Ex Parte Hsu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 2, 2017

13889331 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 2, 2017)

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.
13/889,331 05/07/2013 Victor Hsu AXURP006b 6713
67362 7590 10/04/2017
THE MUELLER LAW OFFICE, P.C.
12707 High Bluff Drive, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92130
EXAMINER
MAZUMDER, TAPAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2616
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/04/2017 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):
MLOPAIR@themuellerlawoffice.com
heather@themuellerlawoffice.com
julianne@themuellerlawoffice.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VICTOR HSU, MARTIN SMITH, IAN GARDNER, and
BEN FRASER
(Applicant: Axure Software Solutions, Inc.)
Appeal 2017-001112
Application 13/889,3311
Technology Center 2600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1—8 and 10—21, which constitute all of the claims pending in this
application. Claim 9 has been cancelled. App. Br. 24. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellant identifies itself, Axure Software Solutions, Inc., as the real party
in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-001112
Application 13/889,331
THE INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed invention is directed to “tools and methods
for the development and specification of a responsive graphical design.”
Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A system comprising:
a memory storing instructions; and
a processing system comprising at least one processor and
configured to execute the instructions, wherein the instructions,
when executed by the processing system, cause the processing
system to provide an interactive design, the design comprising:
an instantiation of said design for rendering in a
rendering space, said instantiation using an encoding, said
encoding including markup language code and a script;
a widget forming a portion of said design and being
encoded in said encoding; and
a set of predefined states associated with the widget,
each of the set of predefined states corresponding to a
respective display dimension and being defined at least in
part by properties of the widget as rendered at the
corresponding display dimension, wherein said set of
predefined states defines a set of at least two different
absolute positions for said widget within said design;
wherein the processing system generates said
encoding from a specification of said design; and
wherein an object model event is utilized to (i) sense
a change in a rendering space dimension and (ii) change
said widget to a selected one of the set of predefined states
in response to said change.
2
Appeal 2017-001112
Application 13/889,331
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Magnani US 2009/0089668 A1 Apr. 2,2009
Ari US 2013/0167080 A1 June 27,2013
(filed Feb. 23,2012)
Normann US 8,843,585 B1 Sept. 23, 2014
(filed July 6, 2011)
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Magnani in view of Normann. Final Act. 6—14.
Claims 10-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Magnani. Final Act. 19—25.
Claims 16—21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Magnani in view of Ari. Final Act. 19—25.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellant.
Based on the current record, we are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments
regarding the pending claims.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding Magnani teaches or
suggests “a set of predefined states associated with the widget,. . . wherein
said set of predefined states defines a set of at least two different absolute
positions for said widget within said design,” as recited in claim 1. See App.
Br. 8—17; Reply Br. 2—\. Specifically, Appellant argues Magnani teaches
3
Appeal 2017-001112
Application 13/889,331
placing widgets using relative location information to allow a real-time
adaptation to the allowed space:
The location of the widget within the design in Magnani is a
relative location within a web page as specified when the widget
is embedded in the web page by the end user (e.g., within a “div”
element or “table” element of the design 122 or inside a “menu
section 110” 1 23; see also 1 25, 27). Thus, the widgets
themselves do not include predefined states with absolute
positions, since the positions are determined in combination
with information received from the particular web page into
which the widget is inserted. Otherwise, predefining absolute
positions for the widgets in Magnani would render the smart­
sized widgets inoperable for their intended purpose, since
Magnani’s widgets would not adapt to a design space afforded
them in real-time. Instead, if the absolute position of one of
Magnani’s smart-sizing widgets was defined as a property of the
widget itself, and the widget was embedded into a web page, the
person inserting the widget into the web page would constantly
have to worry about the widget clashing with or overlapping any
other content of the web page. Given this fact, it is clear why
the only disclosures in Magnani regarding the placement or
position of a smart-sizing widget in a web page describes the
widget accepting only a relative location value from the web
page.
App. Br. 10-11 (underline in original, bold italics added).
Appellant further argues there is a difference between absolute
dimensions—which are taught in Magnani—and absolute position
information—which are recited in the claim:
The widget dimensions that have been identified by the
Examiner in | 23 of Magnani, however, are size dimensions of
the widget (e.g., width and height and the ratio of these
dimensions compared to those of another entity). Magnani does
not teach, on the other hand, that the user-definable properties of
the widgets can include the absolute position of a widget within
a design.... In essence, the Examiner’s rejection appears to rest
4
Appeal 2017-001112
Application 13/889,331
on the proposal that a widget’s “absolute position” is
“predefined” because, after a real-time calculation that is based
on a relative location of the widget within a design, the absolute
position of a widget is set, and that position depends on
predefined size dimensions of the widget as defined by the user.
