Vivek Hebbar

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 24, 2019

12756798 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 24, 2019)

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.
12/756,798 04/08/2010 Vivek Hebbar B1165/ADBS.208935 1358
121363 7590 07/24/2019
Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.
(Adobe Inc.)
Intellectual Property Department
2555 Grand Blvd
Kansas City, MO 64108
EXAMINER
FABER, DAVID
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2177
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/24/2019 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
seaton@shb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte VIVEK HEBBAR
________________

Appeal 2018-004616
Application 12/756,7981
Technology Center 2100
________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JASON J. CHUNG, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1, 3–8, 10, 12, 14–17, 20–25.2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention relates to visualization of content files within a package
system. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced
below:
1. A system comprising:
a hardware memory;

1 According to Appellant, Adobe Systems Incorporated is the real party in
interest. App. Br. 3.
2 Claims 2, 9, 11, 13, 18, and 19 are canceled. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-004616
Application 12/756,798

2
at least one hardware processor; and
an authoring module stored in the hardware memory and
executable on the at least one hardware processor to perform
actions comprising:
instantiating a package file;
receiving a first input to associate a presentation
specification with the package file, the presentation specification
specifying how to present a view of the package file in a user
interface, the user interface presenting a representation of display
elements of the package file, the user interface being rendered by
a presentation application;
receiving a second input to associate a content file with at
least one display element;
receiving a third input to select a data visualizer
customized for a type of file of the content file and associate the
data visualizer with the content file, the data visualizer to be
retrieved and instantiated within one of an application or
application plug-in to present a view of content from the content
file associated therewith upon a selection of the at least one
display element associated with the content file in the user
interface, the data visualizer including at least one action button
that performs executable code to implement functionality
associated with the content from the content file and code to
customize presentation of the content from the content file in the
data visualizer; and
publishing the package file including data representative
of the presentation specification, the content file, and the
received first, second, and third inputs.

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over the combination of Swineford et al. (US
2009/0292980 A1; filed May 20, 2008), Day et al. (US 2005/0106543 A1;
published May 19, 2005), Bloch et al. (US 2007/0078992 A1; published
Apr. 5, 2007), and Sauermann (US 2006/0143575 A1; published June 29,
Appeal 2018-004616
Application 12/756,798

3
2006). Final Act. 3–12.
Claims 5, 6, 12, 15–17, 21, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Swineford, Day, Bloch,
and Veselov et al. (US 2004/0250246 A1; published Dec. 9, 2004). Final
Act. 12–16.
Claims 20 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Swineford, Day, Bloch, Veselov, and
Hughes (US 2011/0099516 A1; filed Oct. 28, 2009). Final Act. 16–18.
Claim 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Swineford, Day, Bloch, and Ruffo et
al. (US 2001/0032166 A1; published Oct. 18, 2001). Final Act. 18–19.

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Swineford teaches an item viewer and
presentation specification 800, which the Examiner maps to the claim 1
limitation “data visualizer” and “presentation specification,” respectively.
Final Act. 3–4 (citing Swineford ¶ 80). The Examiner finds Swineford
teaches the item viewer includes animation functions to animate content
files, which the Examiner maps to the limitation “present a view of content
from the content file” recited in claim 1. Final Act. 3–4 (citing Swineford
¶ 80).
Appellant argues data visualizers are distinct from presentation
specifications, whereas Swineford teaches the item viewer is part of the
presentation specification. App. Br. 11–123 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 26, 43, Fig. 5);

3 Appellant filed two Appeal Briefs. The first Appeal Brief was filed on
October 26, 2017, which contains arguments directed to the Examiner’s
Appeal 2018-004616
Application 12/756,798

4
Reply Br. 2–4. Appellant argues Swineford fails to teach display elements
displayed using the image viewer are content of package content files 1, 2,
and 3 of Figure 4. App. Br. 12. Appellant argues Day fails to teach both a
presentation specification and a data visualizer. Id. at 13–14. We disagree
with Appellant.
Swineford teaches an item viewer (i.e., data visualizer) and
presentation specification 800, which teaches the claim 1 (and similarly
recited in claim 15) limitation “data visualizer” and “presentation
specification,” respectively. Swineford ¶ 80 (cited at Final Act. 3–4).
Moreover, Figure 1 of Swineford corresponds to paragraph 80 of Swineford.
Swineford ¶ 80, Fig. 1. Swineford’s Figure 1 illustrates presentation
specification 800 includes a component, which is an item viewer (i.e., data
visualizer). Swineford, Fig. 1. Swineford’s presentation specification 800 is
distinct from Swineford’s item viewer because the item viewer is a smaller
component of presentation specification 800. Swineford, Fig. 1. An
example analogy would be a car that includes a seat; the car and seat are
distinct from each other even though the car includes the seat.
We disagree with Appellant’s argument that Swineford fails to teach
display elements displayed using the image viewer are content of package
content files 1, 2, and 3 of Figure 4. App. Br. 12. “[A]ppellant’s arguments
fail from the outset because . . . they are not based on limitations appearing
in the claims.” See In re Self, 671 F.2d at 1348 (CCPA 1982). In this case,
claim 1 does not recite display elements displayed using the image viewer

rejections and the second Appeal Brief was filed on December 19, 2017,
which contains a correct copy of the claims appendix. In this Decision, we
refer to page numbers from the Appeal Brief filed on October 26, 2017.
Appeal 2018-004616
Application 12/756,798

5
are content of package content files 1, 2, and 3 of Figure 4; instead, claim 1
merely recites “present a view of content from the content file.” Swineford
teaches the item viewer includes animation functions to animate content
files, which teaches the limitation “present a view of content from the
content file” recited in claims 1 and 8 (and similarly recited in claim 15).
Swineford ¶ 80 (cited at Final Act. 3–4).
Regarding Appellant’s argument that Day fails to teach both a
presentation specification and a data visualizer (App. Br. 13–14), one cannot
show nonobviousness “by attacking references individually” where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(CCPA 1981)). In this case, the Examiner relies on Swineford teaching an
item viewer (i.e., data visualizer) and presentation specification 800, which
teaches the claim 1 (and similarly recited in claim 15) limitation “data
visualizer” and “presentation specification,” respectively. Swineford ¶ 80
(cited at Final Act. 3–4). The Examiner relies on Day teaching a user
choosing to publish a file as an SWF flash file, which teaches the limitation
“receiving a [] input to select a data visualizer customized for a type of file
of the content file and associate the data visualizer with the content file”
recited in claim 1 (and similarly recited in claims 8 and 15). Final Act. 7–8
(citing Day Fig. 21).
Appellant does not argue claims 3–8, 10, 12, 14–17, 20–25 separately
with particularity, but asserts the § 103 rejection of those claims should be
withdrawn for at least the same reasons as argued for independent claim 1.
App. Br. 9–20. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of:
Appeal 2018-004616
Application 12/756,798

6
(1) independent claims 1, 8, and 15; and (2) dependent claims 3–7, 10, 12,
14, 16, 17, 20–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellant could have made, but chose not to
make, in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3–8, 10, 12,
14–17, 20–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED