Ex Parte ChaoDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJun 15, 201110410999 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 15, 2011) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte HUI CHAO ____________ Appeal 2009-011629 Application 10/410,9991 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before DENISE M. POTHIER, DAVID M. KOHUT, and MICHAEL R. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judges. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Filed on April 10, 2003. The real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard Development Co., L.P. (App. Br. 1.) Appeal 2009-011629 Application 10/410,999 2 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-10, 13, 14, 16, 23-33, 35 and 36. (App. Br. 1-2; Reply Br. 1.) Claims 2, 4, 11, 12, and 19-22 have been cancelled. (Id.) Claim 7 has been allowed. (Id.) Claims 15, 17, 18, and 34 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. (Id.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2008). We affirm. Appellant’s Invention Appellant invented a method, computer-readable medium, and system for classifying document elements into categories, such as content and background. (Spec. 1, ll. 4-6.) Illustrative Claims Independent claims 1, 5, and 13 further illustrate the invention as follows: 1. A computer-implemented method of classifying elements of a document, comprising: receiving a data file defining an arrangement of elements on a page of the document, wherein the data file associates respective attribute values with each of the elements; selecting one or more of the elements on the page; determining for each of the selected elements a respective content type value, at least one respective size value indicating a respective amount of the page occupied by the element, and at least one respective distance value indicating a Appeal 2009-011629 Application 10/410,999 3 respective location of the element in relation to a reference location on the page from the associated attribute values; respectively assigning each of the selected elements to either a content category or a background category, wherein each assignment of a respective one of the selected elements is based on the respective content type value and at least one of (i) a comparison of the at least one respective size value with a respective threshold value and (ii) the at least one respective distance value; generating a classification record comprising for each of the selected elements an indication of the respectively assigned category; and storing the classification record in a computer-readable storage medium. 5. A computer-implemented method of classifying elements of a document, comprising: receiving a data file defining the document, wherein the document has at least one page and a plurality of elements, wherein a type, location, and size of each element is defined by the file; classifying at least one selected element of a selected page into one of a plurality of categories based on at least one of the type, location, size, and dimension of the selected element, wherein the classifying comprises determining whether, at least along one dimension, the selected element has a size in relation to that of the page that exceeds a pre-determined threshold and assigning the selected element to a background element category in response to a determination that the selected element has a size in relation to that of the page that exceeds the pre-determined threshold; generating a classification record comprising an indication of the category into which each of the selected elements is respectively classified; and storing the classification record in a computer-readable storage medium. Appeal 2009-011629 Application 10/410,999 4 13. A computer -implemented method of classifying elements of a document, comprising: receiving a data file defining a respective arrangement of elements on each of a plurality of pages of the document, wherein the data file associates respective attribute values with each of the elements; classifying a selected one of the elements on a selected one of the pages into one of a content category and a background category based on frequency of occurrence of similar elements on one or more pages of the document other than the selected page; generating a classification record comprising an indication of the category into which the selected element is respectively classified; and storing the classification record in a computer-readable storage medium. Prior Art Relied Upon The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of unpatentability: Pirolli US 5,895,470 Apr. 20, 1999 Fan US 2003/0072487 A1 Apr. 17, 2003 Wu US 2004/0066530 A1 Apr. 8, 2004 Bottou US 2005/0207666 A1 Sept. 22, 2005 (effectively filed Jan. 24, 2002 Rejections on Appeal The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows: Claims 1, 3, 8-10, 26-33, and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Wu and Bottou. Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Wu and Fan. Appeal 2009-011629 Application 10/410,999 5 Claims 13, 14, 16, and 23-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Wu, Bottou, and Pirolli. Claim 35 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Wu, Bottou, and Fan. Appellant’s Contentions 1. Appellant contends that Bottou’s disclosure of classifying image elements is performed independently of content type and page location value and, therefore, does not teach or fairly suggest “each assignment of a respective one of the selected elements is based on the respective content type value,” as recited in independent claim 1. (App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 2-3.) Further, Appellant argues that Bottou’s disclosure of a ratio between unoccluded and occluded perimeters of an element does not constitute a size value indicating a respective amount of page occupied by an element. (App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 3-4.) Moreover, Appellant alleges that Bottou’s disclosure of image element coordinates does not amount to a “distance value,” as claimed. (App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 4-5.) Therefore, Appellant alleges that Bottou does not teach or fairly suggest “each assignment of a respective one of the selected elements is based on … at least one of (i) a comparison of the at least one respective size value with a respective threshold value and (ii) the at least one respective distance value,” as recited in independent claim 1. (App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 3-4.) Additionally, Appellant contends that there is insufficient rationale to combine Wu and Bottou, and the Examiner improperly engages in impermissible hindsight reconstruction. (App. Br. 14-17; Reply Br. 5-7.) 2. Appellant contends that Fan’s disclosure of the dimensions of the largest region grown does not contain any information about “a size in Appeal 2009-011629 Application 10/410,999 6 relation to that of the page,” as recited in independent claims 5 and 6. (App. Br. 19, 24-25; Reply Br. 7-8, 10-11.) Appellant also argues that Fan’s largest region grown is an absolute size and does not teach or fairly suggest “a size in relation to that of the page,” as claimed. (Reply Br. 8-11.) Moreover, Appellant argues that Fan’s disclosure of comparing the dimensions of the largest region grown with a threshold does not teach or fairly suggest “determining whether, at least along one dimension, the selected element has a size in relation to that of the page that exceeds a pre-determined threshold,” as recited in independent claim 5 and as similarly recited in independent claim 6. (App. Br. 19-20; Reply Br. 8-11.) Further, Appellant alleges that there is insufficient rationale to combine Wu and Fan, and the Examiner improperly engages in impermissible hindsight reconstruction. (App. Br. 20-23, 25; Reply Br. 9, 11.) 3. Appellant contends that Pirolli’s disclosure of classifying entire web pages does not amount to classifying individual elements on a web page into one of a content or background category. (App. Br. 27-28; Reply Br. 11-13.) Therefore, Appellant argues that Pirolli does not teach or fairly suggest “classifying a selected one of the elements on a selected one of the pages into one of a content category and a background category based on frequency of occurrence of similar elements on one or more pages of the document other than the selected page,” as recited in independent claim 13. (Id.) Further, Appellant alleges that there is insufficient rationale to combine Wu, Bottou, and Pirolli, and the Examiner improperly engages in impermissible hindsight reconstruction. (App. Br. 28-30; Reply Br. 13.) Appeal 2009-011629 Application 10/410,999 7 Examiner’s Findings and Conclusions 1. The Examiner finds that Bottou’s disclosure of classifying an image element as either a foreground or background layer teaches or fairly suggests “respectively assigning each of the selected elements to either a content category or a background category,” as recited in independent claim 1. (Ans. 21.) Further, the Examiner finds that Bottou’s disclosure of determining the image element coordinates amounts to determining a location of an image in relation to a reference location (i.e., edges) of a page. (Id. at 21, 23.) Moreover, the Examiner finds that since independent claim 1 explicitly recites “at least one of,” Bottou only needs to teach or fairly suggest one of the two alternatives claimed. (Id.) Consequently, the Examiner finds that Bottou’s disclosure of classifying an image element based on both the content type and image element coordinates teaches or fairly suggests “wherein each assignment of a respective one of the selected elements is based on the respective content type value and at least one of…(ii) the at least one respective distance value,” as claimed. (Id. at 22.) Further, the Examiner finds that there is sufficient rationale to combine Wu and Bottou. (Id. at 23-25.) 2. The Examiner finds that Fan’s disclosure of comparing the dimensions of the largest region grown with a predetermined threshold teaches or fairly suggests “determining whether, at least along one dimension, the selected element has a size in relation to that of the page that exceeds a pre-determined threshold,” as recited in independent claim 5 and as similarly recited in independent 6. (Id. at 26-27.) Further, the Examiner disagrees with Appellant’s assertion the Fan’s largest region grown does not constitute an area in relation to a page. (Id. at 26-28.) The Examiner finds Appeal 2009-011629 Application 10/410,999 8 that Fan’s largest region grown amounts to a size in relation to a page because it is the largest region or element on the page. (Id.) Additionally, the Examiner finds that there is sufficient rationale to combine Wu and Fan. (Id. at 28-29.) 