A predetermined or absolute size of the widget, however, does
not change the fact that the position of the widget in Magnani is
still relative, rather than absolute, within the design, and is not a
characteristic of the widget itself.
App. Br. 11—12; see also Reply Br. 2 (“Additionally, Magnani paragraph 23
discloses that it is the height/width dimensional values of the available
display area that can be set as ‘either relative or absolute,’ rather than the
absolute position of the widget within the design, as further recited in
claim 1.”).
Finally, Appellant argues the Examiner erred in concluding claim 1
allows the absolute position of the widget to be “derived” from the
predefined states:
The Examiner states (paragraph bridging pages 3 and 4)
that claim 1 requires the absolute position for the widget to be
“derived” from the predefined states. Such a characterization of
claim 1 would mean that the relative position of the widget in the
display area is calculated in real-time based on display
dimensional data, but this is not a correct characterization of
claim 1. Instead, claim 1 recites that the absolute position is
“defined” by the predefined state, so there is no need to “derive”
or calculate the relative position in realtime.
The Examiner states (bottom of page 5) that “Claim 1
doesn’t require position of the widget to be inputted or to be
predefined. Claim 1 requires position to be defined based on the
predefined state.” However, this is an incorrect characterization
of claim 1, because the phrase “based on” suggests that the
5
Appeal 2017-001112
Application 13/889,331
relative position of the widget is calculated or derived from the
predefined state; whereas no such calculation needs to be
performed when the absolute position for the widget is
“defined” in a set of predefined states, as recited in claim 1.
Reply Br. 2—3 (emphasis added).
The Examiner finds Magnani “teaches generating predefined set of
states based on absolute position given by user.” Final Act. 7—8 (citing
Magnani || 23, 25, Fig. 2). More specifically, the Examiner finds “Magnani
Fig. 3 and [paragraph [0023] [0025], step 300 takes the dimension values
and displays the layout based on the inputted dimensional values which are
predefined by user. Thus displayed widget at a position (which is absolute)
are defined by the predefined dimensional values.” Ans. 3.
Additionally, the Examiner concludes that the “claimed absolute
position is required to be derived from [the] predefined states.” Id. at 3; see
also id. at 5 (“Examiner replies, Claim 1 doesn’t require position of the
widget to be inputted or to be predefined. Claim 1 requires position to be
defined based on the predefined state.”). The Examiner further explains that
claim 1 requires, “a set of predefined states that define a set of
two at least two different absolute positions”. Thus claimed
absolute position is required to be derived from predefined states.
Predefined state and absolute position are not same but absolute
position can be derived based on predefined state. In Magnani
the absolute positions are based on dimensions of widget (which
is predefined states that are width and height value of widgets)
and given in absolute values, see Magnani Paragraph [0025]) and
the absolute position is determined based on the predefined
dimension values of the widget. Thus Magnani teaches, the
absolute position of the widget is defined by the predefined states
which are dimensional values provided at step 300. It is to note
that the claim doesn’t limit that the absolute position to be based
on only dimension of widget. Claim 1 doesn’t restrict to
calculate the absolute position at run time. Claim 1 recites, the
6
Appeal 2017-001112
Application 13/889,331
absolute position is to be calculated based on predefined states
which are dimensional values.
Ans. 6—7 (emphasis in original omitted, emphasis added).
During examination of a patent application, a claim is given its
broadest reasonable construction “in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad, of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Bond, 910 F.2d
831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). Under this standard, we interpret claim terms
using “the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage
as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into
account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may
be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant’s
specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “[T]he
protocol of giving claims their broadest reasonable interpretation . . . does
not include giving claims a legally incorrect interpretation” “divorced from
the specification and the record evidence.” Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn,
Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Skvorecz, 580 F.3d
1262, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2009) and In reNTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed.
Cir. 2011)).
The Specification discusses the different predefined states that the
widgets of the claimed invention have. Specifically, the Specification states
that widgets “are specified such that [their] characteristics can have various
states for various dimension versions.” Spec. 125. The Specification
further states that “[a] widget state is defined by a set of values for each of
that widget’s properties.” Id. 134.
