and the Examiner's finding that Lakritz teaches
a plurality of users (translators) located anywhere in the world fails to show
Lakritz teaches or suggests the limitations recited in claim 6 because "this is
not a configuration that 'provid[ es] access to such content by personnel in
different locations ... ' or creation of foreign or alternative subtitling by such
personnel" but, instead "is simple routing of the document to a single entity
(from a choice of many)." Reply Br. 4.
8
Appeal2017-009184
Application 12/180,807
We do not find Appellant's arguments persuasive. Lakritz teaches
that the Manager's Console "automatically notifies the Web site manager of
the document translation completion and coordinates the delivery of the
translated documents back to the Web site for installation and optional
review." Lakritz 10:7-10. Lakritz further teaches "[t]he Web site manager
can directly install the translated documents back onto the active are of the
Web site at the click of a button, or can make them available for internal
review within the organization." Lakritz 10: 10-13. Because Lakritz teaches
that the Web site manager can make the translated documents available for
internal review within the organization, Lakritz teaches or suggests that the
translated documents are shared amongst the Web site manager and any
users performing an internal review within the organization (e.g., any or all
other users).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 6.
CLAIM7
Claim 7 recites "wherein the web interface is utilized by a first user to
generate the first content in a first language, and the web interface is
configured such that additional users can immediately access the content and
begin constructing alternative subtitling content or translations. " 3 The
Examiner finds Lakritz teaches "the document is created/modified in a first
language" and "[t]he workflow component is used to create and enable
3 We treat "the first content in a first language" as a typographical error
requiring correction, and read the phrase as "the document subtitling content
in the first language". Otherwise, claim 7 would be indefinite as it lacks
antecedent basis for "the first content in a first language."
9
Appeal2017-009184
Application 12/180,807
translation to alternative translations," Lakritz teaches or suggests the
limitations recited in claim 7. Final Act. 4 (citing Lakritz 10 :40-46); see
also Ans. 13.
Appellant contends the combination of Lakritz, Wan, and Jung fails to
teach or suggest the limitations recited in claim 7. App. Br. 15-16; Reply
Br. 4. According to Appellant, Lakritz teaches a process relating to "receipt
of a document to be translated in a 'Translation Queue 804 ', with subsequent
analysis of project requirements and subsequent scheduling and manager
review and validation" and this process "is simply a process for scheduling a
job, and does not at all equate to generation of content in a first language,
with additional users able to immediately access and begin constructing
alternative subtitling content or translations," as required by claim 7. App.
Br. 15-16 (citing Lakritz 10:40-65).
We do not find Appellant's arguments persuasive. Lakritz teaches
that the Developer module "enables the Web site developer to build a single
'master' site which is subsequently displayed in any number of languages."
Lakritz 5: 1-3. As such, we agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 4) that
Lakritz teaches or suggests that the web interface is utilized by a first user
(e.g., the Web site developer) to generate the first content in a first language,
as required by claim 7. Lakritz further teaches that the Manager's Console
"provides 'one-touch' translation, whereby at the click of a button,
documents from any source requiring translation are converted to the
internal format 703, staged down the Workflow Pipeline 704 then
dynamically routed and sequenced to the individual Translation Resources
where the actual translation is performed." Lakritz 9:48-53. Lakritz teaches
that the Translation Resources may be human translators. Lakritz 12:35-38.
10
Appeal2017-009184
Application 12/180,807
We agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 4), therefore, that Lakritz teaches or
suggests that the web interface is configured such that additional users (e.g.,
human translators) can immediately access the content and begin
constructing alternative subtitling content or translations, as also required by
claim 7.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 7.
CLAIM 8
Claim 8 recites "wherein a tracking mechanism is used to keep track
of who made changes, what the changes were, and when such changes were
made." Regarding claim 8, the Examiner finds:
Lakritz fails to specifically disclose a tracking mechanism used
to keep track of who made changes, what changes were made,
and when such changes were made. However, the examiner
takes official notice that a tracking mechanism used to keep track
of who made changes, what changes were made, and when such
changes were made was notoriously well known in the art at the
time of the applicant's invention. Commercial products such as
Microsoft® Word® discloses a module for [tracking] changes
and thereby allowing users to view and store metadata relating to
changes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the applicant's invention to have combined
the well known with Lakritz, since it would have allowed a user
to maintain metadata relating to changes within a document.
