Ex Parte Griffin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2013

11145693 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2013)

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.
11/145,693 06/06/2005 Sean Patrick Griffin CRNI.118196 3619
46169 7590 02/28/2013
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
(Cerner Corporation)
Intellectual Property Department
2555 GRAND BOULEVARD
KANSAS CITY, MO 64108-2613
EXAMINER
CHBOUKI, TAREK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2165
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2013 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 SEAN PATRICK GRIFFIN and BRENT W. BOSSI
____________

Appeal 2010-007124
Application 11/145,693
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before SCOTT R. BOALICK, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and
TRENTON A. WARD, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention renders healthcare reports using Extensible
Mark-Up Language (XML) and Extensible Stylesheet Language (XSL). See
generally Title; Spec. ¶ 0003. Claim 1 is illustrative:
Appeal 2010-007124
Application 11/145,693

2
1. A method in a computer system for dynamically rendering at least
one report in a healthcare environment, the method comprising:
providing at least one first XML file, wherein the at least one first
XML file contains data representing information to be presented in the at
least one report;
providing at least one second XML file, wherein the at least one
second XML file contains data representing a format for the at least one
report;
converting the at least one second XML file to at least one XSL
stylesheet;
applying the at least one XSL style sheet to the data contained in the
at least one first XML file to create at least one third XML file, wherein the
at least one third XML file contains the data representing information to be
presented in the at least one report and the data representing the format for
the at least one report; and
rendering at least one report using the at least one third XML file.

THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-4, 9-15, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Bakar (US 2004/0039990 A1; Feb. 26, 2004),
Oh (US 2004/0128617 A1; July 1, 2004), and Hays (US 2006/0085744 A1;
Apr. 20, 2006; filed Aug. 27, 2004). Ans. 4-9.1
2. The Examiner rejected claims 5, 6, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Bakar, Oh, Hays, and Helgeson (US 6,643,652
B2; Nov. 4, 2003). Ans. 10-12.
3. The Examiner rejected claims 7, 8, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Bakar, Oh, Hays, and Brackett (US
2004/0083217 A1; Apr. 29, 2004). Ans. 12-14.

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed September
29, 2009 (“App. Br.”); (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed December 31,
2009 (“Ans.”); and (3) the Reply Brief filed February 25, 2010 (“Reply
Br.”).
Appeal 2010-007124
Application 11/145,693

3

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER BAKAR, OH, AND HAYS
The Examiner finds that Bakar discloses every recited feature of
representative claim 1 including (1) providing first and second XML files
(report data template and report format template), and (2) applying at least
one XSL stylesheet to data in the first XML file to create a third XML file
which is said to correspond to the report engine’s XML definition. Ans. 4-5,
15-16. The Examiner also cites (1) Oh for teaching converting the second
XML file to at least one XSL stylesheet, and (2) Hays for teaching that the
third XML file has data representing report presentation and format
information, and concludes that the claim would have been obvious over
these collective teachings. Ans. 5-6, 16-17.
Appellants argue that the cited prior art does not apply an XSL
stylesheet to the recited first XML file to create the recited third XML file,
where the XSL stylesheet was created from a second XML file prescribing
report formatting as claimed. App. Br. 16-20; Reply Br. 6-9. Appellants
add that the Examiner failed to articulate a rational underpinning for
combining the references. App. Br. 21-23; Reply Br. 10. Appellants also
argue that the cited prior art does not teach or suggest applying an
intermediary XSL stylesheet to the second XML file as recited in claim 4.
App. Br. 23-24; Reply Br. 10.

ISSUES
I. Under § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Bakar, Oh, and
Hays collectively would have taught or suggested applying:
Appeal 2010-007124
Application 11/145,693

4
(1) an XSL stylesheet to a first XML file containing data representing
report presentation information to create the recited third XML file, where
the XSL stylesheet was created from a second XML file containing data
representing a report format as recited in claim 1?
(2) an intermediary XSL stylesheet to the second XML file as recited
in claim 4?
II. Is the Examiner’s combining the teachings of these references
supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion?

ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3, 9-15, and 20
On this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of independent claim 1. The Examiner maps the recited first and
second XML files to Bakar’s report data and format templates, respectively.
Ans. 4, 15-16. As shown in Bakar’s Figure 3D, Bakar’s report module 260
contains a report data template 262 (“first XML file”) which includes data
derived from other templates including user-defined preferences for data
field types and/or activation and response tracking data. Bakar ¶¶ 0009,
0088; Fig. 3D. Although Bakar does not explicitly refer to the report data
template as an XML file, Bakar nonetheless indicates in various other
passages that templates can be XML. See, e.g., Bakar ¶ 0062 (noting that
the discussed definitions or templates are preferably XML templates);
¶ 0006 (noting that the form tool’s design template may be written in XML).
Although Bakar’s “report format template” discussed in Paragraph
0009 and referred to by the Examiner as the “second XML file” (Ans. 4, 16)
Appeal 2010-007124
Application 11/145,693

