Ex Parte Heinkel et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 15, 201411670492 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 15, 2014) Copy Citation 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. 11/670,492 02/02/2007 Ulrich Karl Heinkel LCNT/128893 7248 46363 7590 04/16/2014 WALL & TONG, LLP/ ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. 25 James Way Eatontown, NJ 07724 EXAMINER LUDWIG, MATTHEW J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2178 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/16/2014 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) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE __________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD __________ Ex parte ULRICH KARL HEINKEL, JOACHIM KNAEBLEIN, and AXEL SCHNEIDER __________ Appeal 2012-000527 Application 11/670,492 Technology Center 2100 __________ Before ERIC GRIMES, JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, and ERICA A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges. FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a method for enabling insertion of descriptors within a worksheet. The Examiner rejected the claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as Alcatel-Lucent (see App. Br. 3). Appeal 2012-000527 Application 11/670,492 2 Statement of the Case Background “The technical specifications typically define the technical system in terms of objects, such as registers, pins, and similar components. The technical specifications typically define such objects using short descriptors known as mnemonics” (Spec. 1, ll. 11-14). According to the Specification, “with potentially thousands of descriptors being used in a technical specification, problems often associated with the use of descriptors (e.g., multiple definitions, misinterpretations, and other similar problems) become almost inevitable. These problems often introduce errors during the system development process” (Spec. 1, ll. 24-28). The Specification teaches that “the present invention supports the system specification creation process by providing descriptor management functions in the form of a descriptor management tool for managing descriptors during the system specification creation process” (Spec. 3, ll. 14- 17). The Claims Claims 1-20 are on appeal. Claims 2-20 have not been argued separately from claim 1 and, therefore, stand or fall with that claim. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1). Claim 1 reads as follows: 1. A method for enabling insertion of descriptors within a worksheet, comprising: receiving a request for descriptor information for use in identifying a descriptor for insertion within a worksheet, wherein the descriptor information is maintained in a descriptor dictionary comprising a plurality of descriptor entries defining a respective plurality of descriptors; Appeal 2012-000527 Application 11/670,492 3 determining a context associated with the request for descriptor information; retrieving, according to the determined context, a subset of the descriptor entries of the descriptor dictionary; and inserting, into a presentation data stream, imagery configured to enable presentation of the retrieved descriptor entries for enabling selection of one of the retrieved descriptor entries for insertion of the corresponding descriptor of the selected descriptor entry within the worksheet. The issue The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Ashford2 and Bruecken3 (Ans. 4-8). The Examiner finds that Ashford teaches an “acronym dictionary which includes multiple acronym descriptors and is searched . . . The request to search an acronym dictionary is performed as a software routine . . . The reference allows a user to consult a dictionary and thus the system of Ashford receives a request for acronym expansion information” (Ans. 4). The Examiner finds that Ashford teaches “consulting an acronym dictionary, presenting a result of the dictionary search, and inputting the result of the dictionary search directly into the document” (Ans. 4-5). The Examiner finds that Ashford “fails to explicitly state a request to illustrate an acronym dictionary comprising a plurality of descriptor entries defining a respective plurality of descriptors” (Ans. 5). The Examiner finds that “Bruecken allow[s] for a user interface to present descriptors and 2 Ashford et al., US 2003/0018670 A1, published Jan. 23, 2003. 3 Bruecken, C., US 2008/0154582 A1, published Jun. 26, 2008. Appeal 2012-000527 Application 11/670,492 4 provide multiple viewing options to the user based upon words and contexts of words” (Ans. 5). The Examiner finds it obvious to “combine the acronym dictionary methods of Ashford with the dictionary presentation methods of Bruecken to provide a user with the added benefit of presenting multiple straightforward descriptors within a dictionary interface for selection within documents utilizing dictionary presentation methods” (Ans. 5). The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence of record support the Examiner’s conclusion that Ashford and Bruecken render the claims obvious? Findings of Fact 1. The Specification teaches that “descriptors which may be managed according to the descriptor management functions of the present invention may include . . . acronyms” (Spec. 3, ll. 25-27). 2. The Specification teaches an embodiment where “the request for descriptor information is initiated manually by a user. For example, a user may select a menu item from a drop-down menu, click one or more buttons, or initiate any other action which may trigger a request for descriptor information” (Spec. 8, ll. 26-30). 3. Ashford teaches “steps for implementing acronym reading assistance . . . Checking for user action of ‘select term, ask for acronym help’ is performed as indicated in a decision block 202” (Ashford 2 ¶ 0025). 4. Ashford teaches an example where “if looking for the definition of the acronym DNR, scanning back then forward in the document text Appeal 2012-000527 Application 11/670,492 5 looking for the acronym definition for DNR is performed at block 208” (Ashford 3 ¶ 0026). 5. Figure 2A of Ashford is reproduced below: Figure 2A is a flow chart “illustrating exemplary steps for implementing acronym assistance” (Ashford 1 ¶ 0011). 6. Ashford teaches that: Heuristics also are used to find the acronym meaning at block 208. Words within N+5 words either side of the first acronym in the document set are analyzed, where N is the number of characters in the acronym. First characters of Appeal 2012-000527 Application 11/670,492 6 the words are searched for an order that matches the pattern of the acronym. (Ashford 3 ¶ 0033). 7. Ashford teaches that “[w]hen the acronym expansion is not found at decision block 210, then a display dictionary routine is called as indicated in a block 212” (Ashford 3 ¶ 0034). 8. Ashford teaches that “finding the acronym in an acronym dictionary 504 is performed. The acronym dictionary 504 may be a local acronym dictionary file 138 or another remote acronym dictionary . . .When the acronym is found in the acronym dictionary, then found in dictionary is set to yes as indicated in a block 508” (Spec. 4 ¶ 0042). 9. Ashford teaches that “[w]hen the acronym expansion is found in the dictionary, the acronym is displayed in bubble text and options are enabled for the user to scan or access the acronym in the acronym dictionary as indicated in a block 218” (Ashford 3 ¶ 0035). 10. Ashford teaches that “the acronym is displayed either as bubble text or the acronym is displayed in-line in the text with parenthesis and the text flow is adjusted per user preferences” (Ashford 3 ¶0037). 11. Bruecken teaches that a “data request action generally includes an identification of one or more words for which a definition is sought, e.g., by a viewer of an electronic document. A data request action may be generated through the highlighting of a word in an electronic document using, e.g., an application 120” (Bruecken 4 ¶ 0049). Appeal 2012-000527 Application 11/670,492 7 12. Bruecken teaches that in “response to the data request action, the electronic dictionary 100 also or alternatively may retrieve the definition of the word from a dictionary data store” (Bruecken 4 ¶ 0053). 13. Bruecken teaches that “[r]etrieving definitions may include using the context information to select an appropriate definition for a word. For example, a word may have multiple meanings but, based on the context information, the electronic dictionary 100 may determine that one or more of the definitions are more appropriate for the context” (Bruecken 4 ¶ 0054). 14. Bruecken teaches that “[w]ith the retrieved results, the electronic dictionary 100 may store the definition and/or the context information (step 440) as a personalized electronic dictionary” (Bruecken 5 ¶ 0057). Principles of Law “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). “If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” Id. at 417. Analysis We begin with claim interpretation, since before a claim is properly interpreted, its scope cannot be compared to the prior art. The disputed claim steps are “receiving a request for descriptor information” and “inserting, into a presentation data stream, imagery configured to enable presentation of the retrieved descriptor entries for enabling selection of one of the retrieved descriptor entries for insertion of the corresponding Appeal 2012-000527 Application 11/670,492 8 descriptor of the selected descriptor entry within the worksheet,” both recited in claim 1. During prosecution, claim terms are given their broadest reasonable interpretation as they would be understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art in the light of the Specification. “receiving a request for descriptor information” Appellants contend that the portions of Ashford and Bruecken cited by the Final Office Action to show the feature of ‘receiving a request for descriptor information for use in identifying a descriptor for insertion within a worksheet’ fail to teach or suggest this feature of Appellants’ claim 1 (App. Br. 12). We are not persuaded. The Specification teaches that “the request for descriptor information is initiated manually by a user. For example, a user may . . . initiate any other action which may trigger a request for descriptor information” (Spec. 8, ll. 26-30; FF 2). This is consistent with Ashford, who teaches a decision tree in Figure 2A (FF 5) which involves “[c]hecking for user action of ‘select term, ask for acronym help’” (Ashford 2 ¶ 0025; FF 3). Ashford’s manual request for the meaning of an acronym is reasonably interpreted as “receiving a request for descriptor information.” Ashford further teaches the element in claim 1 requiring “descriptor information is maintained in a descriptor dictionary”, specifically teaching “finding the acronym in an acronym dictionary 504 is performed. The acronym dictionary 504 may be a local acronym dictionary file 138 or another remote acronym dictionary” (Ashford 4 ¶ 0042; FF 8). Appeal 2012-000527 Application 11/670,492 9 “enabling selection of one of the retrieved descriptor entries for insertion of the corresponding descriptor of the selected descriptor entry within the worksheet” Appellants contend that: assuming arguendo that the acronym of Ashford could be equated to the descriptor of Appellants’ claim 1, neither the acronym dictionary nor the definition of the acronym is for use in identifying the acronym for insertion within the text document and, further, that use of the acronym in the document to search for a definition of the acronym is not a request for acronym information for use in identifying the acronym for insertion within the text document. (App. Br. 13). We are not persuaded. As an initial matter, it is not “arguendo” that the acronym of Ashford can be equated to the descriptor in claim 1, rather it is the specific definition of Appellants’ Specification which states that “descriptors which may be managed according to the descriptor management functions of the present invention may include . . . acronyms” (Spec. 3, ll. 25-27; FF 1). We interpret Appellants’ argument not as disputing that Ashford teaches the identification of acronyms in a text document using an acronym dictionary, steps clearly taught by Ashford (FF 3-8), but rather arguing that when Ashford obtains the meaning (expansion) of the acronym from the dictionary, Ashford does not perform “insertion of the corresponding descriptor of the selected descriptor entry within the worksheet” as required by claim 1. Appeal 2012-000527 Application 11/670,492 10 However, Ashford teaches two different modes of displaying the meaning or expansion of an acronym into a document, including where “the acronym is displayed either as bubble text or the acronym is displayed in- line in the text with parenthesis” (Ashford 3 ¶0037; FF 10). While the “bubble text” is reasonably understood as being inserted into a presentation data stream (FF 9), Appellants may intend their argument to express the idea that the “bubble text” is not within the worksheet or document itself. However, Ashford also expressly teaches that “the acronym is displayed in- line in the text with parenthesis” (Ashford 3 ¶0037; FF 10). The most reasonable interpretation of this teaching is that the acronym (descriptor) identified using the acronym dictionary (FF 8) is inserted into the worksheet or document (FF 10). Ashford’s “in-line” teaching reasonably satisfies the requirement of claim 1 “for insertion of the corresponding descriptor of the selected descriptor entry within the worksheet.” Additional arguments Appellants “submit that the cited portions of Bruecken merely disclose a process for using a word that is already present within a document to access and display a definition of the word and/or context information associated with the word” (App. Br. 14). Appellants “submit that the cited portions of Bruecken still would fail to teach or suggest a request for information for use in identifying the word, much less a request for information for use in identifying the word for insertion within the electronic document” (App. Br. 15). The Examiner solely relied upon Bruecken to demonstrate that multiple definitions may exist for a single term in a dictionary, from which Appeal 2012-000527 Application 11/670,492 11 the correct definition may require selection (FF 12-13) where the Examiner finds that Ashford’s acronym dictionary may not teach “a plurality of descriptor entries defining a respective plurality of descriptors” (Ans. 5). However, Bruecken reasonably teaches requesting information for identifying a word, specifically teaching that a “data request action generally includes an identification of one or more words for which a definition is sought, e.g., by a viewer of an electronic document” (Bruecken 4 ¶ 0049; FF 11). With regard to the “insertion” requirement, the Examiner relies upon Ashford to teach insertion of the identified meaning into the document, where Ashford teaches that “the acronym is displayed in-line in the text with parenthesis” (Ashford 3 ¶0037; FF 10). Appellants contend that the cited portions of Ashford disclose that the acronym is already known and is already included within the text document, such that the cited portions of Ashford fail to teach or suggest a request for information for use in identifying the acronym, much less a request for information for use in identifying the acronym for insertion within the text document (Reply Br. 3). We are not persuaded. There is no requirement in claim 1 that the descriptor or acronym is not already present in the worksheet or document, only that the steps of requesting to identify a descriptor, determining a context, retrieving at least one descriptor entry, and enabling insertion of the descriptor entry into the document are performed, as taught by Ashford and Bruecken (FF 3-14; Ans. 4-7). Appellants do not explain why it is relevant Appeal 2012-000527 Application 11/670,492 12 that Ashford may already include the expansion of the acronym at one location in a text, since Ashford expressly teaches “steps for implementing acronym reading assistance . . . Checking for user action of ‘select term, ask for acronym help’ is performed as indicated in a decision block 202” (Ashford 2 ¶ 0025; FF 3). Ashford is expressly teaching requesting information for use in identifying an acronym (FF 3-8). Conclusion of Law The evidence of record supports the Examiner’s conclusion that Ashford and Bruecken render the claims obvious. SUMMARY In summary, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Ashford and Bruecken. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1), we also affirm the rejection of claims 2-20, as these claims were not argued separately. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED kmm Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation