Ex Parte Huang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 27, 2016

11850081 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111850,081 0910512007
78126 7590 06/01/2016
IBM - Patents
c/o Fox Rothschild LLP
997 Lenox Drive, Building 3
Princeton, NJ 08543-5231
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jinchao Huang
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.
CA9200601OOUS1 6883
EXAMINER
HEFFINGTON, JOHN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2172
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2016 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):
ipdocket@foxrothschild.com
jdougherty@foxrothschild.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JINCHAO HUANG and MICHAEL STARKEY
Appeal2014-007462
Application 11/850,081
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1, 4--8, 11-15, and 18-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-007462
Application 11/850,081
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present application "relates generally to collaborative editing and,
more particularly, to the collaborative browser-based editing of a diagram."
Spec. i-f 1. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of editing a graphical diagram generated using
a graphical rendering software program executing on a first
computer processing unit, comprising:
automatically creating, at the first computer processing
unit, an image file and an extensible markup language (XML)
file describing a diagram's contents based on the graphical
diagram comprising at least two different types of graphic
elements;
designating updateable graphical areas within an image
defined by the image file and the XML file;
providing access to the image file and XML file to at least
one user of the first computer processing unit or a second
computer processing unit;
displaying the image on the first or second computer
processing unit using a web browser program thereof;
receiving, by the first or second computer processing unit,
at least one user input for editing content of at least one of the
updateable graphical areas of the image directly from within the
web browser program;
in response to the reception of the user input,
automatically performing operations by the web browser
program to edit the XML file first describing the image displayed
on the first or second computer processing unit;
transferring the edited XML file to the graphical rendering
software program with which the graphical diagram was first
generated; and
generating, by the graphical rendering software program,
an updated graphical diagram by updating the graphical diagram
based on the edited XML file.
2
Appeal2014-007462
Application 11/850,081
REJECTION
Claims 1, 4--8, 11-15, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Uchida (US 2006/0280373 Al; Dec. 14, 2006)
and Nicolle (US 2004/0117773 Al; June 17, 2004).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiners' rejection in light of the evidence
presented and Appellants' arguments. Appellants have not persuaded us that
the Examiner erred. We adopt the Examiner's findings, conclusions, and
reasoning set forth in the appealed action and the Answer to the extent
consistent with the analysis below. We address Appellants' arguments in
tum.
Appellants argue Uchida does not teach or suggest "receiving ... at
least one user input for editing content of at least one of the updateable
graphical areas of the image" because Uchida's vector images "comprise the
exact same content/objects ... just at different magnification levels." See
Reply Br. 4; App. Br. 12-13. According to Appellants, one of skill in the art
would understand "that 'editing contents of an image' means making
changes to an image so as to alter its contents ... such as by moving or
replacing objects in a specified area." Reply Br. 4 (citing Spec. i-f 22; Uchida
,-r 4 ).
We find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive. The Examiner found
Uchida discloses receiving user input to magnify part of an image and that
magnifying part of an image teaches "editing content of at least one of the
updateable graphical areas of the image" under the broadest reasonable
3
Appeal2014-007462
Application 11/850,081
interpretation of the limitation. See Final Act 2---6; Ans. 5-7. Appellants
have not established this interpretation is erroneous. The portions of the
specification and Uchida cited by Appellants do not define "editing contents
of an image" in a manner that excludes magnifying an image. See Reply Br.
4 (citing Spec. i-f 22; Uchida i-f 4). In fact, the cited portions do not define
"editing contents of an image" at all. Rather, the cited portion of the
specification simply discloses that "updateable areas 210-226 may be edited
or otherwise modified by a user" and the "image 200 may be collaboratively
edited." Spec. i-f 22. The cited portion of Uchida explains that a drawing
application "allows for editing of images by moving objects in a specified
area." Uchida i-f 4. But this passing reference to "editing of images" does
not define the term, much less exclude magnifying an image from "editing
of images."
Even if Appellants were correct that "'editing contents of an image'
means making changes to an image so as to alter its contents," Appellants'
arguments would not persuade us the Examiner erred. The Examiner also
found Uchida discloses extracting portions of graphical objects that are
within user-specified areas of an image and "shows different methods of
modifying the extracted portions." Final Act. 6-7 (quoting Uchida i-fi-1 62,
80); Ans. 6 (discussing Uchida Figs. 27-31 ). Appellants have not
persuasively explained why Uchida's "different methods of modifying the
extracted portions" does not teach or suggest "editing contents on an image."
Appellants also contend Uchida does not teach or suggest "in response
to the reception of the user input, automatically performing operations by the
web browser program to edit the XML file first describing the image"
4
Appeal2014-007462
Application 11/850,081
because Uchida discloses saving the extracted image in a new file. See App.
Br. 13-14.
We find Appellants' argument unpersuasive. The Examiner found
Uchida teaches "that once an area is magnified, then structured document
data is converted such that a window with a magnified area is displayed, i.e.
maintained. There is no reference here to any copying of the original
structured document data before converting the data to provide for the
magnification." Ans. 7. Put differently, the Examiner found Uchida
suggests that, in some embodiments, Uchida's invention modifies the
original file, not a copy of the file. Appellants have not persuasively
addressed this finding. Moreover, the Examiner found Uchida discloses
creating a copy of the original file and modifying this copy to reflect
changes to the image (e.g., removing objects outside a user specified area).
See Ans. 6 (citing Uchida i-f 103, Figs. 20A, 20B, 21, 22A, 22B). The
Examiner found "[ e ]di ting a copy of the SVG [scalable vector graphics] file
is the same as editing the original SVG file since both files have exactly the
same binary definition" and therefore Uchida teaches this limitation. Id.
Appellants have also failed to persuasively address this finding.
Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred.
Finally, Appellants argue "Nicolle fails to disclose and/or suggest
receiving a user input for editing an updateable graphical area of an image
directly within a web browser program" and "automatically performing
operations by a web browser program to edit an XML file ... in response to
the reception of a user input for editing an updateable graphical area of an
image directly within a web browser program." App. Br. 16-17. Appellants
contend "Nicolle simply discloses and/or suggests receiving a user input for
5
Appeal2014-007462
Application 11/850,081
editing text of a source program ... directly within an Internet browser" and
Nicolle does not perform operations "in response to the reception of a user
input for editing an updateable graphical area of an image directly within a
web browser program." Id. at 16 (emphasis added).
We find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive. The Examiner
concluded a combination ofUchida's and Nicolle's teachings suggest the
disputed limitations. See Final 8-9; Ans. 8-9. Appellants' arguments
against Nicolle alone have not persuaded us the Examiner erred because
"one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually
where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references." In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Moreover, Appellants have not
shown the Examiner's combination ofUchida's and Nicolle's teachings
would have been "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill
in the art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162
(Fed. Cir. 2007).
For the above reasons, we find Appellants' arguments concerning the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1 unpersuasive and accordingly sustain this
rejection. Because Appellants have not presented separate, persuasive
patentability arguments for claims 4-8, 11-15, and 18-20, we also sustain
the Examiner's rejection of these claims.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1,
4-8, 11-15, and 18-20.
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).
6
Appeal2014-007462
Application 11/850,081
AFFIRMED
7