Ex Parte Eames et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2016

13626228 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 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.
13/626,228 09/25/2012 Patrick J. Eames 5013899.025US1 8587
128836 7590 12/02/2016
Wnmhle Parlvle SanHriHae Rr Rioe T T P
EXAMINER
Attn: IP Docketing
P.O. Box 7037
GARMON, BRIAN
Atlanta, GA 30357-0037 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/02/2016 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):
ipdocketing @ wcsr. com
patentadmin @ B oeing. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PATRICK J. EAMES, BRENT L. HADLEY,
STEPHEN P. MILLER, and JOSEPH F. FLOYD
Appeal 2016-001310
Application 13/626,228
Technology Center 2100
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1, 4—8, and 11—21, which constitute all of the claims pending in
this application. Claims 2, 3, 9, and 10 have been cancelled. App. Br. 10,
12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify The Boeing Company as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-001310
Application 13/626,228
THE INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed invention is directed “to panoptic
visualization of documents or their document components in a manner that
reflects logical relationships between the documents / components.” Spec.
1,11. 21-23.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An apparatus for implementation of a panoptic
visualization document differencing system, the apparatus
comprising a processor and a memory storing executable
instructions that in response to execution by the processor cause
the apparatus to at least:
generate a comparison document component based on a
comparison of two or more source document components of a
plurality of document components, each document component
including respective media content and having associated
metadata providing structured information about the document
component, the comparison document component including
respective media content and having associated metadata
providing structured information about the two or more source
document components;
interpret the associated metadata for the comparison
document component to select a layout model from a plurality of
layout models, and identify one or more second document
components of the plurality of document components, according
thereto, the structured information provided by the associated
metadata for the comparison document component further
identifying a link between the comparison document component
and one or more second document components; and
generate a layout of a panoptically-arranged images of
document components including the comparison document
component and one or more second document components
according to the associated metadata therefor, and according to
the selected layout model, the images of the document
components including images of the respective media content
thereof.
2
Appeal 2016-001310
Application 13/626,228
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 15, 18, and 19 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kumhyr in view of Endo.
Final Act. 3—14.
Claims 6, 7, 13, 14, 20, and 21 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kumhyr in view of Endo and
Gallo. Final Act. 14—18.
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments regarding the pending
claims.
First, Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Kumhyr or
Endo teaches the “generate a comparison document component” limitation
recited in claim 1. App. Br. 6. Appellants’ contentions each consist of a one
sentence summary of the Examiner’s finding followed by a general denial
and a summary of the disputed claim limitation without any explanation of
Kumhyr et al. US 2004/0093564 Al May 13, 2004
US 2006/0161863 Al July 20, 2006
US 2007/0094615 Al Apr. 26, 2007
Gallo
Endo et al.
ANALYSIS
3
Appeal 2016-001310
Application 13/626,228
how the Examiner erred or why the cited section does not teach the disputed
claim limitation. For example, Appellants state
The Examiner cites paragraph [0035] of Kumhyr for disclosing
that the comparison of text may be based on the formatting
features of documents and code (from which the text is
compared), which the Examiner alleges corresponds to
associated metadata. But this like the previous assertion, this is
factually erroneous. Nowhere does Kumhyr disclose that the
formatting features of documents and code are metadata
providing structured information about the documents, code or
their text, similar to the associated metadata of independent
Claim 1. And even still, nowhere does Kumhyr disclose that the
data structure referred to in paragraph [0045] (cited as the
comparison document) has associated metadata providing
structured information about the two or more source document
components, similar to the comparison document of independent
Claim 1.
Id.2 That is insufficient to raise an argument that that Examiner erred. See
In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Rule 41.37 requires
“more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the
claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were
not found in the prior art.”); see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (“A
statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be
considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.”); cf. In re
2 To the extent Appellants attempt to raise a new issue in the Reply Brief
without showing good cause, those arguments have been waived. See
Optivus Technology, Inc. v. Ion Beam Applications S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989
(Fed. Cir. 2006); accord Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1473—74
(BPAI 2010) (informative opinion) (absent a showing of good cause, the
Board is not required to address an argument newly presented in the reply
brief that could have been presented in the principal brief on appeal); 37
C.F.R. §41.41(b)(2) (same).
4
Appeal 2016-001310
Application 13/626,228
Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the
function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by
an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art.”).
Because Appellants have not identified any specific errors in the Examiner’s
findings, “the Board will not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those
uncontested aspects of the rejection.” Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072,
1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). Instead, we agree with and adopt the
Examiner’s findings regarding the “generate a comparison document
component” limitation recited in claim 1.
Second, Appellants also argue the Examiner erred in finding Endo
teaches the “interpret the associated metadata” limitation recited in claim 1.
App. Br. 6—7. Specifically, Appellants argue that Endo does not disclose a
comparison document. Id. Appellants further argue that because Endo does
not disclose a comparison document, it cannot teach “interpretation of
associated metadata for the comparison document.” App. Br. 7.
The Examiner finds Kumhyr teaches generating a comparison
document as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 2—A.
Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The
test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly
suggested in any one or all of the references, but whether the claimed subject
matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light
of the combined teachings of those references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCPA 1981). Because the Examiner finds Kumhyr teaches the
comparison document and Appellants’ arguments are directed to Endo
5
Appeal 2016-001310
Application 13/626,228
individually and do not address the combined teaching of the references, we
are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred.
With regard to the same limitation, Appellants also argue Endo only
teaches a single layout model and, therefore, cannot teach “selection of a
layout model from associated metadata for a comparison document.” App.
Br. 7. Specifically, Appellants argue Endo figure 3 “only discloses a single
layout model.” Id.
The Examiner finds Endo teaches “arranging the layout based on
metadata, such as page number.” Final Act. 5 (citing Endo 126). The
Examiner further find Endo teaches “select[ing] a layout from a plurality of
possible layouts, such as the layouts in Figure 3.” Final Act. 19.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner
erred. We agree with the Examiner that each of the different rows of
documents in figure 3 shows a different layout for display. Accordingly, we
are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Endo teaches only a single
layout model.
Third, Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Endo teaches a
layout of panoptically arranged images. App. Br. 7. Specifically,
Appellants argue that because “Endo does not disclose the comparison
document of independent Claim 1, Endo likewise does not disclose a layout
of panoptically-arranged images of document components including the
comparison document component, contrary to the conclusion reached by the
Examiner.” Id.
For the same reasons discussed above regarding Appellants’ argument
regarding Endo and the comparison document, we are not persuaded by
Appellants’ argument the Examiner erred.
6
Appeal 2016-001310
Application 13/626,228
Fourth, Appellants argue the Examiner erred in combining Endo and
Kumhyr:
Endo quite clearly discloses displaying thumbnails of pages of
key and target documents in relation to one another to enable a
comparison between the documents, and without having to open
the documents. See, e.g., Endo, para. [0025]. As readily
understood by those skilled in the art, a thumbnail is a reduced­
sized version of an image typically used for recognition and
organization of images. Endo utilizes thumbnails for this
specific purpose. The thumbnail of an image would not
generally be sufficient in size to allow one to easily discern
features of the underlying image, particularly an image of the sort
displayed by Kumhyr. Appellants respectfully submit that it
would not have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify
Endo to display full-versions of its pages (thus requiring opening
the document), nor to display a thumbnail with a target page
superimposed on a key page (similar to Kumhyr).
App. Br. 8.
“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference.” Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. Instead, the relevant issue is “what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art.” Id. “Combining the teachings of references does
not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.” In re Nievelt,
482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973). Because Appellants argument focuses on
the bodily incorporation of the references and not what the combined
teachings would suggest to a person of ordinary skill in the art, the argument
is not persuasive.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, along
with the rejections of claims 8 and 15, which are argued on the same
7
Appeal 2016-001310
Application 13/626,228
grounds, and dependent claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 18, and 19, which are not
separately argued. See App. Br. 8.
With respect to dependent claims 6, 7, 13, 14, 20, and 21, Appellants
merely contend that because the additional reference used in the rejection of
those claims (Gallo) does not cure the shortcomings of the other references
applied against claim 1, the Examiner failed to make a prima facie case of
obviousness for these claims. App. Br. 8—9. Because we determine that the
rejection of claim 1 is not erroneous for the reasons discussed above, we
sustain the rejections of these claims.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s decisions rejecting
claims 1, 4—8, and 11—21.
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
8