3. The Examiner finds that Pirolli’s disclosure of classification based on usage frequency and similarity of objects among several Web pages is only relied upon to teach or fairly suggest “classifying… based on frequency of occurrence of similar elements on one or more pages of the document other than the selected page,” as recited in independent claim 11. (Id. at 29-31.) The Examiner maintains that Bottou’s disclosure of classifying an image element as either a foreground or background layer teaches or fairly suggests “classifying a selected one of the elements on a selected one of the pages into one of a content category and a background category,” as claimed. (Id.) Further, the Examiner finds that there is sufficient rationale to combine Wu, Bottou, and Pirolli. (Id. at 31.) II. ISSUES 1. Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that the combination of Wu and Bottou renders independent claim 1 unpatentable? In particular, the issue turns on whether: (a) the combination of Wu and Bottou teaches or fairly suggests “respectively assigning each of the selected elements to either a content category or a background category, wherein each assignment of a respective one of the selected elements is based on the respective content type value and at least one of (i) a comparison of the at least one respective size value Appeal 2009-011629 Application 10/410,999 9 with a respective threshold value and (ii) the at least one respective distance value,” as recited in independent claim 1; and (b) there is sufficient rationale to combine Wu and Bottou. 2. Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that the combination of Wu and Fan renders independent claims 5 and 6 unpatentable? In particular, the issue turns on whether: (a) the combination of Wu and Fan teaches or fairly suggests “classifying at least one selected element of a selected page into one of a plurality of categories based on at least one of the type, location, size, and dimension of the selected element, wherein the classifying comprises determining whether, at least along one dimension, the selected element has a size in relation to that of the page that exceeds a pre-determined threshold,” as recited in independent claim 5 and as similarly recited in independent claim 6; and (b) there is sufficient rationale to combine Wu and Fan. 3. Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that the combination of Wu, Bottou, and Fan renders independent claim 13 unpatentable? In particular, the issue turns on whether: (a) the combination of Wu, Bottou, and Fan teaches or fairly suggests “classifying a selected one of the elements on a selected one of the pages into one of a content category and a background category based on frequency of occurrence of similar elements on one or more pages of the document other than the selected page,” as recited in independent claim 13; and (b) there is sufficient rationale to combine Wu, Bottou, and Fan. Appeal 2009-011629 Application 10/410,999 10 III. FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (hereinafter “FF”) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Wu FF 1. Wu’s figure 6 depicts a document analysis procedure. (¶ [0053].) In particular, upon receipt of a printing document (601), Wu discloses that a document analyzing section (33) instructs a document manager (35) to create a data management table for the document (602). (Id.; fig. 3) Further, Wu’s figure 7 illustrates that a data management table is utilized to manage each document element contained in the document. (¶ [0054].) Bottou FF 2. According to Bottou, there is a need to effectively classify image elements and, in particular, to render image elements from structured page information, such as electronic documents. (¶ [0006].) FF 3. Bottou discloses an image classification system that assigns predetermined types of image elements to either the foreground or background layer. (¶ [0026].) For example, Bottou discloses pre-assigning text and symbols to the foreground layer in order to improve their readability. (Id.) FF 4. Bottou discloses that the image classification system processes image elements using the corresponding structured page information by reading and comparing the image element coordinates to the foreground and background layers. (¶ [0029].) Appeal 2009-011629 Application 10/410,999 11 Fan FF 5. According to Fan, “it is desirable to develop a segmentation algorithm that is suitable for many, if not all, image processing applications.” (¶ [0002].) FF 6. Fan discloses “a method for segmenting an image into a main background, local backgrounds, and objects.” (¶ [0006].) FF 7. Fan’s figure 8 depicts a background-based segmentation process (100). (¶ [0012].) At step (546), Fan discloses analyzing, segmenting, and classifying a first composite object. (¶ [0027].) At step (548), Fan discloses performing edge detection on the composite object using a standard edge detector and, at step (550), removing the edge pixels from the composite object. (Id.) Next, at step (552)2, using each pixel on the outer boundary of the removed edge as a seed, Fan discloses applying a region-growing algorithm. (Id.) If the color difference between an adjacent pixel and a region is less than a predetermined threshold, Fan discloses marking the adjacent pixel as belonging to the region. (Id.) If the largest region grown has dimensions larger than a predetermined threshold, Fan discloses identifying the largest region grown as the local background. (Id.) Pirolli FF 8. Pirolli discloses facilitating information searching and improving design of a web locality using a system that analyzes the topology, content, and usage of linked collections of documents, such as those found on the World Wide Web. (Col. 1, l. 65-col. 2, l. 2.) 