Ex Parte Bergholz

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 29, 2011

11222881 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 29, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/222,881 09/09/2005 Andre Bergholz 20041950USNP-XER1937US01 8975
62095 7590 11/30/2011
FAY SHARPE / XEROX - ROCHESTER
1228 EUCLID AVENUE, 5TH FLOOR
THE HALLE BUILDING
CLEVELAND, OH 44115
EXAMINER
BADAWI, SHERIEF
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2167
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ANDRE BERGHOLZ
____________

Appeal 2009-014275
Application 11/222,881
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, GREGORY J. GONSALVES, and
MICHAEL R. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judges.

GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-014275
Application 11/222,881

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1-15 and 21-28. (App. Br. 3.) Claims 16-20 were cancelled. (Id.)
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s invention includes “methods for clustering document
page collections based on page layout attributes.” (Spec. ¶ [0002].) In one
of the methods, samples of document pages from a document page
collection are chosen. (Spec. FIG. 4, 414.) Next, the sample of document
pages is annotated to determine a reference clustering. (Id. at FIG. 4, 421.)
Features are then extracted to form feature vectors. (Id. at FIG. 4, 435 and
442.) Next, feature weights are determined. (Id. at FIG. 4, 449, 470.) The
weighted features can then be used to cluster the complete collection of
document pages. (Id. at FIG. 4, 456, 463, 477, and 484.) Claim 1, which is
illustrative of the invention, reads as follows:
1. A method for computing a distance metric for a
document page collection, the method comprising:
obtaining a document page collection, each
document page in the collection having one or more
features, the one or more features defining a page layout
attribute, the document pages being annotated to define a
reference clustering;
extracting information from the one or more features on
each document page;
Appeal 2009-014275
Application 11/222,881

3
constructing a feature vector for the one or more features
on each document page;
assigning a feature weight to each feature;
computing a distance metric measuring a distance
between two compared document pages based on the feature
weights and the feature vectors of the two compared document
pages;
clustering the document pages of the document page
collection using the distance metric; and
optimizing the distance metric by adjusting the feature
weights to make the clustering similar to the reference
clustering.

The Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7-9, 11, 13-15, and 24-26 as
obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) based on Schuetze (U.S. 2003/0074368
A1), and Wolff (U.S. 5,847,708). (Ans. 4-10.)
The Examiner rejected claims 3 and 10 as obvious under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Schuetze, Wolff, and Muramoto (U.S.
6,725,423 B1). (Ans. 10-12.)
The Examiner rejected claims 5 and 12 asunder 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Schuetze, Wolff, Lue (U.S. 2004/0148571 A1), and Yip (U.S.
2003/0128390 A1). (Ans. 13-15.)
The Examiner rejected claims 21 and 27 as obvious under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Schuetze, Wolff, and Yves Lucet (A linear
Euclidean distance transform algorithm based on the Linear-time Legendre
Transform, June 2005). (Ans. 15-16.)
Appeal 2009-014275
Application 11/222,881

4
The Examiner rejected claims 22 and 28 as obvious under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Schuetze, Wolff, and Mentzer (U.S.
2001/0049689 A1). (Ans. 16-17.)
The Examiner rejected claim 23 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Schuetze, Wolff, and Ruocco (U.S. 5,864,855). (Ans. 18.)

ISSUE
Appellant’s responses to the Examiner’s positions present the
following issue:
Does the claim term “document page” exclude the web pages
disclosed in Schuetze?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 3-27) in response to
Appellant’s Appeal Brief. But we highlight and address specific findings
and arguments regarding the recited “document pages” for emphasis as
follows.
We understand Appellant’s position that Schuetze does not teach a
“document page” because the “’pages’ of Schuetze are different in kind from
the document pages recited in claim 1.” (App. Br. 14.) Appellant argues
that the document pages of his patent application have a writing surface for
content and page layout attributes, such as paragraphs, images, page
Appeal 2009-014275
Application 11/222,881

5
numbers, etc., while the pages of Schuetze are web pages or HTML pages
(App. Br. 16-18.) As explained by the Examiner, however, the documents in
Appellant’s application include electronic files and a web page or HTML
page as an electronic file. (Ans. 19.) As also explained by the Examiner,
web pages and HTML pages, like the document pages in Appellant’s
application, contain both content and layout features. (See Ans. 20-21.)
Accordingly, we find that the Examiner, giving the disputed claim term its’
broadest reasonable meaning consistent with the Specification, see In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997), properly relies on the web
pages or HTML pages of Schuetze to teach or suggest the claimed
“document pages.”
For these reasons and the reasons expressed by the Examiner (Ans. 3-
27), we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections of independent claims 1, 8,
and 24. We will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims
2, 4-7, 9, 11-15, 22, 23, 25, 26, and 28, because Appellant either did not set
forth any separate patentability arguments or based his arguments on the
mistaken belief that Schuetze’s web pages do not teach or suggest the
claimed “document pages.” (See App. Br. 25-29.)
With respect to dependent claims 3 and 10, Appellant asserts that the
Examiner did not provide a rationale for combining Muramoto with
Schuetze and Wolff. (App. Br. 25.) But the Examiner did provide a
rationale; the Examiner explained that “by incorporating Muramoto's
specific methods of analyzing the structure of a document based on
distinctive features of the document such as the number of paragraphs and
the size of the occupied areas of text seen in Fig.3 and Fig.4 in the combined
Schuetze and Wolff clustering system that clusters and optimizes the
Appeal 2009-014275
Application 11/222,881

6
clustering based on features of documents.” (Ans. 24) (emphasis in
original.) Accordingly, we will also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 3 and 10.
Appellant suggests that Yves does not qualify as prior art because
there is no indication that it was published prior to the filing date of his
patent application, September 9, 2005. (App. Br. 28.) As explained by the
Examiner, however, the publication date of June 2005 at the bottom left
corner of Yves indicates that it “qualifies as prior art under 102 (a).” (Ans.
27.) Thus, we will also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 21 and
27.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-15 and 21-28 is
affirmed.1
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

1 We have decided the appeal before us. However, should there be further
prosecution of these claims; the Examiner’s attention is directed to the
following recently issued guidance from the Director:
Memorandum to the TC Directors regarding New Interim
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Examination Instructions, (August
24, 2009), available at
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/2009-08-
25_interim_ 101_ instructions.pdf.
Memorandum to the Patent Examining Corps regarding Interim
Guidance for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility for Process
Claims in View of Bilski v. Kappos, 75 Fed. Reg. 43,922 (July 27,
2010).

Appeal 2009-014275
Application 11/222,881

7

tj