Ex Parte Horiuchi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2013

11293477 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2013)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111293,477 12/02/2005
37945 7590 10/04/2016
DUKEW. YEE
YEE AND AS SOCIA TES, P.C.
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS, TX 75380
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Y oshio Horiuchi
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
JP920040l96US1 4294
EXAMINER
AMIN, MUSTAFAA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2144
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/04/2016 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):
ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com
mgamez@yeeiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YOSHIO HORIUCHI, MASABUMI KOINUMA,
MARI (KUROKI) ONISHI, and MASAKI SAITOH
Appeal2015-007192
Application 11/293 ,4 77
Technology Center 2100
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 19, 23-26, 30-33, and 37--42. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2015-007192
Application 11/293,477
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 19, 23-26, 30-33, and 37-39 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Soldan et al. (US 2010/0058172 Al;
March 4, 2010), Flanagan (DAVID FLANAGAN, JAVASCRIPT DEFINITIVE
GUIDE (4th ed., 2002)), Kim et al. (US 2003/0120686 Al; June 26, 2003),
and Oshima et al. (US 2009/0217153 Al; Aug. 27, 2009). Final Act. 4--14.
The Examiner rejects claims 40-42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Soldan, Flanagan, Kim, Oshima, and Bales (US 2005/0268230
Al; Dec. 1, 2005). Final Act. 14--15.
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 19 is representative of claims 23-26, 30-33, and
37-39 (first rejection). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Appellants do not
present separate patentability arguments for dependent claims 40-42 (second
rejection). All claims thus stand or fall with claim 19, addressed below.
Ciaim 19 's only disputed limitation is "synchronizing the content of
the managed document with edited content on the edit screen based on
editing operations on the edit screen." Br. 19-20 (Claims App'x).
Appellants argue Oshima's applied disclosure teaches synchronizing of a
document object model's (DOM) content; not a managed document's
content (as is claimed). Br. 14--15. Appellants principally contend:
Oshima 's [applied] paragraph [0245] describes edits and
manipulations to the document object model (DOM). A
Document Object Model (DOM) is an application programming
interface (API) for valid HTML and well-formed XML
documents. It is based on an object structure that closely
resembles the structure of the documents it models. It defines
the logical structure of documents and the way a document is
accessed and manipulated. The Document Object Model does
2
Appeal2015-007192
Application 11/293,477
not define what information in a document is relevant or how
information in a document is structured. The DOM is simply
an API to this information set.
While the Applicants' claim 19 does state that the DOM is
updated, the claim feature at issue, itself, has nothing to do with
updates to the DOM. Instead, the claim feature recites that,
based on editing operations on the edit screen, the content of the
managed document (i.e., not the DOM) is synchronized with
the edited content on the edit screen. Oshima's paragraph
[0245] states nothing about editing the managed document
itself.
Br. 15.
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive for the reasons presented by
the Examiner's response (Ans. 5---6). We adopt the findings therein and
highlight the following for emphasis.
Appellants incorrectly construe claim 19 as restricting the manner in
which changes to the edit screen's content are propagated to the managed
document's content. Rather, claim 19 requires only a correspondence of the
edit screen's contents and managed document's contents; e.g., recites "an
edit screen on which a tag content of the managed document is converted to
a visual representation" and the disputed limitation of "synchronizing the
content of the managed document with edited content on the edit screen[.]"
Br. 20 (Claims App'x). Appellants have not shown a lack of such claimed
correspondence between Oshima's source code and edits (analogized,
respectively, to claim 19's managed document and edit screen). See Ans. 6;
Final Act. 10.
Further, even assuming claim 19 restricts the manner in which
changes to the edit screen's content are propagated to the managed
document's content, claim 19 can be construed as synchronizing the
3
Appeal2015-007192
Application 11/293,477
managed document's contents via the updating of the DOivI information in
response to the editing operations. Oshima's source code is also
synchronized to the edits by updating of the DOM in response to the editing
operations. See Ans. 6; see also Oshima i-f 245 ("[E]diting of a complex
document 2200 having an XHTML part 2210, a SVG part 2220, and another
XHTML part 2230 ... is effected by manipulation of the DOM
... representing the document. . . . As a sequence of editing commands are
entered by a user, the DOM is modified[.]").
DECISION
For the foregoing reasons, the rejections of claims 19, 23-26, 30-33,
and 37--42 are 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
4