2 Fan’s figure 8 mistakenly numbers this step as (550). Appeal 2009-011629 Application 10/410,999 12 FF 9. Pirolli discloses applying techniques for information retrieval to calculate a text similarity matrix, which represents the inter-document text similarities among Web pages. (Col. 7, ll. 31-33.) FF 10. In order to perform categorizations, Pirolli discloses that each Web page at a Web locality is represented by a vector of features constructed from the respective topology, meta-information, usage statistics, usage paths, and text similarities. (Col. 8, ll. 4-7.) IV. ANALYSIS 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection—Combination of Wu and Bottou Claim 1 Independent claim 1 recites, inter alia: respectively assigning each of the selected elements to either a content category or a background category, wherein each assignment of a respective one of the selected elements is based on the respective content type value and at least one of (i) a comparison of the at least one respective size value with a respective threshold value and (ii) the at least one respective distance value. As detailed in the Findings of Fact section above, Bottou discloses an image classification system that assigns image elements to either the foreground or background layers. (FF 3.) In particular, Bottou discloses assigning both text and symbols to the foreground layer in order to improve readability. (Id.) We find Bottou’s disclosure of assigning image elements to either the foreground or background layers teaches or fairly suggests assigning image elements located within a document to either a content or background category. In particular, we find that Bottou’s disclosure of assigning Appeal 2009-011629 Application 10/410,999 13 content, such as text and symbols, to the foreground amounts to assigning image elements within a document to a content category based on a content type. Thus, we find that Bottou teaches or fairly suggests “respectively assigning each of the selected elements to either a content category or a background category, wherein each assignment of a respective one of the selected elements is based on the respective content type value” as recited in independent claim 1. Further, Bottou discloses that the image classification system processes image elements by reading and comparing the image element coordinates with the foreground and background layers. (FF 4.) We find that Bottou’s disclosure of image element coordinates amounts to the claimed “distance value” because such coordinates indicate the location of an image element in relation to a reference location, such as the foreground and background. Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that since independent claim 1 explicitly recites “at least one of,” Bottou only needs to teach or fairly suggest one of the two alternatives claimed. (Ans. 21.) Accordingly, we find that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have readily appreciated that Bottou’s image classification system assigns image elements located within a document to either a content or background category based on both the content type (i.e., text or symbols) and corresponding image element coordinates. Thus, we find that Bottou teaches or fairly suggests “wherein each assignment of a respective one of the selected elements is based on the respective content type value and at least one of (i) a comparison of the at least one respective size value with a respective threshold value and (ii) the at least one respective distance value,” as recited independent claim 1. Appeal 2009-011629 Application 10/410,999 14 Rationale to Combine We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that there is insufficient rationale to combine Wu and Bottou. (App. Br. 14-17; Reply Br. 5-7.) The U.S. Supreme Court has held that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). The Court further instructs that: [o]ften it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents; . . . and the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art, all in order to determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in a the fashion claimed by the patent at issue. Id. at 418. Additionally, the Court instructs that: “[[r]]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”… however, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. Id. (citation omitted). Upon reviewing the record before us, we find that the Examiner’s suggestion for the proposed modification in the prior art suffices as an articulated reason to establish the prima facie case of obviousness. In particular, Wu discloses a document analysis procedure that creates a data management table for a document. (FF 1.) Further, Wu discloses that the data management table is utilized to manage each element contained within Appeal 2009-011629 Application 10/410,999 15 the document. (Id.) In summary, we find that an ordinarily skilled artisan in the art of document production and publishing, at the time of the claimed invention, would have combined Wu’s document analysis procedure (id), with Bottou’s disclosure of assigning image elements located within a document to either a content or background category based on both the content type (i.e., text or symbols) and corresponding image element coordinates. (FFs 3 and 4.) This proffered combination would result in effectively classifying image elements and, in particular, rendering image elements from structured page information. (FF 2.) Further, as prescribed by the controlling case law, while it is often necessary for an Examiner to identify a reason for combining the familiar elements obtained from the prior art in establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, the identification of such a reason is not a sine qua non requirement. So long as the Examiner provides an articulated reasoning with some kind of a rational underpinning to substantiate the obviousness rejection, such a conclusion is proper. In this case, the Examiner provided more than just a mere conclusory statement. The Examiner noted that it would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled artisan at the time of the claimed invention to modify Wu with the teachings of Bottou in order to enable a way to classify image elements, in general, and image elements rendered from structured page information, e.g., electronic documents, in particular. (Ans. 5; see also FF 2.) In our view, such a statement suffices as an articulated reason with a rational underpinning to support the cited combination. As noted above, the case law allows the Examiner to look to the state of the prior art, including the knowledge of the ordinarily skilled artisan, to surmise such a reason for combining the known elements of the Appeal 2009-011629 Application 10/410,999 16 prior art. Consequently, the Examiner’s reliance upon both Wu and Bottou in order to arrive at an articulated reason with a rational underpinning to support the proffered combination is proper. For the same reasons as set forth above, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner improperly engages in impermissible hindsight reconstruction. (App. Br. 16.) It follows that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that the combination of Wu and Bottou renders independent claim 1 unpatentable. Claims 3, 8-10, 26-33, and 36 Appellant does not provide separate and distinct arguments for patentability with respect to dependent claims 3, 8-10, 26-33, and 36. Therefore, we select independent claim 1 as representative of the cited claims. Consequently, Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 3, 8-10, 26-33, and 36 for the reasons set forth in our discussion of independent claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection—Combination of Wu and Fan Claims 5 and 6 Independent claim 5 recites, inter alia: classifying at least one selected element of a selected page into one of a plurality of categories based on at least one of the type, location, size, and dimension of the selected element, wherein the classifying comprises determining whether, at least along one dimension, the selected element has a size in relation to that of the page that exceeds a pre-determined threshold. As detailed in the Findings of Fact section above, Fan discloses a background-based segmentation process that analyzes, segments, and Appeal 2009-011629 Application 10/410,999 17 classifies a composite object. (FF 7.) In particular, Fan discloses using a standard edge detector to perform edge detection on the composite object and, thereafter, applying a region-growing algorithm. (Id.) If the largest region grown with respect to the object has dimensions that are larger than a predetermined threshold, Fan discloses identifying the composite object as the local background. (Id.) We find that Fan’s disclosure teaches classifying a selected composite object or element located within a document into a background category if the largest region grown with respect to the element has dimensions that exceed a predetermined threshold. In particular, we find that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have appreciated that since the selected element is located within the document, Fan’s disclosure of the dimensions of the largest region grown with respect to the element necessarily encompasses ascertaining the size of such element in relation to the document. Thus, we find that Fan teaches or fairly suggests the disputed limitation. Rationale to Combine We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that there is insufficient rationale to combine Wu and Fan. (App. Br. 20-23, 25; Reply Br. 9, 11.) We find more than adequate suggestion for the proposed modification in the prior art. In summary, we find that an ordinarily skilled artisan in the art of document production and publishing, at the time of the claimed invention, would have combined Wu’s document analysis procedure (FF 1), with Fan’s disclosure of classifying a selected element located within a document into a background category if the largest region grown with respect to the element has dimensions that exceed a predetermined threshold. (FF 7.) This proffered combination would result in the development of a Appeal 2009-011629 Application 10/410,999 18 segmentation algorithm that is suitable for many, if not all, image processing applications. (FF 5.) Moreover, this proffered combination would predictably result in a method for segmenting an image or element into various categories. (FF 6.) Further, the Examiner provided more than just a mere conclusory statement in order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. The Examiner noted that at the time of the claimed invention, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have modified Wu with the teachings of Fan in order to enable a segmentation algorithm suitable for many image processing applications. (Ans. 10.) The Examiner also notes that the proffered combination would enable a method for segmenting an image into categories, such as main background, local background, and objects. (Id; see also FF 6) In our view, such statements suffice as articulated reasons with rational underpinnings to support the cited combination. Consequently, the Examiner’s reliance upon Wu and Fan in order to arrive at articulated reasons with rational underpinnings to support the proffered combination is proper. For