Ex Parte Dettinger et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 9, 2016

12128098 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 9, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/128,098 05/28/2008
46797 7590 02/11/2016
Patterson & Sheridan, LLP
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Richard D. Dettinger
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
ROC920070004US 1 9699
EXAMINER
FISHER, PAUL R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/11/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
Pair_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com
IBM@P ATTERSONSHERIDAN.COM
rociplaw@us.ibm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICHARD D. DETTINGER,
FREDERICK A. KULACK,
and ERIC W. WILL
Appeal2013---004554
Application 12/128,098
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. PETTING, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
PETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Richard D. Dettinger, Frederick A. Kulack, and Eric W. Will
(Appellants) seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Final rejection of
claims 1-24, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App.
Br.," filed October 8, 2012) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed February 11,
2013), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed December 10, 2012),
and Final Action ("Final Act.," mailed May 7, 2012).
Appeal2013-004554
Application 12/128,098
The Appellants invented a way of enforcing compliance with publishing
rules. Specification para. 1.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added).
1. A computer implemented method of generating a document
processing workflow, comprising:
[1] receiving an unstructured document
which includes at least a publishing rule
regarding documents intended for publication;
[2] parsing the unstructured document
to identify a set of terms included in the publishing rule;
[3] annotating each term with metadata
describing the term
to create a structured pattern
describing the publishing rule;
[ 4] comparing the structured pattern to a plurality of patterns
to identify a best-fit pattern from the plurality of
patterns,
wherein each of the plurality of patterns pattern describes
a workflow template;
[5] generating,
and
by operation of one or more computer processors,
from the workflow template corresponding to the best-fit
pattern,
a workflow for the structured pattern,
wherein the workflow specifies a sequence of steps to
comply with the publishing rule;
2
Appeal2013-004554
Application 12/128,098
[6] storing the generated workflow in a repository.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Huang US 2001/0032218 Al Oct. 18, 2001
Yehia US 2002/0091614 Al Jul. 11, 2002
Schunder US 2004/0083119 Al Apr. 29, 2004
Blackman US 2008/0091458 Al Apr. 17, 2008
Don de WO 02/46997 Al Jun. 13,2002
Claims 1--4, 6, 7, 9-12, 14, 15, 17-20, 22, and 23 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yehia, Donde, and Huang.
Claims 5, 13, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Y ehia, Donde, Huang, and Schunder.
Claims 8, 16, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Y ehia, Donde, Huang, and Blackman.
ISSUES
The issues of obviousness tum primarily on whether Donde describes
incorporating publishing rules within a document.
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
3
Appeal2013-004554
Application 12/128,098
Facts Related to the Prior Art
Yehia
01. Y ehia is directed to a management system for contracts. Y ehia
para. 4.
Huang
02.Huang is directed to document processing and electronic
publishing systems and more particularly to generating structured
documents with user-defined document type definitions. Huang
converts unstructured documents for various presentations,
wherein the unstructured documents are defined to be files
composed, edited, or managed via an authoring application.
Huang para. 3.
03.Huang converts an unstructured document into a structured
document by parsing the document contents into data elements.
Huang paras. 47 and 67.
Donde
04.Donde is directed to document management system. Donde 1 :5.
05.Donde describes a document management system having
documents stored in a memory and accessible over a network.
Each document has a document identifier and a document network
address. Donde' s document management system also has a class
hierarchy having a plurality of category nodes within a tree data
structure; a publication rule base comprising a plurality of
publication rules, one or more of the publication rules comprising
4
Appeal2013-004554
Application 12/128,098
a document identifier, a category, and a publication period; and a
publication manager arranged to retrieve one or more publication
rules from the publication rule base and to publish each document
identified in the rule during the publication period identified in the
rule. Donde 2:5-12.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner found that Huang describes converting unstructured
documents into structured markup language documents by parsing content
into document elements. Y ehia describes extracting rules from such
structured documents that are then implemented, and Huang describes
having a publication rule among such rules, creating the rule by creating a
table structure, which is a form of structured pattern, around the publication
data fields, which is a form of annotation, and implementing the publication
rule, which a form of workflow. Final Act. 2-8.
We are persuaded by the Appellants' argument that in Y ehia
"publication rule" is stored in a database and applied to a whole
document (document field 72), based on a category (category
field 7 4) and specifying a time frame (start field 7 6 and end
field 78). Donde demonstrates no knowledge of "parsing the
unstructured document to identify a set of terms included in the
publishing rule" and "annotating each term with metadata
describing the term to create a structured pattern describing the
publishing rule." The database structure taught by Donde does
not teach, or even suggest, this field level of metadata under
which claim 1 applies a publication rule ....
Claim 1 recites "parsing the unstructured document to identify a
set of terms included in the publishing rule" and "annotating
each term with metadata describing the term to create a
structured pattern describing the publishing rule." Clearly the
5
Appeal2013-004554
Application 12/128,098
"publishing rules" discussed in Donde do not teach these
limitations of claim 1.
App. Br. 15-16. The Examiner's finding that Donde describes publishing
rules within a document is in error. The Examiner cites Donde 2:4--12.
Final Act. 5. While one might get the impression of such a finding if this
passage is read quickly, the passage actually states that it is Donde's
document management system, not the document that contains the rules.
Donde does not describe obtaining those rules from a document per se.
All three independent claims contain similar limitations.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 1--4, 6, 7, 9-12, 14, 15, 17-20, 22, and 23 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yehia, Donde, and Huang is
improper.
The rejection of claims 5, 13, and 21under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Y ehia, Donde, Huang, and Schunder is improper.
The rejection of claims 8, 16, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Y ehia, Donde, Huang, and Blackman is improper.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-24 is reversed.
REVERSED
rvb
6