Ex Parte Asakawa et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 10, 2017

12399073 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 10, 2017)

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.
12/399,073 03/06/2009 Chieko Asakawa JP920080040US1 1337
98841 7590 01/10/2017
Otterstedt, Ellenbogen & Kammer, LLP
P.O. Box 381
Cos Cob, CT 06807-0381
EXAMINER
ZUNIGA AB AD, JACKIE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2469
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/10/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHIEKO ASAKAWA,
SHINYA KAWANAKA, DAISUKE SATO, and HIRONOBU TAKAGI
Appeal 2016-000986
Application 12/399,073
Technology Center 2400
Before THU A. DANG, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On November 18, 2016, we rendered a decision on the above-
identified proceeding. This decision vacates the November 18, 2016
decision in its entirety. Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1,3,4, 7—11, 14—17, 19, 20, and 23—
29.1 Claims 2, 6, 12, 13, 18, and 22 have been canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The rejection of claims 5 and 21 have been withdrawn by the Examiner in
the Answer. Ans. 2.
Appeal 2016-000986
Application 12/399,073
A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates to “an information
processing technology,” and more particularly to “notifying others of
problems concerning accessibility of content” (Spec. 1,11. 12—15).
B. REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A computer for identifying problems concerning
accessibility in content, the computer comprising:
a memory;
a processor coupled to said memory;
a persistent storage device coupled to said memory and
said processor;
a display device coupled to said memory and said
processor;
a screen reader software module stored in said persistent
storage device;
a text-to-speech engine software module stored in said
persistent storage device;
a speaker device coupled to said memory and said
processor;
an input device coupled to said memory and said
processor; and
a reporter software module stored in said persistent storage
device; wherein said processor is operative to:
cause said display device to display web content
comprising a plurality of structured objects;
load said screen reader software module from said
persistent storage into said main memory and execute said screen
2
Appeal 2016-000986
Application 12/399,073
reader software module to convert said web content into reading
information;
load said text-to-speech engine software module
from said persistent storage into said main memory and execute
said text-to-speech engine software module to read said reading
information as an audible reading through said speaker device to
a user of said computer;
obtain a specification operation input from said
user, said specification operation input being indicative of a flaw
in said web content manifested in said audible reading;
load said reporter software module from said
persistent storage into said main memory and execute said
reporter software module to:
obtain an operational history including a
plurality of operations between said user and said
computer controlling an order of reading said reading
information, said plurality of operations including said
specification operation input; and
determine which of said plurality of
structured objects is associated with said flaw in said web
content manifested in said audible reading.
C. REJECTION
Claims 1,3,4, 7—11, 14—17, 19, 20, and 23—29 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the teachings of Died (US
2006/0150075 Al; pub. July 6, 2006), and Brodeur (US 2008/0126887 Al;
pub. May 29, 2008).
II. ISSUE
The principal issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding
that the combination of Dietl and Brodeur teaches or would have suggested a
3
Appeal 2016-000986
Application 12/399,073
“processor” operative to “obtain a specification operation input. . .
indicative of a flaw in said web content manifested in said audible reading”
(claim 1).
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Dietl
1. Dietl relates to presenting user interface elements to a screen reader
that presents graphics and text as audible speech (| 1—2). Focus is given to
the actual element on the page, wherein, the screen reader, upon detecting
the change of focus, reads the element having focus (128).
Brodeur
2. Brodeur discloses an error reporting application provided for a user to
describe a problem with another application and sending the problem
description to a user defined location (| 11), wherein the another application
includes word processing, spreadsheet, Internet browser, etc. (115). The
user can report a problem, bug, or error, and the error reporting application
takes a screen shot of the current state of the another application (id.).
3. A bug aggregation gateway aggregates bugs reported from users for a
particular site or enterprise (120).
IV. ANALYSIS
Appellants contend “the ‘information’ of Dietl is related to ‘visual
order information include[ing] the structure of the page,[’]” whereas
“Brodeur’s error reports are applicable only to ‘computer bugs’ arising
4
Appeal 2016-000986
Application 12/399,073
‘from mistakes and errors, made by people, in either a program’s source
code or its design’” (App. Br. 10). According to Appellants, “nowhere does
Brodeur teach or suggest that bugs are located ‘in the content’” but rather,
“Brodeur is explicitly limited to ‘computer bugs’ arising ‘from mistakes and
errors, made by people, in either the program’s source code or its design ’”
(id.). Thus, Appellants contend “the proposed combination of Dietl and
Brodeur does [not] teach or suggest the claimed limitation to ‘obtain a
specification operation input from said user, said specification operation
input being indicative of a flaw in said web content manifested in said
audible reading’” (id.).
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and evidence
presented. However, we disagree with Appellants’ contentions regarding the
Examiner’s rejections of the claims. We agree with the Examiner’s findings,
and find no error with the Examiner’s conclusion that the claims would have
been obvious over the combined teachings.
As a preliminary matter of claim construction, we give the claims
their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification.