7
Appeal 2017-001112
Application 13/889,331
With regard to the value for the position, the Specification describes
how the widgets can have predefined absolute position values for each state:
Embodiments of the present invention provide web site designs
with responsive widgets that respond based on a predefined
absolute position of where the widget should be located on a web
page. The resulting scheme for specifying widget locations is
much more intuitive than one based on relative positioning and
makes the design of interactive responsive web design much
easier on the designers and developers involved. The absolute
positions can be specified in terms of x- and y- coordinates using
various possible units including metric distance units such as
centimeters, US distance units such as inches, and design-
specific units such as pixels.
Id. 129 (emphasis added). The Specification further describes how the
absolute value position information can be added:
For example, a user could specify that hero image 206 will
appear at a specific set of x- and y-coordinates on the web page
in a first state, and a second set of x- and y-coordinates on the
web page in a second state. This particular specification could
be accomplished using an absolute position specification
interface 207. The absolute position specification interface could
have an x-input and y-input used to specify the location of the
widget in the design for a given dimension version. However,
the inputs do not need to be in separate entries as shown in the
Fig. 2 as both could be input at a single prompt separated by a
comma or another indicator. Furthermore, the absolute position
interface could have numbers that are automatically filled out as
a widget is visually positioned in a design window.
Id. at 137.
Based on the words of the claims and how a person of ordinary skill in
the art would understand the claims based on the Specification, we agree
with Appellant that the Examiner erred in implicitly construing claim 1.
Specifically, we conclude that the broadest reasonable construction of the
8
Appeal 2017-001112
Application 13/889,331
claim does not encompass information from which position information is
derived or based. Instead, a person of ordinary skill in the art, after
considering the ordinary meaning of the words of the claims and the
description in the Specification, would understand that the absolute position
information must be specifically defined; it is not sufficient that the position
information can be derived. Cf. In re Smith Int’l, Inc., No. 2016-2303, 2017
WL 4247407, at *5 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 26, 2017) (“The correct inquiry in giving
a claim term its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
specification is not whether the specification proscribes or precludes some
broad reading of the claim term adopted by the examiner. And it is not
simply an interpretation that is not inconsistent with the specification. It is
an interpretation that corresponds with what and how the inventor describes
his invention in the specification, i.e., an interpretation that is ‘consistent
with the specification.’” (quoting In re Morris, 127 F.3d at 1054)).
Magnani teaches using either absolute or relative dimension
information. Magnani 123. However dimension/size information is not the
same as position information. Neither of the sections cited by the Examiner
teaches or suggests any predefined absolute position information.
Accordingly, we agree with Appellant the Examiner’s finding that Magnani
teaches the disputed limitation is in error because it is not supported by a
preponderance of the evidence. See In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed.
Cir. 1985) (Examiner’s burden of proving non-patentability is by a
preponderance of the evidence); see also In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017
(CCPA 1967) (“The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the
factual basis for its rejection. It may not, because it may doubt that the
9
Appeal 2017-001112
Application 13/889,331
invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or
hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis.”).
Accordingly, based on the current record, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, along with the rejection of claims 2—8,
which depend from claim 1.
With regard to claim 10, Appellant argues the claim recites a
substantially similar limitation and that the Examiner erred for the same
reasons discussed above for claim 1. See App. Br. 19. Because claim 10
recites limitations commensurate in scope to the disputed limitations
discussed above with regard to claim 1 and the Examiner relies on the same
findings and conclusions discussed above, we agree with Appellant that, on
the current record, the Examiner erred.
Accordingly, based on the current record, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 10, along with the rejection of claims 11—15,
which depend from claim 10.
With regard to claim 16, Appellant argues the claim recites a
substantially similar limitation and that the Examiner erred for the same
reasons discussed above for claim 1. See App. Br. 20.2 Because claim 16
recites limitations commensurate in scope to the disputed limitations
discussed above with regard to claim 1 and the Examiner relies on the same
findings and conclusions discussed above, we agree with Appellant that, on
the current record, the Examiner erred.
2 Appellant also argues Ari does not teach the disputed limitation. Because
the Examiner does not rely on Ari for that limitation, we need not address
Appellant’s argument.
10
Appeal 2017-001112
Application 13/889,331
Accordingly, based on the current record, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 16, along with the rejection of claims 17—21,
which depend from claim 16.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s decisions rejecting
claims 1—8 and 10-21.
REVERSED
11