Ex Parte WoolseyDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 1, 201711398575 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 1, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 11/398,575 04/04/2006 Les G. Woolsey 58083-857792 (B204) 8666 72058 7590 02/03/2017 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Adobe Systems, Inc. 58083 Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22 1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30309-4530 EXAMINER BURKE, TIONNA M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2176 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/03/2017 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): ipefiling @ kilpatrickstockton .com jlhice@kilpatrick.foundationip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LES G. WOOLSEY Appeal 2016-001053 Application 11/398,575 Technology Center 2100 Before DONALD E. ADAMS, JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, and ULRIKH W. JENKS, Administrative Patent Judges. FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal1 under 35U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to an automated method of facilitating recovery from an error encountered during creation of a document from a template. The Examiner rejected the claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Statement of the Case Background “When creation of a document fails, or the created document contains an error, it is often very difficult to correct the error or errors” (Spec. 1:23— 1 Appellant identifies the Real Party in Interest as Adobe Systems Incorporated (see App. Br. 4). Appeal 2016-001053 Application 11/398,575 24). The Specification teaches that “help desk or technical support personnel may not be able to trace or reproduce the error even if they attempt to create the same document using the same form, because they may be doing so with different parameters” (Spec. 2:1—3). The Specification teaches a method which includes “gathering some or all input collateral (e.g., the document template, input data, instructions for creating the document) and adding it to the target document. If the target document is not created, the input collateral may be placed in an error document” (Spec. 2:17—20). The Claims Claims 19-29 are on appeal. Claim 19 is representative and reads as follows: 19. A method comprising: performing by one or more computing devices: receiving input providing data in a document creation environment; receiving a request to create a document by merging a template and the data; detecting an error when attempting to merge the data and a template to create the document; in response to detecting the error: assembling collateral items identifying operating conditions in the document creation environment when the error occurred, the collateral items comprising log documents generated during the attempt to create the document, the template, the data, a configuration file used to configure the document, a driver file defining formatting rules for the document, and instructions for creating the document; and providing the collateral items in a single document for error recovery. 2 Appeal 2016-001053 Application 11/398,575 The issues A. The Examiner rejected claims 19, 22, and 25—29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Stiegemeier2 and McElhannon3 (Ans. 2—8). B. The Examiner rejected claims 20-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Stiegemeier, McElhannon, and Dryer4 (Ans. 8—9). Because the same issues are dispositive for both rejections, we will consider these rejections together. The Examiner relies upon Stiegemeier for the document and error detection claim limitations but finds “Stiegemeier fails to expressly disclose reporting operation conditions during a merger of a template and data to create documents” (Ans. 3—4). The Examiner relies upon McElhannon to teach “assembling collateral items'1'’ including “all the error information and conditions needed to recover the error when the user attempted to create the document” (Ans. 4). The Examiner finds it obvious to “modify the method disclosed by Stiegemeier, to include log document generated for error recovery for the purpose of efficiently reporting error information for accurate and easily error recovery, as taught by McElhannon” (Ans. 5). The issue with respect to these rejections is: Does the evidence of record support the Examiner’s conclusion that Stiegemeier and McElhannon render the claims obvious? 2 Stiegemeier et al., US 6,192,381 Bl, issued Feb. 20, 2001 (“Stiegemeier”). 3 McElhannon, J., US 2005/0137916 Al, published June 23, 2005. 4 Dryer, J., US 7,451,321 B2, issued Nov. 11, 2008. 3 Appeal 2016-001053 Application 11/398,575 Findings of Fact 1. Stiegemeier teaches that “the user may also create a new document” (Stiegemeier 9:67). 2. Stiegemeier teaches that before “the system displays the document, the system must retrieve a document template from the server or another storage device, locally or remotely, in step 303. The template contains, for example, instructions for formatting the document data” (Stiegemeier 10:3—7). 3. Stiegemeier teaches that: The document may optionally include a code which identifies the appropriate template that will provide the format for displaying the data. The system looks for this code and, if the code exists, in step 403 the system determines whether a template corresponding to that code is available in active memory or on one of the storage devices. (Stiegemeier 10:36-41). 4. Stiegemeier teaches that the “features of the system client script program are used when the system activates a document in step 306” (Stiegemeier 10:15—17). 5. Stiegemeier teaches that: The second feature of the client script program is that it allows the user to automatically or manually correct, validate, and/or enter additional information when required. Referring again to FIG. 5, in this example the Social Security Number (“SSN”) field 504 requires the user input a nine-digit number. When the user enters information into this field, the client script program will review the entry and return an error message if the entry does not contain nine digits (e.g., the entry contains only eight digits, or the entry contains characters that are not numbers). This error 4 Appeal 2016-001053 Application 11/398,575 message may appear immediately, and the user may be required to correct the information before proceeding. Alternatively, or in addition, the message may appear in a “To Do list” box 505 within which all error messages are stored for further review and correction by the user. Such error messages may also appear if the user fails to enter data into a required field, as illustrated in the FIG. 5 example, where the user failed to enter information in a “Blood Type” field 507, and the system accordingly returned an error message in the “To Do” list box 505. (Stiegemeier 12:11—30). 