10052250 (B.P.A.I. May. 1, 2012)

Ex Parte Davis et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMay 1, 2012

10052250 (B.P.A.I. May. 1, 2012)

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. 10/052,250 01/23/2002 Russell T. Davis 7643.0042 1920 22852 7590 05/01/2012 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP 901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413 EXAMINER NGUYEN, CHAU T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2177 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/01/2012 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 RUSSELL T. DAVIS and LUTHER PEARSON HAMPTON III ____________________ Appeal 2009-013032 Application 10/052,250 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and MICHAEL R. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judges. DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-013032 Application 10/052,250 2 STATEMENT OF CASE1 The Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection of claims 1-6, 8-21, 23-34, and 36-64, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. The Appellants invented a computer markup language for financial accounting and a related data browser and manipulator. Specification ¶ 009. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 62, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some paragraphing added]: 62. A data processing system, comprising: [1] a parser that: [a] receives one or more text documents, [b] interprets tags included in the one or more text documents to create software elements, and [c] determines the hierarchy of the software elements within a structure representative of the one or more text documents; and [2] a manager that: [a] provides for the creation of a second hierarchy of the software elements, and [b] provides for the restructuring of the first hierarchy and the second hierarchy into software structures corresponding to a new text document. 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Aug. 28, 2008) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Jan.22, 2009), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Nov. 24, 2008), and Final Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed Nov. 1, 2007). Appeal 2009-013032 Application 10/052,250 3 REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art: Clancey Saxton Krug US 6,134,563 US 6,370,549 B1 US 6,721,736 B1 Oct. 17, 2000 Apr. 9, 2002 Apr. 13, 2004 Polizzi US 2002/0052954 A1 May 2, 2002 Walter Hamscher and David Vun Kannon, Extensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) Specification, xbrl.org, July 31, 2007 (“Hamscher”). REJECTIONS Claims 62-64 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Krug and Hamscher. Claims 1-6, 11-21, 24-33, 34, 37-46, 49-57, and 59-61 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Saxton, Polizzi, and Hamscher. Claims 8-10, 23, 36, 47, 48, and 58 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Saxton, Polizzi, Hamscher, and Clancey. ISSUES The issue of whether the Examiner erred turns on whether the combination of Krug and Hamscher teaches or suggests “a parser that … determines the hierarchy of software elements within a structure representative of the one or more text documents[,]” and “a manager that: provides for the creation of a second hierarchy of the software elements, and provides for the restructuring of the first hierarchy and the second hierarchy into software structures corresponding to a new text document.” Appeal 2009-013032 Application 10/052,250 4 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of the Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with the Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for arguments for emphasis. The Appellants contend that Krug fails to describe “a parser that … determines the hierarchy of software elements within a structure representative of the one or more text documents.” App. Br. 16-17 and Reply Br. 2-3. The Appellants specifically argue that the syntax elements of Krug cannot be construed as the software elements of the claimed invention. App. Br. 16-17. We disagree with the Appellants. Krug describes the compilation of the HTML syntax renders a hierarchical HTML syntax tree that represents the hierarchical relationship of the syntax elements. Krug 8:23-27. Thus, the HTML document is transformed into a syntax tree representing the format and layout structure of the original HTML search response. Krug 8:27-30. As such, Krug describes that the tags from the original document are the syntax elements of the transformed document. The Appellants further contend that Hamscher fails to describe “a manager that: provides for the creation of a second hierarchy of the software elements, and provides for the restructuring of the first hierarchy and the second hierarchy into software structures corresponding to a new text document,” as recited in independent claims 1, 17, 30, 42, 54 and 62. App. Appeal 2009-013032 Application 10/052,250 5 Br. 17-21 and Reply Br. 3-6. We disagree with the Appellants. The Examiner found that Hamscher describes taxonomies of elements in document instances are hierarchies, and taxonomies can be composed together to extend other taxonomies. Ans. 19 and Hamscher 6. That is, Hamscher describes the combination of taxonomies or hierarchy results on a second taxonomy or hierarchy. The Appellants fail to provide any evidence or rationale to rebut this finding set forth by the Examiner. While the Appellants argue that page 17 of Hamscher does not describe the disputed limitation (see App. Br. 17-18 and Reply Br. 3-4), the Appellants do not contest the Examiner’s finding that this limitation is described by page 6 of Hamscher. Absent any rationale or evidence to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, we do not find the Appellants’ argument to be persuasive. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-6, 8-21, 23-34, and 36-64. DECISION To summarize, our decision is as follows.  The rejection of claims 1-6, 8-21, 23-34, and 36-64 is sustained. 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) (2010). Appeal 2009-013032 Application 10/052,250 6 AFFIRMED msc