Ex Parte Balinsky

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 19, 2011

11190249 (B.P.A.I. May. 19, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte HELEN BALINSKY
____________

Appeal 2009-010455
Application 11/190,249
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-22. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention customizes documents by rearranging content
elements within adjusted perimeters according to predetermined rules. See
generally Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative with key disputed limitations
emphasized:
Appeal 2009-010455
Application 11/190,249

2
1. A method of creating a document from a page and a plurality of
content items each having one or more content elements, the method
comprising the steps of:
for each content item, defining one or more perimeters;
selecting, in respect of each content item, a perimeter;
arranging the selected perimeters of each content item on the page;
adjusting the dimensions of one or more of the selected perimeters so
that all the content items lie within the boundaries of the page;
automatically re-arranging content elements within an adjusted
perimeter of a content item in accordance with pre-determined rules, in
which the content-elements are treated by the method as being of one of two
types: non-flowing content-elements which have constraints as to where they
are positioned within a perimeter and flowing content-elements that do not
have individual requirements as to where they are located within the
perimeter, wherein the predetermined rules cause the elements and their
positioning within the adjusted perimeter to be dynamically arranged,
wherein an order in which flowing content-elements are arranged within the
perimeter of the content item is adjustable by the predetermined rules; and
printing a document displaying the content items.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Mohr US 6,826,727 B1 Nov. 30, 2004
(filed Nov. 24, 1999)

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Mohr. Ans. 3-10.1

CONTENTIONS
Regarding representative claim 1, the Examiner finds that Mohr
discloses a document creation method with every recited feature including

1 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed November
11, 2008; (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed February 6, 2009; and (3) the
Reply Brief filed April 6, 2009.
Appeal 2009-010455
Application 11/190,249

3
automatically re-arranging content elements within an adjusted perimeter of
a content item according to predetermined rules as claimed. Ans. 3-5, 10-
13. According to the Examiner, the order of “flowing” content elements
within the perimeter is adjustable via Mohr’s rules since these elements can
be arranged in an order different than that specified by Mohr’s template tree
data structure. Id. at 10-11.
Appellant argues that while elements with a fixed position may be
positioned independently of the order indicated in Mohr’s tree-shaped data
structure, the same cannot be said for elements having a variable or flowing
type since the order of these elements is dictated by the tree-shaped data
structure. App. Br. 6-10; Reply Br. 3-4. The issue before us, then, is as
follows:

ISSUE
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Mohr automatically rearranges content elements within an adjusted
perimeter of a content item according to predetermined rules, such that an
order in which “flowing” content elements are arranged within the perimeter
of the content elements is adjustable by the rules, where unlike “non-
flowing” content elements, “flowing” content elements do not have
individual requirements as to where they are located within the perimeter?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
1. Appellant notes that non-flowing content elements (title 202 and
picture content-element 204) should be placed at a fixed position within a
perimeter. Flowing content elements (text 206), however, may be used to
Appeal 2009-010455
Application 11/190,249

4
fill the remainder of the space inside a perimeter once the non-flowing
content elements have been placed, and therefore have a variable shape.
Spec. 9:19-28; 14:5-15; Fig. 2.
2. Mohr’s system automatically lays out documents via templates
represented as a tree of text and shape elements, including variable elements.
A graphical interface displays the shape and text layout elements in the tree-
shaped data structure of a currently-edited template. Mohr, Abstract; col. 1,
ll. 7-10; col. 10, ll. 43-51; col. 11, ll. 20-26; Fig. 3.
3. Shape layout elements include, among other things, text containers
156 (i.e., rectangular or oval shapes into which text elements can be placed).
These elements can be created with certain size and position attributes.
Mohr, col. 11, ll. 27-29; col. 16, ll. 27-33; Fig. 63.
4. Each shape element also includes special attributes including a
“runaround” attribute 239 which causes text in text containers to run around
or avoid a shape element with a “yes” value for the “avoid me” attribute 238.
Mohr, col. 18, ll. 1-13; Fig. 16. Mohr’s Figure 16 shows an example of a
shape element’s runaround attribute in which text 218 runs around image
shape element 215 and is reproduced below:

Appeal 2009-010455
Application 11/190,249

5

Mohr’s Figure 16 showing example of a shape element’s runaround
attribute in which text 218 runs around an image shape element 215

5. The “addElementToAreaTemplate” and
“removeElementToAreaTemplate” routines prompt the user to decide which
elements to add to or remove from an area template since the location of
elements within a document’s layout, as displayed in the document window,
does not necessarily correspond to its order within the template’s tree-
shaped data structure. This is because, within pages and non-horizontal or
vertical group boxes, elements can be positioned at a fixed distance relative
to the upper left-hand corner of such shapes by the value of the left and top
position attributes 219 and 220. This allows the position of those elements
to be independent of their order within their container shape in the tree-
shaped data structure. Mohr, col. 23, l. 61 – col. 24, l. 14; Figs. 9, 68 & 69.

Appeal 2009-010455
Application 11/190,249

6
ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find error in the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of independent claim 1. First, it is undisputed that
elements with a fixed position in Mohr may be positioned independently of
the order indicated in the tree-shaped data structure. App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br.
3. This independence stems from the specified distance that fixes the
elements with respect to the upper left-hand corner of a page or group box as
the Examiner indicates. FF 5; Ans. 10-12.
To the extent that Appellant argues that these “fixed” elements cannot
include “flowing” content elements, we disagree. As the Examiner indicates
(Ans. 5), Mohr’s shape layout elements include text containers with
attributes that cause text to flow around other shape elements. FF 3-4. We
see no reason why these “flowing” content elements cannot be positioned at
a fixed distance relative to the upper left-hand corner as other elements.
Since this positioning would be independent of the order specified in the
tree-shaped data structure, the “flowing” elements’ order would therefore be
adjustable by rules that are based, in significant part, on specifying the left
and top position attributes. See FF 5.
But it is this placement requirement dictated by these attributes that
undermines the basis for the Examiner’s rejection, for claim 1 requires that
the flowing content elements not have individual requirements regarding
where these elements are located within the perimeter. Therefore, despite
Mohr’s ability to adjust the order of flowing content elements independently
of the tree-shaped data structure, this adjustment is made possible by
imposing a requirement on the elements’ placement within the perimeter
(i.e., with respect to the upper left-hand corner)—a requirement that runs
Appeal 2009-010455
Application 11/190,249

7
counter to the recited characteristics of flowing content elements in claim 1,
namely that they lack location-based requirements.
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
(1) independent claim 1; (2) independent claims 14 and 18 which recite
commensurate limitations; and (3) dependent claims 2-4, 6-13, 16, 17, and
19-22 for similar reasons. Since this issue is dispositive regarding our
reversal of the rejection of these claims, we need not address Appellant’s
other arguments pertaining to claims 20 and 22 (App. Br. 10-11).

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-22 under
§ 102.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-22 is
reversed.

REVERSED

llw