Ex Parte Dang et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 31, 2006

09859425 (B.P.A.I. May. 31, 2006)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte Chi-Thanh Dang, Rambabu Achanta, Robert J. Hatton,
Kiranmayee Potnuru, and Patricia Agbulos
____________

Appeal No. 2006-0430
Application No. 09/859,425
____________

ON BRIEF
____________

Before JERRY SMITH, BARRY, and MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.

A patent examiner rejected claims 1-21. The appellants appeal therefrom under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND
The invention at issue on appeal concerns language translation. Application
service providers maintain networked computer systems and applications necessary to
support business functions such as payment processing, invoicing, and digital rights
management. An application service provider develops expertise in providing access to
the particular business functions and delivers access via a communication network such
as the Internet. (Spec., p. 1, ll. 13-19.)
Appeal No. 2006-0430 Page 2
Application No. 09/859,425

For example, a web site requiring credit card authorization may out-source that
function to a payment processing application service provider. The provider maintains
service connections to banking networks, clearing houses, and credit card companies.
(Id. at ll. 20-23.) When a user of the aforementioned web site selects the web site's
payment page, the request is referred to a secured web server maintained by the
payment processor for entry of credit card information. (Id. at ll. 24-27.) Unfortunately,
the language of the referring web site may be different than that of the payment
processor application service provider. (Id. at ll. 29-31.)

Accordingly, the appellants' dynamic translation service stores "language
information" associated with specific clients and users. (Abs., ll. 1-3.) The service uses
the information to determine a language. It then determines a content skeleton.
Elements of the skeleton are translated into the determined language. The
translated elements are then merged into the content portion. (Id. at ll. 4-10.)

A further understanding of the invention can be achieved by reading the following
claims.
1. A system for managing dynamic translation, comprising:

a client language storage for storing language information
associated with a client and user;

Appeal No. 2006-0430 Page 3
Application No. 09/859,425

a skeleton determining circuit for determining at least one skeleton
content elements of a received content portion, wherein the at least one
skeleton content elements include graphical content elements and textual
content elements;

a language table storage for storing at least one translation of each
of at least one skeleton content elements based on the skeleton content
element and a language;

a client and user determining circuit for determining a client and
user associated with a content portion; and

a merging circuit for merging at least one translation of the at least
one skeleton content elements based on the language associated with the
determined client into the received content portion.

6. A method for managing dynamic translation, comprising:

receiving a content portion from a client;

determining at least one of a client and a user associated with the
content portion;

determining at least one skeleton content elements of the received
content portion, wherein the at least one skeleton content elements
include graphical content elements and textual content elements;

determining at least one translated skeleton content elements from
a language table based on the determined at least one client and user;
and

merging the at least one translated skeleton content elements into
the content portion.

Appeal No. 2006-0430 Page 4
Application No. 09/859,425

Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over U.S.
Patent No. 6,421,733 ("Tso") and U.S. Patent No. 6,073,147 ("Chan").
.
II. OPINION
"When multiple claims subject to the same ground of rejection are argued as a
group by appellant[s], the Board may select a single claim from the group of claims that
are argued together to decide the appeal with respect to the group of claims as to the
ground of rejection on the basis of the selected claim alone. Notwithstanding any other
provision of this paragraph, the failure of appellant[s] to separately argue claims which
appellant[s] has grouped together shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the
Board must consider the patentability of any grouped claim separately." 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (Sep. 30, 2004).

Here, claims 1-21 are subject to the same ground of rejection. Rather than
arguing the patentability of dependent claims 2-5, 7-9, 12-15, and 17-20 separately, the
appellants rely on their arguments for independent claims 1, 6, 11, and 16, respectively.
(Appeal Br. at 15, 20, 21, 25.) Therefore, we select each independent claim as
representative of its dependent claims. With this representation in mind, rather than
reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellants in toto, we focus on the two
Appeal No. 2006-0430 Page 5
Application No. 09/859,425

points of contention therebetween, viz., storing translations and translating textual and
graphical elements.

A. STORING TRANSLATIONS
The examiner makes the following findings.
Since Tso specifically teaches dynamic translation of language content,
the Examiner believes Tso teaches the claimed language table storage.
The Examiner believes a reasonable interpretation of a table is an orderly
arrangement of data. In light of this reasonable interpretation, a language
table for translation purposes is necessary to match each original
language content element with a corresponding translated language
content element. Thus, the Examiner believes Tso necessarily teaches a
language table storage to implement the dynamic language translation
described in col. 8 lines 41-50.

(Examiner's Answer at 16.) The appellants argue, " it is incorrect and unreasonable to
consider the storage of font information by Chan to teach or suggest storage of
characters." (Appeal Br. at 11.)

"In addressing the point of contention, the Board conducts a two-step analysis.
First, we construe the representative claims at issue to determine their scope. Second,
we determine whether the construed claims would have been obvious." Ex Parte
Suzuki, No. 2002-2177, 2004 WL 1046892, at *3 (Bd.Pat.App & Int. 2004).

