HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 4, 2020

2019002043 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 4, 2020)

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.
15/307,148 10/27/2016 Perry V LEA 84541336 1045
22879 7590 08/04/2020
HP Inc.
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
Fort Collins, CO 80528-9544
EXAMINER
SABAH, HARIS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2674
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/04/2020 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
jessica.pazdan@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PERRY V. LEA, ERIC P. CHRISTIANSON, and
BRADLEY R. LARSON
Appeal 2019-002043
Application 15/307,148
Technology Center 2600
Before MICHAEL M. BARRY, DAVID J. CUTITTA II, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 18, and 20–23, which
are all of the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2019-002043
Application 15/307,148

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a detecting signature lines within an
electronic document. Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system comprising:
a multifunctional peripheral device comprising:
a processor; and
a display device;
in which the processor receives an electronic document
and detects signature lines in the received electronic document
and
displays the detected signature lines on the display device
one at a time by automatically creating a zoomed-in image of the
signature line by applying a zoom factor to the signature line so
as to display a width of the signature line filling a width of the
display device.
Appeal Br. 26 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Wahl US 4,731,860 Mar. 15, 1988
Beatson US 5,892,824 Apr. 6, 1999
Parry US 2005/0231746 A1 Oct. 20, 2005
Haynes US 2009/0287779 A1 Nov. 19, 2009
Ali US 2010/0100743 A1 Apr. 22, 2010
Nam US 2010/0177356 A1 July 15, 2010
Ragland US 2013/0083976 A1 Apr. 4, 2013

Appeal 2019-002043
Application 15/307,148

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4, 7, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Parry and Ali. Final Act. 2–6.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Parry, Ali, and Nam. Final Act. 6–7.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Parry, Ali, Nam, and Ragland. Final Act. 7–8.
Claims 6, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Parry, Ali, and Beatson. Final Act. 8, 10–15.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Parry, Ali, and Haynes. Final Act. 9.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Parry, Ali, Beatson, and Haynes. Final Act. 15–16.
Claims 22 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Parry, Ali, Beatson, and Ragland. Final Act. 16–19.

ISSUES
First Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Parry and Ali teach or
suggest a multifunction peripheral device (“MFP”) that “displays the
detected signature lines on the display device one at a time by automatically
creating a zoomed-in image of the signature line by applying a zoom factor
to the signature line so as to display a width of the signature line filling a
width of the display device,” as recited in claim 1?
Second Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding the cited references
teach or suggest “placing each detected signature line at a bottom of the
display device,” as recited in dependent claim 4?
Appeal 2019-002043
Application 15/307,148

4
Third Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding the cited references
teach or suggest “detecting a starting and ending point of the detected
signature lines in the electronic document and resizing an image of the
detected signature line on the display device to include the signature line
from the starting point to the ending point,” as recited in claim 11?
Fourth Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding the cited references
teach or suggest an MFP that
displays the detected signature lines one at a time at a left side or
a right side of the display device based on detection by the
multifunctional peripheral device of a left-handedness or a right-
handedness of a user of the multifunction peripheral device,
wherein the left-handedness or the right-handedness of the user
is detected by a placement of a handwriting wrist of the user on
a bezel of the display device,
as recited in independent claims 18 and 20?
ANALYSIS
First Issue
The Examiner rejects claim 1 as obvious over Parry and Ali. The
Examiner finds that Parry teaches most of the limitations of claim 1, but
“doesn’t teach display[ing] the detected signature lines on the display device
one at a time so as to display a width of the signature line filling a width of
the display device” (Final Act. 3) and cites Ali to address this deficiency. Id.
at 3–4 (citing Ali, Figs. 6, 9; Abstract, ¶¶ 6, 46, 51, 53, 50).
Appellant asserts that Ali’s teachings are deficient in that “there is no
teaching or suggestion . . . that an individual signer signs on plural lines of
the electronic document.” Appeal Br. 11–12 (emphasis omitted). More
specifically, Appellant argues “[t]he Ali reference teaches that an individual
signer provides only one signature for an electronic document, after which
Appeal 2019-002043
Application 15/307,148

5
the document is routed to the next signer.” Appeal Br. 11. Appellant further
argues “[t]here is no teaching or suggestion in the Ali reference that plural
signers sign the electronic document using the same display device.”
Appeal Br. 12 (emphasis omitted).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments because they are not
commensurate with the scope of the argued limitation. Claim 1 recites that
the MFP “displays the detected signature lines on the display device one at a
time by automatically creating a zoomed-in image of the signature line by
applying a zoom factor to the signature line so as to display a width of the
signature line filling a width of the display device.” There is no requirement
in the claim that any individual signer must sign on multiple signature lines.
As such, the first distinction drawn by Appellant does not reflect a
requirement of the claims.
Nor is there any requirement in the language of the claim that “plural
signers use the same display device,” as argued by Appellant. Claim 1
recites “a display device,” which under its broadest reasonable interpretation
can include one display device, or more than one display device. Thus,
multiple signers in Ali sign using different display devices does not
patentably distinguish Ali from the argued limitation.
Second Issue
Claim 4, which depends from claim 1, recites the limitation “placing
each detected signature line at a bottom of the display device.” Appeal
Br. 26 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds this limitation taught by Ali,
finding that “the display screen displayed the detected signature lines at the
bottom of the display device.” Final Act. 4 (citing Ali, Figs. 6, 9–10, ¶¶ 63,
64, 67).
Appeal 2019-002043
Application 15/307,148

6
Appellant argues Ali is deficient because “[t]he claim requires that
each detected signature [line] be placed at the bottom of the display device,”
and that the signature lines are not displayed in Ali as recited in the claim.
Appeal Br. 14. We are not persuaded of error.
Ali demonstrates that it was known to place a signature line at the
bottom of the display. See Ali, Fig. 6 (depicting two signature lines at the
bottom of the display). Ali further demonstrates that it was known to
display signature lines one at a time. See Ali, Figs. 9, 10. We agree with the
Examiner that in light of the teachings of Ali, a person of ordinary skill in
the art would have found it obvious to display a single signature line at the
bottom of the display as a combination of familiar elements that yields
predictable results, and also as a matter of design choice. See KSR Int'l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 401 (2007) (“[A] combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results.”). “[W]hen a patent ‘simply arranges
old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to
perform’ and yields no more than one would expect from such an
arrangement, the combination is obvious.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (quoting
Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)). Accordingly, we are
not persuaded of error, and we sustain the rejection of claim 4.
Third Issue
Claim 11, which depends from claim 1, recites the limitation:
detecting a starting and ending point of the detected signature
lines in the electronic document and resizing an image of the
detected signature line on the display device to include the
signature line from the starting point to the ending point.
Appeal 2019-002043
Application 15/307,148

7
Appeal Br. 27 (Claims App.). In rejecting claim 11, the Examiner finds this
limitation taught by Ali. Final Act. 5–6 (citing Ali, Fig. 6, Abstract, ¶¶ 6,
46, 51, 53, and 60). The Examiner explains:
[T]he signature line is displayed on the screen in a such a manner
that it cover the width of the display screen for the user “JEFF
RAIKES”, which makes it more prominent by obviously
applying the zooming in factor so the signature line look big or
better which has expanded the width of the signature line to fill
the width of the display screen so the user can place his signature
on the signature line.
Id.
Appellant argues “[t]he Examiner does not state where the reference
teaches ‘detecting a starting and ending points of the detected signature
lines’.” Appeal Br. 15. Appellant further argues the reference is silent on
how the signature line shown in Ali Figure 9 is constructed, and “the line
could have been constructed in a significantly different manner than that
recited in [claim 11].” Id.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. We again emphasize that
the standard for determining whether a claim is obvious is “an expansive and
flexible approach.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 415. Ali teaches detecting a signature
line in a document. Ali ¶ 51. We agree with the Examiner that it would
have been obvious for the detection of this signature line to be affected by
detecting the beginning and end point of the signature line. We note that Ali
does not indicate that only a portion of the signature line segment is
detected. See, e.g., Ali ¶¶ 5 –6, 22–23, 46–67, claims 9–15.
We agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have understood from Ali that the entire signature line was detected,
and that in doing so, the starting point and the ending point would be the
Appeal 2019-002043
Application 15/307,148

8
subject of that detection. Although Appellant argues that the signature lines
shown in Ali could have been constructed in different ways, Appellant does
not identify any way that the lines could be constructed without determining
where they begin and where they end. We agree with the Examiner that Ali
in combination with Parry at least suggests that the beginning and ending
point of signature lines are detected because documents are analyzed as a
whole in both references, and analyzing all content in the documents would
necessarily call for detecting the beginning point and ending point of a
signature line within them. We further agree that Ali teaches a zoom factor
is applied to the detected line, because, as the Examiner finds, and we agree,
artisans of ordinary skill would have understood the depiction of the
signature line Fig. 9 of Ali shows an enlarged (zoomed) signature line (i.e.,
that has been scaled to fill the entire width of the screen). Final Act. 3–4
(also citing Ali ¶ 63). We, therefore, disagree with Appellant’s argument
that the cited references fail to teach the notion of “detecting a starting and
ending point of the detected signature lines” and the recited “zoom factor,”
and we sustain the rejection of claim 11.
Fourth Issue
Appellant also challenges the Examiner’s findings with respect to
independent claims 18 and 20. Claim 18 recites the limitation:
displays the detected signature lines one at a time at a left side or
a right side of the display device based on detection by the
multifunctional peripheral device of a left-handedness or a right-
handedness of a user of the multifunction peripheral device,
wherein the left-handedness or the right-handedness of the user
is detected by a placement of a handwriting wrist of the user on
a bezel of the display device
Appeal 2019-002043
Application 15/307,148

9
Appeal Br. 27 (Claims App.). Claim 20 recites a similar, but not identical
limitation. Appeal Br. 27–28 (Claims App.). The Examiner acknowledges
that Parry and Ali do not teach this limitation. Final Act. 11–12. The
Examiner cites Beatson as teaching this limitation. Final Act. 12 (citing
Beatson, Fig. 4C; col. 9, ll. 49–61; col. 11, ll. 48–60; and col. 12, ll. 19–34).
We agree with Appellant that the cited portions of Beatson are
deficient. Although Beatson describes a bezel that detects placement of a
hand, it does not detect the “left-handedness or a right-handedness of a user”
based on that placement. As such, we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner has not established the prior art teaches or suggests the disputed
limitation of claim 18, and we do not sustain its rejection. We also do not
sustain the rejection of claim 20, which recites a limitation of similar scope,
and is rejected under a similar rationale.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed in part.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4, 7, 11 103 Parry, Ali 1, 4, 7, 11
2 103 Parry, Ali, Nam 2
3 103 Parry, Ali, Nam,
Ragland
3
6, 18, 20 103 Parry, Ali, Beatson 6 18, 20
12 103 Parry, Ali, Haynes 12
21 103 Parry, Ali,
Beatson, Haynes
21
22, 23 103 Parry, Ali,
Beatson, Ragland
22, 23
Appeal 2019-002043
Application 15/307,148

10
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 6, 7,
11, 12
18, 20–23

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED IN PART