Final Act. 4--5.
Appellant contends the combination of Lakritz, Wan, and Jung fails to
teach or suggest the limitations recited in claim 8. App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 4.
According to Appellant, Lakritz teaches "creat[ing] language-independent
11
Appeal2017-009184
Application 12/180,807
templates and translat[ing] web pages completely and automatically based
on detected visitor parameters." App. Br. 16. Appellant argues:
This is not at all the same as plural users collectively altering a
single document with plural related subtitle text content
information, all tied to individual count start and count end
subtitle fields. In such a system, complete tracking of all changes
and all input by users becomes particularly advantageous when
considering that the final document will not be a single wholesale
translation of one document (as in Lakritz), but instead reflects
the work and input of different users over time adding to (rather
than replacing) content.
App. Br. 16.
We do not find Appellant's arguments persuasive. Appellant's
arguments fail to persuasively show that the noticed fact (i.e., "that a
tracking mechanism used to keep track of who made changes, what changes
were made, and when such changes were made was notoriously well known
in the art at the time of the applicant's invention") is not considered to be
common knowledge or well-known in the art. In particular, Appellant has
not specifically pointed out the supposed errors in the Examiner's taking of
Official Notice, "includ[ing] stating why the noticed fact is not considered to
be common knowledge or well-known in the art. See 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.111 (b ). "
See generally Ans. An adequate traversal must contain adequate
information or argument to create on its face a reasonable doubt regarding
the circumstances justifying the Examiner's notice of what is well known to
one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boon, 439 F.2d 724, 728 (CCPA
1971 ). Here, Appellant has not set forth persuasive information or
arguments as to why the officially noticed facts were not well-known; rather,
Appellant argues Lakritz does not teach the limitation. App. Br. 16. As
12
Appeal2017-009184
Application 12/180,807
such, Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive to traverse the Examiner's
finding.
To the extent that Appellant's arguments can be interpreted arguing
that the rejection is improper because the combination of Lakritz, Wan, and
Jung fails to teach or suggest the limitations recited in claim 1, we find these
arguments unpersuasive for the reasons discussed supra with respect to
claim 1.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 8.
CLAIM9
Appellant contends the combination of Lakritz, Wan, and Jung fails to
teach or suggest "wherein [a]lso, for the first or original content version, a
notification system is configured to notify secondary users of changes made
to the original document content so that such secondary users might adjust
their version accordingly," as recited in claim 9. 4 App. Br. 16. Appellant
argues "Lakritz may monitor for changes via an automatic system, but then
only notifies a web site manager, allowing for automatic translation via the
'Workflow Pipeline"' and "[t]his does not equate to notification of
secondary users, as is claimed in the context of claims 1, 8 and 9." Id.
(citing Lakritz 9:44--57) (internal citation omitted).
We do not find Appellant's argument persuasive. The Examiner
finds, and we agree:
4 In the event of further prosecution of the application, the Examiner may
wish to consider whether claim 9 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, as it
lacks antecedent basis for "the first or original content version" and "the
original document content."
13
Appeal2017-009184
Application 12/180,807
Lakritz discloses rece1vmg an update to a master language
document (column 9, lines 44-45). This triggers a notification to
a website manager indicating the other language documents
requiring translation (column 9, lines 45-46). The website
manager console allows for routing these documents to a
translation resource (column 9, lines 47-53). These translation
resources include, machine translation systems, translation
memory systems, human translators, and terminology
management systems (column 12, lines 35-40). The human
translators may provide translation services, based upon the
notification and addition of the document to the queue (column
12, lines 48-53).
Ans. 15. Appellant's argument fails to explain why Lakritz's updating
process fails to teach or suggest that the system is configured to notify the
translation resources (e.g., secondary users) of changes made to the original
document content, as required by claim 9, and, therefore, is unpersuasive of
error. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) ("The arguments shall explain why the
examiner erred as to each ground of rejection contested by [A ]ppellant")
(emphasis added).
CLAIMS 10 AND 11
Appellant's arguments regarding claims 10 and 11 are similar to the
arguments presented regarding the patentability of claim 8. See App.
Br. 16-17. Accordingly, we find Appellant's arguments unpersuasive for
reasons similar to the reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 8.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 10 and 11.
14
Appeal2017-009184
Application 12/180,807
CLAIM 13
Appellant contends the combination of Lakritz, Wan, and Jung fails to
teach or suggest "wherein the web interface provides users access to the
media itself to assist users in formulating the best translations or alternative
content taking into account syllabic efficiency differences between
languages," as recited in claim 13. App. Br. 17. Appellant argues Lakritz's
teaching of providing users access to the media itself to assist users in
formulating the best translations does not teach or suggest the limitations
recited in claim 13 because:
[T]his is simply an automated list for translating a web page
completely into a different language (using a priority tree based
on visitor parameters). This does not describe plural users, nor
does it describe a media that is separate from what is being
translated. In independent claim 1, the first line of the already
present "Text" column is the material being translated (into a row
below it). In dependent claim 13, a separate media (e.g., a film)
is provided in addition to the text to be translated. Lakritz does
not provide plural separate documents assisting m any
translation, but instead only automatically translates a single
document.
App. Br. 17 (citing Lakritz 5:50-6:20).
We do not find Appellant's arguments persuasive. Lakritz teaches
"[t]he Workflow Pipeline is a transport layer that delivers documents and
their constituent or dependent components requiring translation to the
Translation Resources where the actual work is performed." Lakritz 11: 17-
20. Lakritz, therefore, teaches or suggests that the Translation Resources
(e.g., users) are provided access to the document (e.g., media) itself to assist
the Translation Resources in formulating the best translations for the
constituent or dependent components of the document.
15
Appeal2017-009184
Application 12/180,807
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 13.
CLAIM 16
Appellant contends the combination of Lakritz, Wan, and Jung fails to
teach or suggest "wherein said text field contains the first language along
with one or more text content related to said one or more foreign or
alternative subtitling versions," as recited in claim 16. App. Br. 17.
Appellant argues "Lakritz is simply an automatic, wholesale translation of a
single document (web page)" and "does not relate to plural languages
provided in the same text field at all, much less to subtitling fields including
count start, count end and text (with the text field itself including an original
AND a translation/alternate subtitle)." App. Br. 17 (citing Lakritz 10:40-
65).
Appellant's arguments are similar to the arguments presented
regarding the patentability of claim 1. Accordingly, we find Appellant's
arguments unpersuasive for the reasons discussed supra with respect to
claim 1.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 16.
CLAIM 18
Appellant contends the combination of Lakritz, Wan, and Jung fails to
teach or suggest "wherein said subtitling content and synchronization
material is organized in chart form according to count start and count end
positions within the media," as recited in claim 18. App. Br. 18-19.
16
Appeal2017-009184
Application 12/180,807
Appellant argues Figures 20 and 21 of Jung "simply illustrate detail of an
already composed subtitling stream along a time axis" and "a system flow
chart for processing of data, with no reference to an actual chart form," as
required by claim 18. App. Br. 19.
We do not find Appellant's arguments persuasive. The Examiner
relies on the combined teachings of Lakritz, Wan, and Jung for teaching or
suggesting the limitations recited in claim 18. See Ans. 18-19. Appellant's
arguments fails to address the combined teachings of the references and,
therefore, are unpersuasive of error.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 18.
