Ex Parte Helfand et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 23, 2010

10930714 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 23, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte RUSS HELFAND and NARCISO B. JARAMILLO
__________

Appeal 2009-006064
Application 10/930,714
Technology Center 2100
__________

Decided: February 24, 2010
__________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, ST. JOHN COURTENAY, III, and
STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.

SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2009-006064
Application 10/930,714

2
Invention
The “invention relates, in general, to Web development environments
and, more specifically, to automatic creation of cascading style sheets”
(Spec. 1, ¶ [0001]).
Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for automatically generating style sheet
formatting in a Web development environment
comprising:
detecting user-selection of content within a Web
page;
capturing one or more stylistic changes to said
user-selection of content performed by said user;
searching a style data structure for a style
corresponding to said one or more stylistic
changes; and
responsive to failing to discover said style
corresponding to said one or more style changes,
generating one or more style sheet rules for each of
said one or more stylistic changes associated with
said user-selection.
References
The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence in
support of the rejections:
Hayton US 7,051,084 B1 May 23, 2006
Brennan US 2003/0025730 A1 Feb. 6, 2003
Oliver Meyer, aTool — Creating Validated XML Documents on the
Fly Using MS Word, Proceedings of the 20th Annual International
Conference on Computer Documentation, ACM, 113-121 (2002) (“Meyer”).
Appeal 2009-006064
Application 10/930,714

3
Rejections
Claims 1-8, 10-20, and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Brennan and Meyer.
Claims 9 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Brennan, Meyer, and Hayton.
ISSUE 1
The Examiner concludes that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of
. . . ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified
Brennan’s method for generating style sheet rules to further include t[he]
ability to generate style sheet rules in response to failing to discover[] a
style, as taught by Meyer” (Ans. 4).
Appellants submit that “[i]n Meyer, the specific formatting of a
portion of text contained in a Word document may be used to correlate such
portion to a defined XML [extensible markup language] element type within
an XML document . . . but no style sheet rules are generated for any such
stylistic changes made within the Word document” (App. Br. 14).
Issue: Did Appellants demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding
that Brennan and Meyer would have taught or suggested responding to
failing to discover a style corresponding to style changes by generating style
sheet rules for the stylistic changes associated with a user selection?
ISSUE 2
The Examiner concludes that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of
. . . ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified
Appeal 2009-006064
Application 10/930,714

4
Brennan et al’s removal and application of style formats, such that they also
determine like/unlike style formats for style resolution, as taught by Meyer
et al” (Ans. 11-12).
Appellants submit that neither Brennan nor Meyer “determine if a
first style format corresponding to said first stylistic markup of a code
segment underlying a Web page is identical to a second style format” (App.
Br. 26).
Issue: Did Appellants demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding
that Brennan and Meyer would have taught or suggested determining if a
first style format corresponding to a first stylistic markup is identical to a
second style format corresponding to a second stylistic markup?
ISSUE 3
Appellants submit that “Meyer fails to disclose automatic generation
of a style sheet rule” (App. Br. 26).
Issue: Did Appellants demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding
that Brennan and Meyer would have taught or suggested automatic
generation of style sheet rules?
ISSUE 4
The Examiner finds that additional limitations would have been taught
or suggested by combinations of Brennan, Meyer, and Hayton (Ans. 5-10
and 12-13).
Appeal 2009-006064
Application 10/930,714

5
Appellants submit that “[t]he Examiner’s Answer does not address
any of the additional limitations required of the dependent claims argued
separately in the Appeal Brief ” (Reply Br. 7).
Issue: Did Appellants demonstrate that the Examiner erred in finding
that the additional limitations would have been taught or suggested by the
prior art?
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
1. Brennan teaches “the ability for the user to use the property editor
21 to create a style-sheet that could define a look and feel for a
group of different UI [user interface] Elements 20” (¶ [0026]).
2. Meyer teaches that “[t]he command ‘Apply Roles’ iterates over all
elements of type aToolDummy and tries to find a type that
matches the formatting of the corresponding text. . . . If the
element type remains ambiguous . . . the user is queried with the
Mapping Dialog” (p. 115).
3. Meyer teaches that an “author may use . . . elements to manipulate
text parts as a unit” (p. 116). When an element in the structure
view is dragged to a new location, “[a]ll contained elements follow
and the MS Word document is changed as well” (id.).
4. Meyer teaches that the Mapping Dialogue “offers all defined types
for the user to choose from. . . . The author chooses keyword as
Appeal 2009-006064
Application 10/930,714

6
the correct type and also selects ‘Store Mapping’. The formatting
of the keyword is, therefore, mapped to the keyword type and will
later on be applied automatically” (p. 116).
5. Meyer teaches an “element containing the text ‘aTool’ . . . .
created, because ‘aTool’ is formatted in italic type. Assuming that
words, with a different format, play different roles in a text,
‘aTool’ has become an element of its own” (p. 115).
6. The Examiner identifies particular teachings in the prior art to
support the rejection of claims 2-7, 9-12, 14-19, and 21-24 (Ans. 5-
10 and 12-13; Fin. Rej. 4-8 and 10-11).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claim interpretation
“In the patentability context, claims are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretations. . . . [L]imitations are not to be read into the
claims from the specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed.
Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). A claim meaning is reasonable if one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim, read in light of the
specification, to encompass the meaning. See In re American Academy of
Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Obviousness
The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art,
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, and
Appeal 2009-006064
Application 10/930,714