6. Stiegemeier teaches that The client script program may also optionally provide for automatic formatting of certain types of data. For example, if the user neglects to include dashes, or includes dashes in the wrong place, when entering a Social Security Number into the “SSN” field 504, the system may automatically insert dashes into the entry at the appropriate locations. As another example, the client script program may allow the user to enter abbreviations, such as the simple entry “M” in a field labeled “Sex” 506, which the client script program will recognize as meaning “male”. (Stiegemeier 12:31—40). 7. McElhannon teaches: “This invention relates generally to common use self-service (CUSS), or stand alone, kiosks. More specifically, this invention relates to systems and methods for error detection and recovery in CUSS kiosks, thereby allowing the user to more rapidly complete a desired task” (McElhannon 12). 8. McElhannon teaches: At step S250 the system detects for errors. If an error occurs or another command failure is detected, an error message is 5 Appeal 2016-001053 Application 11/398,575 displayed on the display screen 20 and error information is generated by the error detection module of the system at step S500. A recovery coupon 60 is printed at step S600 at the kiosk printer 50, and the agent's display 90 is updated. The passenger is prompted to take the recovery coupon 60 to an agent workstation 80 for assistance and the application yields to the launch application. (McElhannon 148). 9. McElhannon teaches: “Upon detection of a failure during check-in, a recovery coupon 60 containing a pointer to the error condition’s data is printed at the boarding pass printer 50 and the agent’s display 90 is updated. At step S700 the passenger delivers the recovery coupon 60 to the agent” (McElhannon 1 53). 10. McElhannon teaches “upon receipt of the recovery coupon 60, the agent reads the information contained on the coupon 60 at either the recovery coupon reader 120 or the travel document reader/printer 130” (McElhannon 1 54). 11. McElhannon teaches: The error recovery module of the system uses the information provided on the recovery coupon 60 to view the passenger’s information and the error information generated by the error detection module. From this information, the system determines which commands succeeded and which failed at step S720. Depending on the successes and failures reported, the error recovery module of the system offers solutions to the agent based on the information provided on the coupon 60. (McElhannon 155). 6 Appeal 2016-001053 Application 11/398,575 Principles of Law A prima facie case for obviousness “requires a suggestion of all limitations in a claim,” CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003) and “a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Analysis Appellants contend: Determining which commands succeeded and which failed is merely determining the progress of an application, and does not describe assembling the operating conditions the application was running in. McElhannon’s disclosure of why an identified step in an identified session failed is not the same as or suggestive of the operating conditions in a document creation environment when an error occurred. (App. Br. 10). Appellants also contend the rejection lacked reasoning “why any of the references would have suggested to the skilled artisan to combine creating a ‘To Do List’ of data entry errors in a draft document with creating an error recovery coupon indicating what commands were completed . . . when a user attempts to perform a transaction at a kiosk” (App. Br. 14—15). The Examiner responds “[s]ome of the error information includes error condition data, information inputted into the system and reasons the error occurred. An administrator is able to tell which commands succeeded and which commands failed. All this information, operating conditions, is included in a recovery coupon” (Ans. 9). The Examiner also responds “[tjhese references are combined because both documents] have error 7 Appeal 2016-001053 Application 11/398,575 detection and recovery. McElhannon is about to provide a recovery coupon that includes specific commands used and information to determine a resolution, which are steps that are not included in Stiegemeier” (Ans. 13). We agree with Appellants that McElhannon does not teach that the “error information” generated by system at step S250 involves the assembly of error information associated with operating conditions including the configuration file, driver file, log documents or template as required by claim 19 (see FF 8—11). Instead, McElhannon simply teaches “error information” is generated to determine “which commands succeeded and which failed” (FF 11). We therefore agree that the cited prior art does not support the Examiner’s position because there is no clear teaching to assemble “collateral items identifying operating conditions in the document creation environment” as required by claim 19. We also agree with Appellants that simply because McElhannon generally teaches error detection and recovery does not provide a reason to modify Stiegemeier’s process to assemble “collateral items identifying operating conditions in the document creation environment” as required by claim 19, and in particular, to assemble log documents, template, data, configuration file, driver file and instructions as further recited in claim 19. That is, even if general “error detection” is obvious over McElhannon, the rejection provides no reason why the specific information recited would have been selected. Conclusion of Law The evidence of record does not support the Examiner’s conclusion that Stiegemeier and McElhannon render the claims obvious. 8 Appeal 2016-001053 Application 11/398,575 SUMMARY In summary, we reverse the obviousness rejections. REVERSED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation