Ex Parte Falk et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2014

11541203 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/541,203 09/29/2006 Alexander Falk 109893.00008 9885
7590 02/28/2014
Kenneth F. Kozik
43 Mohawk Drive
Acton, MA 01720-2343
EXAMINER
FABER, DAVID
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2177
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2014 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)

1

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte ALEXANDER FALK and VLADISLAV GAVRIELOV
__________

Appeal 2011-008312
Application 11/541,203
Technology Center 2100
__________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, DEMETRA J. MILLS, and
LORA M. GREEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MILLS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134. The Examiner has rejected
the claims for anticipation and obviousness. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
STATEMENT OF CASE
The following claims are representative, as reproduced below.
1. A method of processing a text file comprising:
in a computer system having at least a processor and a memory,
retrieving the text file;
Appeal 2011-008312
Application 11/541,203

2
displaying the text file and a tree structure showing processing
commands; and
performing a set of visual editing operations to extract given portions
of the text file while discarding other text, characters or white space, the
displayed tree structure updated to include all processing commands
representative of the visual editing operations used to parse the text file, the
set of visual editing operations including a first operation that splits off a
fragment of the text file.
5. The method of claim 4 wherein the set of visual editing operations
includes a second operation that splits off repeating fragments of the text file.
6. The method of claim 5 wherein the set of visual editing operations
includes a third operation that identifies a fragment of the text file that is to
be ignored.
10. The method of claim 9 wherein the given format is one of comma
separated value (CSV) or fixed length filed (FLF).
11. The method of claim 9 wherein the set of visual editing operations
includes a seventh operation that associates a fragment of the text file as a
map-able object.
17. A system comprising:
a processor;
a memory, the memory including a graphical user interface (GUI)
enabling interactive visual restructuring of a displayed text file into a
modified text file with a set of visual editing commands while concurrently
displaying a tree structure including processing commands representative of
the editing commands, the set of visual editing operations includes an
operation that creates a fragment from the text file.
Appeal 2011-008312
Application 11/541,203

3
23. The system of claim 17 wherein the set of visual editing operations
includes an operation that extracts data from the file in a comma separate
value format.
26. A computer program product, tangibly stored on a machine
readable medium, for displaying,
comprising instructions operable to cause a programmable processor
to:
display a text file in a parent container object;
responsive to selection of the parent container object, display a menu
from which one of a set of actions may be selected;
responsive to selection of one of the set of actions, extract at least a
portion of the text file;
generate at least a first child container object that includes the portion
of the text file extracted;
and
generate at least a second child container object that includes
remaining portion of the text file remaining as a result of the extracting.

Cited References

Betts et al. (Betts) U.S. 2005/0267909 A1 Dec. 1, 2005
Parker et al. (Parker) U.S. 2003/0237046 A1 Dec. 25, 2003
Sumita et al. (Sumita) U.S. 6,092,091 Jul. 18, 2000
Narayana et al. (Narayana) U.S. 7,620,937 B2 Nov. 17, 2009
Bourbakis et al. (Bourbakis) U.S. 2003/0145279 A1 Jul. 31, 2003
Ramsey et al. (Ramsey) U.S. 7,593,846 B2 Sep. 22, 2009
Gould et al. (Gould) U.S. 2005/0114368 A1 May 26, 2005
Perry U.S. 2005/0256893 A1 Nov. 17, 2005
Slaby U.S. 6,587,124 B1 Jul. 1, 2003
Appeal 2011-008312
Application 11/541,203

4

Grounds of Rejection

1. Claims 26, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Betts.

2. Claims 1, 2 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Parker in view of Sumita.

3. Claims 3 and 30-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Parker in view of Sumita and Narayana.

4. Claims 5, 19, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Parker in view of Sumita and Bourbakis.

5. Claims 6-9, 20-22, and 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Parker in view of Sumita, Bourbakis,
and Ramsey.

6. Claims 10, 24, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Parker in view of Sumita, Bourbakis,
Ramsey, and Gould.

