Ex Parte Hsu et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 2, 201713889331 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 2, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation