David Gulezian et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 14, 2019

13610761 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 14, 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.
13/610,761 09/11/2012 David Gulezian 31VL-171985 3889
69849 7590 08/14/2019
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
379 Lytton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
EXAMINER
HUYNH, THU V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2177
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/14/2019 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):
SheppardMullin_Pair@firsttofile.com
svpatents@sheppardmullin.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Ex parte DAVID GULEZIAN, RICHARD TURNER BARKER,
and NATHANIEL ANTHONY FAST

Appeal 2017-010668
Application 13/610,761
Technology Center 2100

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, MARC S. HOFF, and
MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants,1 David Gulezian et al.,
Appeal from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–16. Final Act. 1.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellants” to refer to “Applicants” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellants identify the real party in interest as Viscira
LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-010668
Application 13/610,761

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to technique involves allowing use of content
only if the content has been approved for the use. The content can be stored
in a universal content format to facilitate cross-platform approval in a single
approval transaction. The content can include granular content items
incorporated into larger documents. In a specific implementation, it is
possible to grant approval for one or more of the granular content items.
Spec. ¶ 3. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A system comprising:

a presentation building engine;
a utility engine coupled to the presentation building
engine;
a presentation viewing engine coupled to the presentation
building engine;
a presentation management engine coupled to the
presentation building engine;

wherein, in operation,
the utility engine transcodes a deck having one of a set of
import formats to a universal slide format (USF);
the presentation building engine modifies the deck;
the presentation viewing engine presents the modified
deck to a user;
the presentation management engine controls use of
content included in the modified deck by gaining approval of
the modified deck according to a lowest approval number of
approval levels of each slide of the modified deck, the approval
levels specific to each slide of the modified deck at a slide-
level.
Appeal 2017-010668
Application 13/610,761

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Dryer US 2005/0076215 A1 Apr. 7, 2005
Packer US 2007/0195159 A1 Aug. 23, 2007
Friedman et al. US 2008/0005179 A1 Jan. 3, 2008
Anderson et al. US 2008/0288890 Al Nov. 20, 2008
Moller et al. US 2009/0129402 Al May 21, 2009
Fukuda et al. US 2009/0327349 A1 Dec. 31, 2009
Weber et al. US 2010/0169784 A1 July 1, 2010
Schuler et al. US 2010/0321647 A1 Dec. 23, 2010
Paas US 2011/0242121 A1 Oct. 6, 2011
Hussam US 2011/0161105 A1 June 30, 2011
Schlutz et al. US 2012/0140083 A1 June 7, 2012
Massand US 2013/0246901 A1 Sept. 19, 2013
Rexer et al. US 2013/0311894 A1 Nov. 21, 2013
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–16 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the
invention. Final Act. 3; Ans. 2.
Claims 1, 2, and 9 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Moller, Dryer, and Rexer.
Final Act. 4.
Claim 3 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Anderson in view of Moller, Dryer, and Rexer as applied
to claim 1 above, and further in view of Friedman. Final Act. 7.
Claim 4 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Anderson in view of Moller, Dryer, and Rexer as applied
to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fukuda. Final Act. 8.
Appeal 2017-010668
Application 13/610,761

4
Claim 5 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Anderson in view of Moller, Dryer, and Rexer as applied
to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schuler. Final Act. 9.
Claim 5 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Anderson in view of Moller, Dryer, and Rexer as applied
to claim 1 above, and further in view of Paas. Final Act. 9.
Claim 6 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Anderson in view of Moller, Dryer, and Rexer as applied
to claim 1 above, and further in view of Packer. Final Act. 10.
Claims 7, 8, and 16 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Moller, Dryer, and Rexer as
applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Massand. Final Act. 11.
Claim 10 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Anderson in view of Moller, Dryer, and Rexer as applied
to claim 9 above, and further in view of Hussam. Final Act. 13.
Claims 11–14 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Moller, Dryer, and Rexer as
applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Weber. Final Act. 14.
Claim 15 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Anderson in view of Moller, Dryer, and Rexer, and
further in view of Weber as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of
Shultz. Final Act. 15.
Appeal 2017-010668
Application 13/610,761

5
OPINION
35 USC § 112
In an attempt to overcome the indefiniteness rejection, Appellants
presented proposed amendments to independent claim 1 in an After-Final
Amendment (filed Nov. 14, 2016), but the Amendment was not entered by
the Examiner. See Adv. Act. (Mailed Nov. 25, 2016). The Examiner
maintains the indefiniteness rejection and repeats the indefiniteness rejection
in the Examiner’s Answer. Ans. 2–3. Appellants do not address the
indefiniteness rejection in either the Appeal Brief or the Reply Brief.
Therefore, we summarily affirm the indefiniteness rejection of claims 1–16.

35 USC § 103
With respect to the obviousness rejection, Appellants individually
address independent claim 1, and Appellants set forth separate headings for
each of the individual obviousness rejections, but Appellants’ arguments are
based upon the language in independent claim 1 and assert that the
additional prior art references do not teach the claim 1 limitation “the
presentation management engine controls use of content included in the
modified deck by gaining approval of the modified deck according to a
lowest approval number of approval levels of each slide of the modified
deck, the approval levels specific to each slide of the modified deck at a
slide-level.” App. Br. 14–22.