7. Claims 11 and 42 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Parker in view of Sumita, Bourbakis, Ramsey,
and Perry.

8. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Parker in view of Sumita and Slaby.

FINDINGS OF FACT
The Examiner’s findings of fact are set forth in the Answer at pages 3-
19. The following facts are highlighted.
1. Figure 3 of the Specification is reproduced below.
Appeal 2011-008312
Application 11/541,203

5

Figure 3 of the instant specification shows a diagram of an
exemplary graphical user interface including a set of
exemplary display panes. Design pane 302 contains text fragment
containers 304 a-n. (Spec. 10.)
2. Figure 7 of the Specification is reproduced below.

Figure 7 of the Specification shows split once container 700 and child
containers 702 and 704. (Spec. 15.)
Appeal 2011-008312
Application 11/541,203

6
3. Figure 3 of Betts is reproduced below.

Figure 3 of Betts shows decomposition of an XML document with
first node 31 and subnodes 32-38. Nodes 32 and 33 are split twice.
(Ans. 4.)

4. Figure 4 of Betts is reproduced below.

Appeal 2011-008312
Application 11/541,203

7
Figure 4 of Betts shows the text of the nodes that the example XML
document may be decomposed into. The full text of first node 31 (parent
node) is shown along with sub node documents 42-48 (child nodes). (Betts,
¶¶ 19, 33; Ans. 4.)

5. Figure 3 of Parker is reproduced below.

Figure 3 of Parker shows a screen print of Web editor 60 with an
exemplary currently open Web document displayed as it
would appear if displayed by a browser program. Details of the
data source file maybe displayed in a task pane 100 to aid in
editing the currently open Web document. Preferably, the data
source file is displayed as a data tree 102 comprising nodes,
attributes, and values. For example, data tree 102 includes a node
104 defining book data. Node 104 includes an author attribute
Appeal 2011-008312
Application 11/541,203

8
106. In turn, author attribute 106 includes an author value 108.
Those skilled in the art will recognize that any arrangement of
nodes, attributes, values, and other elements may be provided by
the data source. Also, it will be understood that task pane 100
may include common functions for selecting and displaying source
data. For example, a user may hide or expand portions of data tree
102 with tree view buttons such as a hide/expand button 109. Task
pane 100 also enables the user to work with the source data via
parameters 110. (Parker, page 5.)

Discussion
Anticipation Betts
Claims 26 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Betts.
ISSUE
The Examiner finds that Betts teaches each element claimed (Ans. 3-
5)
Appellants contend that:
For example, claim 26 recites “generate at least a first child
container object that includes the portion of the text file extracted;
and generate at least a second child container object that includes
remaining portion of the text file remaining as a result of the
extracting.” Betts does not disclose or describe at least these quoted
claims features.

Further, Betts fails to disclose or describe “at least a second
child container object that includes remaining portion of the text file
remaining as a result of the extracting,” as recited in claim 26.
Betts’ sub document does not include the remaining portion of the
text file remaining as a result of the extracting, as argued by the
examiner.

(Br. 30.)
Appeal 2011-008312
Application 11/541,203

9
The issue is: Does the cited prior art support the Examiner’s finding
that the claimed subject matter is anticipated?

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The principles of law relevant to all rejections appear below.
During ex parte prosecution, claims are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the description of the invention in
the specification. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
In making our determination, we apply the preponderance of the
evidence standard. See, e.g., Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427
(Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings
before the Office).
In order for a prior art reference to serve as an anticipatory reference,
it must disclose every limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or
inherently. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). To
anticipate, every element and limitation of the claimed invention must be
found in a single prior art reference, arranged as in the claim. Karsten Mfg.
Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
“In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the
initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Only if that
burden is met, does the burden of coming forward with evidence or
argument shift to the applicant.” In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532 (Fed.
Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). In order to determine whether a prima facie
case of obviousness has been established, we consider the factors set forth in
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966): (1) the scope and content
of the prior art; (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims at
Appeal 2011-008312
Application 11/541,203

10
issue; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the relevant art; and (4) objective
evidence of nonobviousness, if present.
Moreover, “obviousness requires a suggestion of all limitations in a
claim.” CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Intern. Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir.
2003) (citing In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (CCPA 1974)).

ANALYSIS
Anticipation Betts
We find that the Examiner has not provided sufficient evidence to
support a prima facie case of anticipation, as we do not find that the
Examiner has provided evidence of the claim 26 step of, generating “at least
a second child container object that includes [the] remaining portion of the
text file remaining as a result of the extracting” (Claim 26 (emphasis
added)).
The Examiner finds that
The Betts reference teaches to “generate at least a first child
container object that includes the portion of the text file extracted” in
the passage “an XML document may be decomposed into one or more
nodes. Fig. 4 shows the text of the nodes that the example XML
document may be decomposed”. Betts discloses the document itself
as the “container object” with the decomposition of the document into
multiple nodes acting as the “extracting” of the text. Betts further
discloses “at least a second child container object that includes [the]
remaining portion of the text file remaining as a result of the
extracting”. Betts discloses this in the example citing . . . “a second
node 32 [Fig. 3 or Node 2 element 42, Fig. 4] represents a sub
document of the example XML document 11 that defines the toy
dragon”.

(Ans. 19-20.)

Appeal 2011-008312
Application 11/541,203

11
We do not agree with the Examiner’s position above that second node
32 (Betts, Fig. 3; or Fig. 4, element 42) includes the remaining portion of
node 31 text file remaining as a result of the extracting. In particular, we
agree with the Examiner that first node 31 in Betts’ Figure 3 may be
considered a “parent” container that contains a text file, (e.g., “Presents
…,”), and second node 32 of Betts’ Figure 3 may be considered a first child
container that contains text extracted from the parent container. What
Examiner has failed to establish is where Betts’ teaches a second child
container that contains portions of the parent text file that remain as a result
of the extraction of the second node 32 text, (e.g., the word “Presents…”
minus the text in the second child container).
Thus the Examiner has not provided evidence of each claimed
element in the prior art and the anticipation rejection is reversed.

Obviousness Parker and Sumita
Claims 1-2 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Parker in view of Sumita.
The Examiner finds that
Parker . . . discloses [a] “copy tree will become the
annotated XSL stylesheet. At a step 202, the Web editor
parses an XSL node in the copy tree” (pg.9, paragraph
70), however the art does not disclose where the visual
editing operations includes a first operation that splits
off a fragment of the text file. However, the examiner
maintains that it was well known in the art to split
documents, as taught by Sumita.
In a similar field of endeavor Sumita discloses,
“splitting the detected documents into information units,
Appeal 2011-008312
Application 11/541,203

12
when detected documents are decided to include a
plurality of information units;” (column 7, lines 63-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to modify Parker, by splitting the document, as
taught by Sumita, for the purpose of dividing a
document.

(Ans. 7-8.)

Appellants contend that
Parker fails to teach or suggest “performing a set of
visual editing operations to extract given portions of
the text file while discarding other text, characters or
white space, the displayed tree structure updated to
include all processing commands representative of the
visual editing operations used to parse the text file, the
set of visual editing operations including a first
operation that splits off a fragment of the text file.”

(Br. 32.)

The issue is: Does the cited prior art disclose “performing a set of
visual editing operations to extract given portions of the text file while
discarding other text, characters or white space, the displayed tree structure
updated to include all processing commands representative of the visual
editing operations used to parse the text file, the set of visual editing
operations including a first operation that splits off a fragment of the text
file,” as claimed.

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that
Appeal 2011-008312
Application 11/541,203

13
The Parker reference teaches “performing a set of visual
editing operations to extract given portion of the text
file while discarding other text, characters or white
space” in the passage, “the updated annotated XSL
stylesheet provides a location of each node in the tree
structure of the previous updated data view HTML.
Thus a mapping exists between the two tree structures.
The previous node locations are compared with the
updated node locations to identify where nodes were
inserted, deleted, and/or modified” (pg.8, paragraph
65). The examiner maintains that the nodes that are
being modified through adding, modifying or deleting
content read on the “editing operations” being claimed.
Further[,] the examiner maintains that deleting content
from nodes reads on the limitation of “extract given
portion of the text while discarding other text
characters”. Regarding the limitation of “the displayed
tree structure updated to include all processing
commands representative of the visual editing
operations”, Parker teaches, “user can then apply the
stylesheet to a data source (displayed as a tree in the
data source window), enabling the user to preview an
output document with a built-in browser. Thus, XML
SPY XSLT DESIGNER enables a user to graphically
create an XSL stylesheet and preview an output
document”. The stylesheet displayed as a tree structure
reads on the tree structure limitation, and the user
preview ability acts a[s] parsing of the tree structure.
Finally[,] Parker with Sumita disclose “visual editing
operations including a first operation that splits off a
fragment of the text file”. Sumita in particular teaches
“splitting the detected documents into information
units”. Sumita teaches the ability to split documents into
multiple segments.

(Ans. 20-21, emphasis added. See also, Parker, Fig. 9.) In the device for
filtering and updating computer document information of Sumita, “[t]he
Appeal 2011-008312
Application 11/541,203

14
information splitting unit 35 splits data into pieces [fragments] by contents,
if the data has a plurality of contents.” (Col. 7, ll. 63-65 and Col. 18, l. 18-
20.)
Appellants contend that
Parker fails to teach or suggest “performing a set of visual editing
operations to extract given portions of the text file while discarding
other text, characters or white space, the displayed tree structure
updated to include all processing commands representative of the
visual editing operations used to parse the text file, the set of visual
editing operations including a first operation that splits off a fragment
of the text file.”

(Br. 32, emphasis added.) We do not find that the Examiner has provided
sufficient evidence in the cited prior art of the step of, “performing a set of
visual editing operations to extract given portions of the text file while
discarding other text, characters or white space.”
The examiner maintains that the nodes that are being modified
through adding, modifying or deleting content read on the “editing
operations” being claimed. Further the examiner maintains that
deleting content from nodes reads on the limitation of “extract given
portion of the text while discarding other text characters”.

(Ans. 21, Parker, page 8, ¶65.) However, at least for claim 1, the Examiner
has provided no evidentiary basis in the Specification, reference or
otherwise, for such an interpretation. At best, Examiner’s assertion is
conclusory. “[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by
mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Appeal 2011-008312
Application 11/541,203

15
Thus, the Examiner has not met the burden of proof of establishing a
prima facie case of obviousness on the evidence before us, and a
preponderance of the evidence supports Appellants’ position.

Claim 17
According to the Examiner, “Claim 17 is the ‘system’ claim of claim
1, and has similar limitations; therefore claim 17 is rejected under the same
grounds that claim 1 was rejected” (Ans. 9). For the reasons set forth above,
we are not persuaded by the Examiner’s rationale. The Examiner makes no
other specific findings relative to the subject matter of Appellants’ claim 17.
Therefore the rejection of claim 17 and its dependent claims 19-25 is
reversed.
Thus, the Examiner has not met the burden of proof of establishing a
prima facie case of obviousness on the evidence before us, and a
preponderance of the evidence supports Appellants’ position.
Rejections 3-8 above are reversed for the same reasons.1

1 We note claim 4 has been cancelled according to the Claims Appendix to
the Brief (which the Examiner agrees is correct, Ans. 2), and therefore
remaining claims 5-11 depend from cancelled claim 4.
Appeal 2011-008312
Application 11/541,203

16
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The cited references do not support the Examiner’s anticipation and
obviousness rejections. The anticipation and obviousness rejections are
reversed.
REVERSED

cam