7
(3) the level of skill in the art. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-
18 (1966). One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
ANALYSIS
Issue 1
Based on Appellants’ arguments, we will decide the appeal with
respect to this issue on the basis of claim 1 alone. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellants challenge the Examiner’s finding that Brennan and Meyer
would have taught or suggested style sheet rule generation in response to
failing to discover a style. We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive.
Appellants submit that no style sheet rules are generated in Meyer
(App. Br. 14) and that the claimed invention “describes and requires that the
generated style sheet rules come from changes made by the user to the
selected content” (Reply Br. 4). However, Appellants cannot overcome
rejections based on Brennan and Meyer by attacking Meyer alone.
Brennan teaches a property editor to create a style-sheet that can
define a look and feel for user interface elements (FF 1). Meyer teaches
responding to the failure to match formatting (FF 2) by creating a type
mapping (FF 4). The combination of these references thus would have
taught or suggested responding to failing to discover a style corresponding to
style changes (Meyer’s response to the failure to match formatting) by
Appeal 2009-006064
Application 10/930,714

8
generating style sheet rules for the stylistic changes associated with a user
selection (Brennan’s style-sheet definitions).
Even if we were to adopt Appellants’ position that Meyer must
generate a style sheet rule, our decision would not be different. Meyer
teaches that changing the ordering of elements changes the ordering in the
source document (FF 3). Because order is a type of style, the mappings of
Meyer fit within a reasonably broad interpretation of style sheet rules.
For at least these reasons, we find that Appellants have not sustained
the requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or evidence
persuasive of error in the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims
1-24 with respect to this issue.
Issue 2
Appellants challenge the Examiner’s finding that Brennan and Meyer
would have taught or suggested the claimed comparison of style formats.
We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive.
Appellants argue that “[w]hile Meyer compares the formatting of a
portion of text in a Word document to map the portion of text to a
corresponding XML element type, Meyer does not appear to disclose any
stylistic markups contained in the XML document nor any comparison of
any such stylistic markups contained in such XML document” (App. Br. 26).
However, Meyer teaches an element created for text based on the words of
the text having a different format from surrounding text (FF 5). Brennan
teaches style-sheets that define a look and feel for user interface elements
Appeal 2009-006064
Application 10/930,714

9
(FF 1). Therefore, the combination of Brennan and Meyer would have
taught or suggested determining if a first style format (style-sheet
definitions) corresponding to a first stylistic markup (format of text) is
identical to a second style format corresponding to a second stylistic markup
(format of surrounding text).
For at least these reasons, we find that Appellants have not sustained
the requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or evidence
persuasive of error in the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim
25 with respect to this issue.
Issue 3
Based on Appellants’ arguments, we will decide the appeal with
respect to this issue on the basis of claim 8 alone. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellants argue that “Meyer does not automatically generate a new
style, but instead queries the user with a mapping dialog in an attempt to
specify a corresponding element type for the text fragment” (App. Br. 19).
We find this unpersuasive. Meyer teaches that the mapping is later applied
(i.e., generated) automatically after the user responds to the dialogue (FF 4).
Brennan teaches style-sheets that define a look and feel for user interface
elements (FF 1). Therefore, the combination of Brennan and Meyer would
have taught automatic generation (automatic application) of style-sheet rules
(look and feel definitions).
Appeal 2009-006064
Application 10/930,714

10
For at least these reasons, we find that Appellants have not sustained
the requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or evidence
persuasive of error in the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims
8-12 and 25 with respect to this issue.
Issue 4
Appellants challenge the Examiner’s findings that combinations of
Brennan, Meyer, and Hayton would have taught or suggested other claim
limitations. We find that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner
erred.
Appellants’ submission with regards to the Examiner’s rejection of
dependent claim 3 is illustrative:
Claim 3 further recites “modifying a set of tags for a
structural element of said Web page to associate one of said one
or more style sheet rules and said style to said user-selection,
responsive to determining said user-selection encompasses said
structural element”. The combination of Brennan and Meyer do
not teach or suggest this further element of claim 3. For
instance, Meyer does not teach or suggest any such
modification of a set of tags for structural element of a Web
page to associate one or more style sheet rules to a user-
selection.
(App. Br. 17-18).
Mere recitation of claim limitations, followed by a bald assertion that
the prior art fails to teach or suggest the recited limitations, is insufficient to
show that the Examiner erred. Here, the Examiner identifies particular
teachings in the prior art to support the claim rejections (FF 6). Appellants
Appeal 2009-006064
Application 10/930,714

11
provide no arguments or evidence to show error in the Examiner’s
interpretation of the prior art.
For at least these reasons, we find that Appellants have not sustained
the requisite burden on appeal in providing arguments or evidence
persuasive of error in the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims
3-5, 10-12, 15-17, and 21-24 with respect to this issue.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
Appellants have not demonstrated:
1. that the Examiner erred in finding that Brennan and Meyer would
have taught or suggested responding to failing to discover a style
corresponding to style changes by generating style sheet rules for the
stylistic changes associated with a user selection (Issue 1);
2. that the Examiner erred in finding that Brennan and Meyer would
have taught or suggested determining if a first style format corresponding to
a first stylistic markup is identical to a second style format corresponding to
a second stylistic markup (Issue 2);
3. that the Examiner erred in finding that Brennan and Meyer would
have taught or suggested automatic generation of style sheet rules (Issue 3);
and
3. that the Examiner erred in finding that the additional limitations
would have been taught or suggested by the prior art (Issue 4).
Appeal 2009-006064
Application 10/930,714

12
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-25 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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

msc

Kilpatrick Stockton LLP- Adobe Systems, Inc. 58083
Kilpatrick Stockton LLP
1100 Peachtree Street
Atlanta GA 30309-4530