5
is not shown in Figure 3D, it nonetheless reasonably corresponds to the
reporting template 396 which includes data representative of report style and
choice, user-defined fields and display type, and general visual reporting
preferences. Bakar ¶ 0009. Accord Bakar ¶ 0088 (referring to “a report
format template or reporting template 396” (emphasis added)). This
reporting template, then, corresponds to the recited second XML file
according to the Examiner’s mapping.
Bakar’s reporting engine 318 reads the report data and reporting
templates to render at least part of the report to a display device. Bakar
¶ 0088; Fig. 3D. For example, the reporting engine may (1) create XML
definitions for the selected preferences, and (2) render the report as HTML
using a Java applet. Id. The Examiner maps these created XML definitions
to the recited “third XML file.” Ans. 5, 16. These XML definitions are
created for selected preferences—preferences that presumably correspond to
both (1) user-defined preferences in connection with the report data
template, and (2) visual preferences pertaining to the reporting template. See
Bakar ¶ 0088. Therefore, these XML definitions reasonably correspond to
the recited “third XML file,” and this file is derived from the first and
second XML files.
Claim 1 requires converting the second XML file to at least one XSL
stylesheet, and then applying that stylesheet to the first XML file to create
the third XML file. To meet this requirement under the Examiner’s
mapping, Bakar’s reporting template 396 must first be converted to an XSL
stylesheet which is then applied to the report data template 262 to create the
XML definitions corresponding to the third XML file.
Appeal 2010-007124
Application 11/145,693

6
Bakar’s reporting engine reads both templates and creates XML
definitions based at least partially on formatting preferences in the reporting
template. See Bakar ¶¶ 0009, 0088. The reporting engine therefore applies
at least some formatting data in the reporting template to data in the report
data template to generate XML definitions used to render the report
according to the specified format. See id. Although Bakar does not indicate
that the reporting template and associated formatting data is converted to
XSL to create the XML definitions, providing at least one XSL stylesheet
based on this formatting data to achieve this end is nonetheless an obvious
variation. We reach this conclusion noting that converting XML templates
to XSL is known in the art as evidenced by Oh’s teaching of converting an
XML-based electronic program guide (EPG) template into XSL. Oh
Abstract; ¶¶ 0010-11. In light of this well-known technique which yields
predictable results, enhancing Bakar by converting the reporting template to
XSL therefore predictably uses prior art elements according to their
established functions—an obvious improvement. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Nor are we persuaded of error in the Examiner’s reliance on Hays,
which teaches that a report design can show data to be displayed in an actual
report and its layout, where an associated report definition file can be XML.
Hays ¶¶ 0046-48. We see no reason why this fundamental teaching could
not be applied to Bakar’s XML definitions, particularly since these
definitions reflect both the report’s presentation information and its
formatting specified in both templates. See Bakar ¶ 0088. Accordingly, the
Examiner’s combining the teachings of these references is supported by
Appeal 2010-007124
Application 11/145,693

7
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the
Examiner’s obviousness conclusion.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 1, and claims 2, 3, 9-15, and 20 not separately argued
with particularly.

Claim 4
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4 reciting, in
pertinent part, applying an intermediary XSL stylesheet to the second XML
file. As noted above, we find no error in the Examiner’s position that
converting Bakar’s reporting template and associated formatting data to XSL
would have been an obvious enhancement in view of Oh. Nor do we find
error in the Examiner’s position to the extent that doing so via an
intermediary XSL stylesheet would have likewise been obvious, for this
enhancement also predictably uses prior art elements according to their
established functions—an obvious improvement. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
To be sure, the Examiner cites Bakar’s applying an XSL stylesheet to
XML code to generate HTML code in connection with the form engine
316—not the reports engine 318. Ans. 5 (citing Bakar ¶ 0062).
Nevertheless, Bakar evidences that XSL stylesheets are known XML
conversion tools. We therefore see no reason why such a conversion tool
could not be predictably applied to Bakar’s reports engine which likewise
renders XML-based reports via HTML. See Bakar ¶ 0088. Although Bakar
does not explicitly state that the stylesheet-based XML conversion in
Paragraph 62 is also to XSL, the Examiner did not rely solely on Bakar in
this regard, but also Oh which teaches converting XML to XSL as noted
Appeal 2010-007124
Application 11/145,693

8
previously. See Ans. 17 (citing Oh ¶ 0011). Appellants’ arguments (App.
Br. 23-24; Reply Br. 10) regarding the individual shortcomings of Bakar and
Oh do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s reliance on their collective
teachings which at least suggest the recited conversion to XSL and using a
stylesheet-based conversion tool. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426
(CCPA 1981) (noting that nonobviousness cannot be shown by attacking
references individually where the obviousness rejection is based on the
combination of references). Nor have Appellants shown that applying an
intermediary XSL stylesheet to convert an XML file to an XSL stylesheet
would have been uniquely challenging or otherwise beyond the level of
ordinarily skilled artisans. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc.,
485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The weight of the evidence on this
record therefore favors the Examiner’s position.

THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 5-8
and 16-19. Ans. 10-14. Despite nominally arguing these claims separately,
Appellants reiterate similar arguments made in connection with claim 1 and
allege that the additional cited references fail to cure those purported
deficiencies. App. Br. 25-27. We are not persuaded by these arguments,
however, for the reasons previously discussed.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-20 under § 103.

Appeal 2010-007124
Application 11/145,693

9
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 is affirmed.
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).

AFFIRMED

babc