Appeal 2017-010668
Application 13/610,761

6
Independent claim 1
We select independent claim 1 as the representative claim for the
group and will address Appellants’ arguments thereto. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(iv) (2016).
With respect to a representative independent claim 1, the Examiner
relies upon a combination of the Anderson, Moller, Dryer, and Rexer
references for the claim limitation
the presentation management engine controls use of content
included in the modified deck by gaining approval of the
modified deck according to a lowest approval number of
approval levels of each slide of the modified deck, the approval
levels specific to each slide of the modified deck at a slide-
level.
Ans. 4–6, 17–19.
Appellants individually discuss the relied upon teachings of each of
the prior art references which is relied upon by the Examiner to teach the
totality of the disputed claim limitationand because each of the references
does not individually teach the totality of the disputed language of claim 1,
the combination of Anderson, Moller, Dryer, and Rexer does not teach the
claim language. App. Br. 8–13; Reply Br. 3–5. Appellants additionally
contend that the Rexer reference teaches away from the Moller and Dryer
references that are combined to form the rejection of claim 1. App. Br. 13–
14. Appellants argue that the Rexer reference only teaches regulating access
to what content a user can access to make modifications and that the Rexer
reference does not teach approving modifications made by a user to content
a user can access. App. Br. 14. Appellants further argue that the Rexer
reference teaches editing content without approval as long as a user has been
Appeal 2017-010668
Application 13/610,761

7
granted access to the content and the Rexer reference teaches away from the
teachings of the Moller and Dryer references.
With respect to Appellants’ arguments that address the references
individually, we note that the Examiner relied upon a combination of
references to teach or suggest the claimed limitation, and as such, do not
address the rejection as set forth by the Examiner. Consequently,
Appellants’ arguments do show error in the Examiner’s factual findings or
conclusion of obviousness with respect to the specific claim limitation as
rejected by the Examiner.
Appellants have not demonstrated error in the obviousness rejection
applied against claim 1, but have instead alleged deficiencies in the
references, taken one at a time, as if the rejection were based upon a lack of
novelty. However, nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking
references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)).
Appellants have provided no persuasive evidence tending to show that
presenting control of the use of content included in the modified deck by
gaining approval of the modified deck according to a lowest approval
number of approval levels of each slide of the modified deck with approval
levels specific to each slide of the modified deck at a slide-level was
“uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” See
Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir.
2007) (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416–18 (2007)).
“Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why
Appeal 2017-010668
Application 13/610,761

8
some combinations would have been obvious where others would not.”
Leapfrog Enters., 485 F.3d at 1161 (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 414–15).
With respect to the Rexer reference, the Examiner clarifies that the
Examiner merely relied upon the Rexer reference with regards to a special-
purpose hardware for the “engines” and that skilled artisans would have
been motivated to combine the Rexer reference with the Anderson reference.
Ans. 19–20. We find that the Examiner has provided a line of reasoning for
the combination of the limited reliance upon the teachings of the Rexer
reference. Ans. 4–6, 17–19. Additionally, “[a] reference may be said to
teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference,
would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or
would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the
applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We disagree
with Appellants’ general contention because Appellants have identified no
specific teaching in the Rexer reference which would lead skilled artisans in
a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant. As a
result, Appellants’ general argument does not show error in the Examiner’s
factual findings or conclusion of obviousness of representative independent
claim 1 and dependent claims 2 and 9 not separately argued.

Dependent claims 3–8 and 10–16
With respect to the Appellants’ arguments regarding the dependent
claims addressed in the “second ground” through “ninth ground” of
Appeal 2017-010668
Application 13/610,761

9
rejection, Appellants present a general argument to the language of
independent claim 1 regarding the “presentation management engine.”
Merely reciting the language of the claim is insufficient. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“A statement which merely points out what a
claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of
the claim.”). Merely alleging that the references fail to support an
obviousness rejection is insufficient to persuade us of Examiner error.
Attorney arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by
factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d
1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705
(Fed. Cir. 1984); Ex parte Belinne, Appeal No. 2009-004693, 2009 WL
2477843, at *3–4 (BPAI Aug. 10, 2009) (informative).
Appellants discuss the additional prior art reference citations for the
dependent claims, but provide no separate arguments for patentability of the
dependent claims. Appellants maintain that the additional prior art reference
does not “teach the language of claim 1.” App. Br. 15–22; see also Reply
Br. 5. Because the Examiner has not relied upon these additional prior art
references to teach or suggest the limitations of independent claim 1,
Appellants’ argument does not show error in the Examiner’s factual findings
or conclusion of obviousness with respect to each of these dependent claims.
Additionally, Appellants’ general argument for patentability is not a
separate argument for patentability with respect to each of the dependent
claims. Therefore, we group the dependent claims as falling with
representative independent claim 1.
Appeal 2017-010668
Application 13/610,761

10
DECISION
We summarily sustain Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection of claims
1–16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
We sustain Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1–16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

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