Ex Parte Dewar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 12, 2016

12649711 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 2016)

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.
12/649,711 12/30/2009 Amy H. Dewar CAM920090053US1 _050 6040
51835 7590 12/12/2016
IBM Lotus & Rational SW
c/o Schmeiser, Olsen & Watts LLP
33 Boston Post Road West
Suite 410
Marlborough, MA 01752
EXAMINER
HASTY, NICHOLAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2178
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/12/2016 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AMY H. DEWAR, NICHOLAS E. POORE,
ROBERT C. LEAH, and PETER C. YIM
Appeal 2016-001027
Application 12/649,711
Technology Center 2100
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-001027
Application 12/649,711
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—7, 9—15, and 17—22, which are all of the pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
THE INVENTION
The application “relates to methods and apparatus for defining screen
reader functions within online electronic documents.” (Spec. 11.) Claim 1,
reproduced below, is exemplary:
1. A computer program product for facilitating screen readers of
online electronic documents, the computer program product
comprising:
a computer readable storage medium having computer reada­
ble program code embodied therewith, the computer readable
program code comprising:
computer readable program code configured to generate a
structured electronic document including markup language code
and scripting language code whose execution is triggered by an
occurrence of an event associated with execution of the markup
language code, the execution of the scripting language code pro­
ducing a web presentation unrecognized by a screen reader soft­
ware program;
computer readable program code configured to define a map­
ping of one or more functions of the screen reader software pro­
gram to one or more functions performed by the scripting lan­
guage code that produces the unrecognized web presentation
when the scripting language code is executed in response to the
occurrence of the event; and
1 Appellants identify International Business Machines Corporation as the
real party in interest. (See App. Br. 3.)
2
Appeal 2016-001027
Application 12/649,711
computer readable program code configured to incorporate
the mapping of functions within the structured electronic docu­
ment when the structured electronic document is initially gener­
ated, before the structured electronic document is posted on a
web server and made available for subsequent downloading and
display.
THE REFERENCES AND THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1—7, 9—15, and 17—22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Died et al. (US 2006/0150075 Al; published July 6,
2006), Takagi et al. (US 2006/0095252 Al; published May 4, 2006), and
Kanevsky et al. (US 6,665,642 B2; issued Dec. 16, 2003). (See Final Act.
2-7.)
ANALYSIS
Claim 1, 9, and 17
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 17, the Examiner finds the combination of
Died, Takagi, and Kenevsky teaches or suggests “incorporat[ing] the
mapping of functions within the structured electronic document when the
structured electronic document is initially generated, before the structured
electronic document is posted on a web server and made available for
subsequent downloading and display,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly
recited in claims 9 and 17.2 (Ans. 2.) In particular, the Examiner cites
Takagi’s paragraphs 52 and 67—68 as teaching or suggesting a “mapping
function incorporated into [a] structured document to create [an] edited
2 In claims 9 and 17, the mapping of functions is in a “configuration file”
that is incorporated into the structured electronic document.
3
Appeal 2016-001027
Application 12/649,711
structured document by webpage creator before posting document on a
Webserver.” (Id.)
Appellants argue the cited paragraphs do not teach or suggest the
subject limitation because “[paragraph [0052] discusses sorting and
generating speech nodes,” “paragraph [0067] discusses creating an edited
document,” and “[i]n paragraph [0068] the edited document (not an initially
generated document) is thereafter inputted into the browsing process section
38.” (Reply Br. 4, brackets in original.)
We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive because the Examiner
relies on these portions of Takagi solely to teach editing a structured
document prior to posting, and the cited passages do teach or suggest
modification of a document that (necessarily) takes place prior to its
posting/downloading/display. Appellants’ focus on the term “initially” is
not persuasive of error because we conclude that “initially generated” is
broad enough to include all activity prior to the posting, where the
Specification does not require otherwise.
For these reasons, we affirm the rejections of claims 1, 9, and 17.
Claims 2 and 10
For claims 2 and 10, Appellants argue that cited paragraph 37 of Died
does not describe or suggest “the functionality map . . . specifying text to be
read aloud” because “this paragraph teaches that the web page can include
audible order data that defines an order for audible navigation of a page.”
(App. Br. 14.) We agree, as we fail to see how “audible order information
[that] includes a tab or keyboard sequence, by which of the paths between
page elements based on tab or keyboard navigation are uniquely defined”
4
Appeal 2016-001027
Application 12/649,711
(Deitl 137) teaches or suggests “specifying text to be read aloud” and,
therefore, decline to sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 10.
Claims 3,11, and 18
Regarding claims 3,11, and 18, Appellants argue that cited paragraph
40 of Dietl does not describe or suggest “wherein the mapping of functions
points to text in the markup language code to be read aloud by the screen
reader software program” because it “describes the audible output of data
obtained from the placeholder manager” where the Examiner “did not
identify the placeholder manager as ‘the mapping of functions’ or
‘configuration file.’” (App. Br. 15.)
We conclude the Examiner has not adequately explained the basis for
this rejection, as he does not describe how the cited material “points to text
in the markup language code to be read aloud” and, therefore, we do not
sustain the rejections of claims 3,11, and 18.
Claims 4, 5,12,13, and 19
Appellants argue with respect to claims 4, 12, and 19 that cited
paragraph 43 of Dietl does not describe or suggest “a ‘mapping of functions’
or ‘configuration file’ that maps a focus function of the screen reader
software program to an HTML element produced in response to execution of
the scripting language code.” (App. Br. 16.) The Examiner responds as
follows: “Dietl et al. para[0043]-[0044], maps order in which objects
change focus.” (Ans. 4.)
We find the Examiner has not adequately explained the basis for this
rejection, as he does not explain how the cited material “maps a focus
function of the screen reader software program to an HTML element.” The
reference explains that “the CSF [client-frame-work] knows which
5
Appeal 2016-001027
Application 12/649,711
UIElement is to receive focus when the user presses the tab key” and that
“every UIElement knows what information is to be read by the screen reader
when a particular UIElement event occurs,” but we fail to see how this
shows a mapping to “a focus function of the screen reader software
program.” We thus do not sustain the rejections of claims 4, 12, and 19 and,
for the same reason, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 5 and 13,
which respectively depend from, and therefore include all of the limitations
of, claims 4 and 12.
Claim 15
Appellants argue with respect to claim 15 that “[wjhile [cited
paragraph 40 of Dietl] describes the markup as being parsed, it says nothing
about the functionality map (i.e., the appellant’s claimed ‘configuration file’
according to the Office’s characterization) as being parsed at load time of
the structured electronic document.” (App. Br. 17.) In response, the
Examiner refers to paragraphs 32 and 40 of Dietl. (See Ans. 4.)
We agree that paragraphs 32 and 40 are silent regarding parsing of a
functionality map at the load time of a structured document and, therefore,
do not sustain the rejection of claim 15.
Claims 7,14, and 20
For claims 7, 14, and 20, Appellants argue that cited paragraph 20 of
Dietl “makes no mention of the functionality table” and, “[mjoreover, Dietl
describes the functionality map as a functionality table (FIG. 3, paragraph
[0030]), and does not describe or suggest that the functionality table itself
can be an XML file.” (App. Br. 18.) Given Dietl’s teachings that browsers
can manipulate XML documents, however, we agree with the Examiner that
6
Appeal 2016-001027
Application 12/649,711
it would have been obvious to render a configuration file as an XML file
and, therefore, sustain the rejection of claims 7, 14, and 20.
Claims 21 and 22
In finally rejecting claims 21 and 22, the Examiner cites “Brown et al.
col5 ln20-29.” (Final Act. 7.) Appellants argue “[t]he Office . . . did not
cite Brown as a ground for rejection.” (App. Br. 18) The Answer does not
respond to Appellants’ argument. (See Ans. 5.)
Although the Examiner discusses Brown in the body of the rejection,
the Examiner does not list this reference in the statement of the rejection, nor
provide the citation. As here, discussing a reference in the body of the
rejection without affirmatively listing it in the statement of rejection leads to
confusion as to the true grounds of the rejection. Such a circumstance also
greatly increases the chance than an applicant will overlook the unlisted
reference and misunderstand the true evidentiary basis for the rejection. For
these reasons, every reference discussed in the rejection must be listed in the
statement of the rejection, providing the applicant appropriate notice of the
evidence relied upon in the rejection. See In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342
n.3 (CCPA 1970) (“Where a reference is relied on to support a rejection,
whether or not in a ‘minor capacity,’ there would appear to be no excuse for
not positively including the reference in the statement of the rejection.”). To
whatever extent Brown may be applicable to claims 21 and 22, we will not
consider it because Brown is not part of the statement of rejection and may
not properly be relied upon. Id. We thus do not sustain the rejections of
claims 21 and 22.
7
Appeal 2016-001027
Application 12/649,711
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1, 6,3 7, 9, 14, 17, and 20 are affirmed.
The rejections of claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19, 21, and
22 are reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
3 As Appellants offer no separate argument for claim 6, our decision on
claim 1 is determinative as to the rejection of that claim.
8