Appeal No. 2006-0430 Page 6
Application No. 09/859,425

1. Claim Construction
"Analysis begins with a key legal question — what is the invention claimed?"
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). In answering the question, "limitations are not to be read into the claims
from the specification." In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184, 26 USPQ2d 1057, 1059
(Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
1989)).

Here, independent claims 1 and 16 recite in pertinent part the following
limitations: "a language table storage for storing at least one translation of each of at
least one skeleton content elements based on the skeleton content element and a
language. . . ." In contrast, independent claims 6, 11, and 21 recite "a language table,"
without specifying what is stored therein.

2. Obviousness Determination
"Having determined what subject matter is being claimed, the next inquiry is
whether the subject matter would have been obvious." Ex Parte Massingill,
No. 2003-0506, 2004 WL 1646421, at *3 (Bd.Pat.App & Int. 2004). Here, the examiner
has relied on Tso to teach the aforementioned limitations. The appellants have not
Appeal No. 2006-0430 Page 7
Application No. 09/859,425

addressed the cited teachings of Tso but have instead discussed other teachings of
Chan. We find such a discussion immaterial to the examiner's reliance on Tso.

B. TRANSLATING TEXTUAL AND GRAPHICAL ELEMENTS
The examiner finds, "Tso teaches a skeleton determining circuit for determining
at least one skeleton content elements of a received content portion in fig. 3, col. 3
line 31 - col. 4 line 37, and col. 8 lines 41-50." (Examiner's Answer at 4.) The
appellants argue, "because the bit-mapped and outline formats of Chan are only
information related to a font, neither of the formats provide a graphical content element,
as recited in the independent claims." (Reply Br. at 3.) They also argue, "Nowhere
does Chan disclose using both formats. . . ." (Id. at 2.)

1. Claim Construction
"[T]he PTO gives claims their 'broadest reasonable interpretation.'" In re Bigio,
381 F.3d 1320, 1324, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1211 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211
F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Here, all the independent
claims recite in pertinent part the following limitations: "the at least one skeleton content
element textual content elements include graphical content elements and textual
content elements. . . ." (Emphasis added.) Giving the independent claims their
broadest, reasonable construction, we interpret the limitations to recite translating plural
Appeal No. 2006-0430 Page 8
Application No. 09/859,425

content elements, some of which are graphical elements and others of which are textual
elements.

2. Obviousness Determination
The question of obviousness is "based on underlying factual determinations
including . . . what th[e] prior art teaches explicitly and inherently. . . ." In re Zurko, 258
F.3d 1379, 1383, 59 USPQ2d 1693, 1696 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Graham v. John
Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966); In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d
994, 998, 50 USPQ 1614, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34
USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). Of course, "'[e]very . . . reference relies to some
extent upon knowledge of persons skilled in the art to complement that [which is]
disclosed. . . .'" In re Bode, 550 F.2d 656, 660, 193 USPQ 12, 16 (CCPA 1977)
(quoting In re Wiggins, 488 F.2d 538, 543, 179 USPQ 421, 424 (CCPA 1973)). Those
persons "must be presumed to know something" about the art "apart from what the
references disclose." In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516, 135 USPQ 317, 319 (CCPA
1962).

Here, Tso's "invention may . . . be used for dynamic translation of data, such as
Web pages, to a user's native language (determined by user preference or
automatically by the physical location of network client 12 or transcoding server 34).
Appeal No. 2006-0430 Page 9
Application No. 09/859,425

Such a capability greatly simplifies the task of making content truly global. . . ." (Col. 8,
ll. 41-46.) Because the reference's invention works with global content, a person skilled
in the art would have understood that it can translate Web page content written in a
textual language such as English or in a pictographic language such as Japanese,
Chinese, or Korean. If a Web page contained both textual elements and pictographic
elements, a person skilled in the art would have also understood that Tso's invention
would have translated both the textual elements and pictographic elements.1
Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claims 1, 6, 11, 16, and 21, and of claims 2-5, 7-9,
12-15, and 17-20, which fall therewith.

III. CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejection of claims 1-21 under § 103(a) is affirmed.

1We consider the teachings of Chan cumulative to those of Tso.
"Any arguments or authorities not included in the brief will be refused
consideration by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. . . ." 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.192(a). Accordingly, our affirmance is based only on the arguments made in the
briefs. Any arguments or authorities omitted therefrom are neither before us nor at
issue but are considered waived. Cf. In re Watts, 354 F.3d 1362, 1367, 69 USPQ2d
Appeal No. 2006-0430 Page 10
Application No. 09/859,425

1453, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("[I]t is important that the applicant challenging a decision
not be permitted to raise arguments on appeal that were not presented to the Board.")
No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be extended under
37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

Appeal No. 2006-0430 Page 11
Application No. 09/859,425

AFFIRMED

JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LANCE LEONARD BARRY ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ALLEN R. MacDONALD )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2006-0430 Page 12
Application No. 09/859,425

OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLCP.O. BOX 19928ALEXANDRIA, VA 22320 Comment [jvn1]: Type address