See In re Morris, 111 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). While we interpret
claims broadly but reasonably in light of the Specification, we nonetheless
must not import limitations from the Specification into the claims. See
Phillips v. AWHCorp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
Although Appellants contend “Brodeur’s error reports are applicable
only to ‘computer bugs’ arising ‘from mistakes and errors, made by people,
in either a program’s source code or design’” (App. Br. 10), we note the
claims do not preclude input indicative of “mistakes and error, made by
5
Appeal 2016-000986
Application 12/399,073
people.” In particular, claim 1 merely requires that the “input” be
“indicative of a flaw in said web content” (claim 1) (emphasis added). That
is, nothing in the claims precludes the “input” from also indicative of
mistakes and error made by people, as long as it is also indicative of a flaw
in the web content.2
Nevertheless, the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Merck &
Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We are unpersuaded of
2 We also note that by arguing the Brodeur’s error input differs from the
claimed input (App. Br. 10), Appellants are contending the data being input
in the claimed invention differs from the data input in the prior art.
However, a question arises as to whether such contention urging
patentability is predicated on non-functional descriptive material (i.e., the
type or content of the data being inputted). Here, the data is input by the
user, but the particular content of the data inputted (“indicative of a flaw in
said web content”) is not positively recited as actually being used to change
or affect the manner in which the data is input. Moreover, the informational
content of the data is not positively recited as actually being used to change
or affect any machine or computer function, within the broad scope of claim
1. The PTAB has provided guidance in decisions on the appropriate
handling of claims that differ from the prior art only based on “non­
functional descriptive material.” See Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883,
1889 (BPAI 2008) (precedential) (“[T]he nature of the information being
manipulated does not lend patentability to an otherwise unpatentable
computer-implemented product or process.”); Ex parte Mathias, 84 USPQ2d
1276, 1279 (BPAI 2005) (informative) (“[Nonfunctional descriptive
material cannot lend patentability to an invention that would have otherwise
been anticipated by the prior art.”), aff’d, 191 Fed. App’x 959 (Fed. Cir.
2006)(Rule 36); Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272, 1274 (BPAI 2005)
(informative) (“Nonfunctional descriptive material cannot render
nonobvious an invention that would have otherwise been obvious.”), aff’d,
No. 06-1003 (Fed. Cir. June 12, 2006) (Rule 36).
6
Appeal 2016-000986
Application 12/399,073
Examiner error in finding the combination of Dietl and Brodeur teaches or at
least suggests the contested limitation.
Dietl discloses user interface elements of a screen reader for receiving
user input focusing on actual elements on a web page (FF 1). We agree with
the Examiner’s finding that “Dietl discloses wherein the text reader reads
text received from network . . . using some input from user,” wherein the
client device “receives page data and place holder input provided by user,
and both are compiled and processed as audio” (Ans. 34). Although
Appellants contend that “nowhere does Brodeur teach or suggest that bugs
are located 'in the content’” (App. Br. 10), we are not persuaded of error
with the Examiner’s reliance on Dietl instead for disclosing “obtaining a
specification operation input being indicative of said web content manifested
in said audible reading” (Ans. 34, emphasis added). Thus, we agree with
the Examiner that the only clear teaching missing from Dietl of the contested
limitation is that the input is not indicative of a “flaw” in the web content
(id.).
However, we agree with the Examiner’s reliance on Brodeur for
disclosing “operation input being indicative of a flaw” (Ans. 35). In
particular, Brodeur discloses an error reporting application provided for a
user to describe a problem with another application, wherein the user can
report the problem, bug, or error (FF 2). We agree with the Examiner that
Brodeur discloses “error reporting application providing a mechanism for a
user to report an error, fault, or bug in content (application/site/program)”
(Ans. 36).
7
Appeal 2016-000986
Application 12/399,073
In Brodeur, the application includes word processing, spreadsheet,
and the like, the error reporting application takes a screen shot of the current
state of the application (FF 2), and a bug aggregation gateway aggregates
bugs reported from users for a particular site (FF 3). That is, in Brodeur, the
problem (e.g., bug or error) is in the word processing, spreadsheet, or the
like at a particular website, wherein a screen shot of the current state is taken
to obtain the problem (FF 2—3). Giving “web content” its broadest
reasonable interpretation, we are unpersuaded that the Examiner’s
interpretation, that Brodeur’s “input” is “indicative of a flaw” in the “web
content” (Ans. 36), is overly broad or unreasonable.
Furthermore, we find no error in the Examiner’s reliance on the
combination of Dietl and Brodeur for teaching and suggesting the contested
limitation of claim 1. We find that the ordinarily skilled artisan, upon
reading Brodeur’s teaching of error reporting (FF 2), would have found it
obvious to provide error reporting to DietFs system for inputting data
indicative of web content manifested in audible reading (FF 1). That is, we
find combining Brodeur’s error reporting with DietFs user input system, to
an ordinarily skilled artisan, is simply a combination of familiar prior art
practices or acts (as taught or suggested by the cited combination of
references) that would have realized a predictable result. The skilled artisan
is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int 7 Co. v.
Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420-21 (2007).
Based on this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1, and claims 16, 17, and 27, which are not separately
argued and falling therewith (App. Br. 11), as well as claims 3, 4, 7—11, 14,
8
Appeal 2016-000986
Application 12/399,073
15, 19, 20, 23—26, 28, and 29, respectively depending therefrom, over Died
and Brodeur.
Appellants add that Dietl and Brodeur fail to disclose the further
contested limitations of claim 27 (App.Br. 11—12). However, we find no
error with the Examiner’s conclusion that the contested limitations also
would have been obvious over the cited references (Final Rej. 10-11, 25,
30-33; Ans. 38—39). Therefore, we adopt the Examiner’s findings, which
we incorporate herein by reference.
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1,3,4, 7—11, 14—17,
19, 20, and 23-29 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9