R2
CLAIMS
Appellant contends the combination of Lakritz, Wan, Jung, and
Walker fails to teach or suggest "wherein the web interface is configured to
permit multiple persons to be working on the same or different parts of the
contents simultaneously," as recited in claim 5. App. Br. 19-20. Appellant
argues Walker "simply describes 'simultaneous editing of a document by
two or more distinct users'" and
While we do not contest that the ability to have plural users
simultaneously edit a document was known in the prior art, it was
not known in the context of the present invention described by
independent claim 1, with the claimed subtitling web interface
with the claimed subtitling text fields, including count start,
count end and (first language) text content, as well as "foreign or
alternative subtitling versions" according to all of the count start,
count end and (first language) text content (thus providing two
17
Appeal2017-009184
Application 12/180,807
text content portions, with the second created based on the
initial).
App. Br. 20 (citing Walker i-f 11).
Appellant's arguments do not persuade us the Examiner's articulation
of why it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Walker with
the teachings of Lakritz, Wan, and Jung as was in error and, therefore, are
unpersuasive of error. See 37 CPR§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 5.
R3
CLAIM 12
Appellant contends the combination of Lakritz, Wan, Jung, and
Walker fails to teach or suggest "wherein the web interface shows various
frames corresponding to different versions and/ or synchronization data on
the same interface," as recited in claim 12. App. Br. 20-21. Appellant
argues Lakritz fails to teach or suggest a web interface showing various
frames corresponding to different versions and/ or synchronization data on
the same interface, as required by claim 12 but, instead teaches "filling in a
basic template form using data from one or more separately maintained
databases including various foreign language information." App. Br. 21.
Appellant further argues "[ t ]here is no teaching in Lakritz of different
versions or synchronization data on the same web interface, only
presentation of a single web document that has been populated with a single
language." App. Br. 21.
Appellant acknowledges "Ross does show multiple frames on a
window, generally" but argues "Ross simply teaches that different
documents can be in different frames within an application" and "not
18
Appeal2017-009184
Application 12/180,807
different versions or different synchronization data relating to the same
media on the same web interface," as required by claim 12. App. Br. 21.
finds:
We do not find Appellant's arguments persuasive. The Examiner
Lakritz discloses different versions of synchronization data
stored in the databases (column 2, lines 35-43). For each
language, a different set of language content is stored in the
language/country databases (column 2, lines 35-38). For at least
this reason, Lakritz discloses different versions and/ or
synchronization data.
Additionally, Ross discloses an interface showing various
frames, each corresponding to a different document (Figures 1-
2 ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the applicant's invention to have combined Ross
with Lakritz-Wan-Jung, since it would have allowed a user to
apply Ross' s reaching of displaying multiple documents within
multiple frames on a window, with Lakritz's teaching of storing
multiple different versions of a document in order to display the
multiple different versions of a document simultaneously. This
would have allowed a user to view and compare different
versions of the document in a single interface.
Ans. 19--20. As such, the Examiner relies on the combined teachings of
Lakritz, Wan, Jung, and Ross for teaching or suggesting the limitations
recited in claim 12 while Appellant argues each reference individually. As
such, Appellant's arguments do not address the combined teachings of the
references and, therefore, are unpersuasive of error.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 12.
19
Appeal2017-009184
Application 12/180,807
R4
CLAIMS 14 AND 15
Appellant contends the combination of Lakritz, Wan, Jung, and
McKoen fails to teach or suggest "wherein said synchronization information
additionally comprises a comments field," as recited in claim 14, and
"wherein said comments field provides characterization of text in said text
field as it related to the media," as recited in claim 15. App. Br. 21-24.
Appellant argues McKoen teaches that metadata "becomes a single version
of subtitle text that is associated with a video according to a timestamp" but
does not teach or suggest "a separate comments field in the context of the
fields already described by independent claim 1 and dependent claim 14, nor
a separate comments field that itself characterizes subtitling," as required
by claim 15. App. Br. 24.
We do not find Appellant's arguments persuasive. The Examiner
relies upon the combined teachings of Lakritz, Wan, Jung, and McKoen for
teaching or suggesting the limitations recited in claims 14 and 15.
Appellant's arguments do not address the combined teachings of the
references and, therefore, are unpersuasive of error.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 14 and 15.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
20
Appeal2017-009184
Application 12/180,807
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
21