the same reasons as set forth above, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner improperly engages in impermissible hindsight reconstruction. (App. Br. 22.) It follows that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that the combination of Wu and Fan renders independent claim 5 and independent claim 6, which recites commensurate limitations, unpatentable. Appeal 2009-011629 Application 10/410,999 19 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection—Combination of Wu, Bottou, and Pirolli Claim 13 Independent claim 13 recites, inter alia, “classifying a selected one of the elements on a selected one of the pages into one of a content category and a background category based on frequency of occurrence of similar elements on one or more pages of the document other than the selected page.” As detailed in the Findings of Fact section above, Pirolli discloses techniques for information retrieval that include calculating text similarities among Web pages. (FF 9.) Further, Pirolli discloses representing each Web page at a Web locality by a vector of features constructed from topology, meta-information, usage statistics, usage paths, and text similarities. (FF 10.) We find that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized that Pirolli’s disclosure of information retrieval techniques that calculate the similarities and usage statistics of text among several Web pages encompasses determining the frequency of occurrence of similar elements on the pages of a respective document other than a selected page. In summary, we find that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have readily appreciated classifying a selected image element located on a page of a document into either Bottou’s content or background category based on Pirolli’s disclosure of determining the frequency of occurrence of similar elements on the pages of the respective document other than the selected page. Thus, we find that the combination of Bottou and Pirolli teaches or fairly suggests the disputed limitation. Appeal 2009-011629 Application 10/410,999 20 Rationale to Combine We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that there is insufficient rationale to combine Wu, Bottou, and Pirolli. (App. Br. 28-30; Reply Br. 13.) As set forth above, we find that there is sufficient rationale to combine Wu and Bottou. Moreover, we find that an ordinarily skilled artisan in the art of document production and publishing, at the time of the claimed invention, would have combined Wu’s document analysis procedure (FF 1), with Pirolli’s disclosure of determining the frequency of occurrence of similar elements on the pages of a respective document other than a selected page. (FFs 9 and 10.) This proffered combination would predictably result in a system that facilitates information searching by analyzing the topology, content, and usage of a linked collection of documents. (FF 8.) Further, the Examiner provided more than just a mere conclusory statement in order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. The Examiner noted that at the time of the claimed invention, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have modified Wu with the teachings of Pirolli in order to enable a system for analyzing the topology, content and usage of linked collections of documents on the web to facilitate information searching. (Ans. 13-14; see also FF 8.) In our view, such a statement suffices as an articulated reason with a rational underpinning to support the cited combination. Consequently, the Examiner’s reliance upon Wu, Bottou, and Pirolli in order to arrive at articulated reasons with rational underpinnings to support the proffered combination is proper. For the same reasons as set forth above, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner improperly engages in Appeal 2009-011629 Application 10/410,999 21 impermissible hindsight reconstruction. (App. Br. 29.) It follows that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that the combination of Wu, Bottou, and Pirolli renders independent claim 13 unpatentable. Claims 14, 16, and 23-25 Appellant offers the same arguments set forth in response to the obviousness rejections of independent claims 1 and 13 to rebut the obviousness rejections of independent claims 16, 23, and 25, and dependent claims 14 and 24. (App. Br. 30-34; Reply Br. 14.) We have already addressed these arguments in our discussion of independent claims 1 and 13, and we found them unpersuasive. It follows that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that the combination of Wu, Bottou, and Pirolli renders claims 14, 16, and 23-25 unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection—Combination of Wu, Bottou, and Fan Claim 35 Appellant offers the same arguments set forth in response to the obviousness rejection of independent claim 1 to rebut the obviousness rejection of dependent claim 35. (App. Br. 34-35; Reply Br. 15.) We have already addressed these arguments in our discussion of independent claim 1, and we found them unpersuasive. It follows that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that the combination of Wu, Bottou, and Fan renders dependent claim 35 unpatentable. Appeal 2009-011629 Application 10/410,999 22 V. CONCLUSION OF LAW Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-10, 13, 14, 16, 23-33, 35, and 36 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). VI. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-10, 13, 14, 16, 23-33, 35, and 36 as being unpatentable 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation