UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte THOMAS R. HUDSON
____________
Appeal 2009-002811
Application 10/641,5741
Technology Center 2100
____________
Decided: July 1, 2010
____________
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, LEE E. BARRETT, and THU A. DANG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final
rejection of claims 1, 4-6, 8-12, and 14-17. Claims 2, 3, 7, and 13 have been
canceled. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Filed August 15, 2003, titled "Fast Tag Entry in a Multimodal
Markup Language Editor."
Appeal 2009-002811
Application 10/641,574
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention
The invention relates to fast tag entry in a multimodal markup
language document editor. A multimodal markup language document editor
which has been configured for fast tag entry can include multiple views, the
views including at least one source view and at least one What You See Is
What You Get (WYSIWYG) view. A fast tag entry processor can be
coupled both to the WYSIWYG view and the source view. The processor
can be configured to create a buffer such as a pop-up source window over
the WYSIWYG view through which a tag definition can be textually
specified without requiring a context switch to the source view. The
processor further can be configured to insert the textually specified tag
definition in a markup language document in the editor. Finally, the
processor can be configured to cause the WYSIWYG view to re-render a
representation of the markup language document to reflect the textually
specified tag definition. Spec. 17, abstract.
Appeal 2009-002811
Application 10/641,574
3
Illustrative claim
Claim 1 is reproduced below for illustration:2
1. A multimodal markup language document editor configured
for fast tag entry, said editor comprising:
a plurality of views, said views comprising at least one source
view and at least one What You See Is What You Get (WYSIWYG)
view;
a fast tag entry processor coupled both to said WYSIWYG
view and said source view, said processor having a configuration for
creating a text input buffer in said WYSIWYG view, said processor
having a further configuration for inserting a tag definition specified
in said buffer into a markup language document in the editor, and
causing said WYSIWYG view to re-render a representation of said
markup language document to reflect said specified tag definition,
wherein
said buffer supports inline text insertion in said WYSIWYG
view.
2 Claims 1, 4, and 5 are directed to a "document editor." It is not
clear which of the four statutory classes of 35 U.S.C. § 101 an "editor" is in.
The editor is not claimed as a process, a system, or computer executable
instructions stored on a tangible medium or executing on a machine, which
are acceptable ways to claim a software program. Claim 1 recites a
"processor" but this is evidently a software construct, not hardware. Since
we affirm the prior art rejection of claim 1, we do not raise a new ground of
rejection, but Appellant should address this issue in any further prosecution.
Appeal 2009-002811
Application 10/641,574
4
The references
David Sawyer McFarland, Dreamweaver MX: The Missing Manual
(O'Reilly 2002) (hereinafter "McFarland").
J. Tarin Towers et al., Macromedia Dreamweaver MX Advanced for
Windows and Macintosh: Visual QuickPro Guide (Peachpit Press
2002) (hereinafter "Towers").
The rejections
Claims 1, 4, and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being
anticipated by McFarland.
Claims 6, 8-12, and 14-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as
being anticipated by Towers.
Claims 1, 4, and 5
Claims 4 and 5 stand or fall together with claim 1. Br. 4.
Appellant's argument that McFarland teaches away from the limitation
"to re-render a representation of said markup language document to reflect
said specified tag definition" (claim 1) at Br. 6-7 is withdrawn at Reply Br. 2
in view of the Examiner's pointing out that McFarland teaches that changes
can be viewed immediately while editing (McFarland, § 9.3.2).
Appellant argues that McFarland does not teach "said buffer supports
inline text insertion in said WYSIWYG view" as recited in claim 1. The
Examiner finds that the pop-up editor in the Insert HTML mode in the
Design view (corresponding to the WYSIWYG view) meets the limitation
because the insertion will be at the insertion point. Ans. 4. Appellant argues
Appeal 2009-002811
Application 10/641,574
5
that the phrase "inline insertion" connotes that the insertion point is within
the WYSIWYG view and does not encompass a pop-up window as
evidenced by the Specification which states that the inline text insert point is
an alternative to a pop-up source window. Br. 5-6. Appellant also argues
that the HTML mode is not germane to the limitations at issue since claim 1
is directed to the WYSIWYG view. Id. at 6. The Examiner notes that the
Insert HTML mode is part of the Design view, not the Code view. Ans. 9.
Appellant's Specification states that "the fast tag entry processor 200
can create a text input buffer, for instance in line in the visual representation
of the tag in the WYSIWYG view 140, or as another example, in a pop-up
source window displayed over the visual layout of the WYSIWYG view 140
in which the source of a tag element can be directly entered without
requiring the use of the graphical elements of the WYSIWYG view 140."
Spec. ¶ 00018. This seems to describe that the text input buffer is displayed
at the insertion point (i.e., inline) in the line of text in the WYSIWYG view,
but the claim language does not specifically require this. The limitation that
"said buffer supports inline text insertion in said WYSIWYG view" does not
specify where the text input buffer is displayed, i.e., it does not specify that
the text input buffer is displayed "in line in the visual representation of the
tag in the WYSIWYG view" (Spec. ¶ 0018). The limitation only requires
that the "buffer supports inline text insertion" which we interpret to mean
that text entered into the buffer, wherever the buffer is, is inserted inline in
the WYSIWYG view, which is taught by McFarland. The Examiner's
Appeal 2009-002811
Application 10/641,574
6
rejection is based on this implicit claim interpretation. Accordingly, the
rejection of claims 1, 4, and 5 is affirmed.
Claims 6, 8-12, and 14-17
Claims 8-12 and 14-17 stand or fall together with claim 6. Br. 7.
Appellant argues that Towers does not teach "matching at least a
portion of said textual definition with a template specifying an additional
textual edit to said textual definition" as recited in claims 6 and 12. Br. 8.
The Examiner finds that the "Built-In Tag Writing Shortcuts," such as
"Snippets," provide tag-editing shortcuts and define custom tags with code
formatting, referring to Towers, handnumbered pages 9 and 11-12. Ans. 6.
Appellant argues that the "Built-In Tag Writing Shortcuts" refers to
coding in the Design view and is not in the WYSIWYG view. Br. 7-8.
Appellant argues that Snippets are used by dragging or double clicking to
drop it at the insertion point which does not meet the initial claim limitation
of "detecting an attempt to insert text in a text document." Br. 8. Moreover,
Appellant argues that this section of Towers does not disclose "matching,"
"template," and "additional textual edit to said textual definition." Id.
The Examiner responds that the Design view is a WYSIWYG view.
Ans. 10. The Examiner also states that "McFarland [sic, Towers] discloses
when the user merely provides the input text, '
' (i.e. a portion of said
textual definition), the closing '
' tag (i.e. an additional textual edit) will
be added after your selection . . . ." Ans. 10.
Appeal 2009-002811
Application 10/641,574
7
Appellant's support for the limitation "matching at least a portion of
said textual definition with a template specifying an additional textual edit to
said textual definition" (claim 6) is found in the Specification and Figure 2:
In a preferred arrangement, prior to re-rendering the
WYSIWYG view to reflect the changes to the tag provided through
the buffer, additional post-processing can be performed on the text in
the tag. The additional post-processing can include validating the tag
definition specified in the buffer, or the automatic modification of the
tag definition specified in the buffer. Specifically a set of templates
can be defined for modifying inserted text in the tag to an expanded or
contracted form. For instance, the entire text or a portion of the text
can be matched to a filter in the template. Once matched in decision
block 250, the associated template can be applied in block 260 to
modify the text, for instance by addition text. In block 270, the
insertion caret can be updated in the WYSIWYG view to reflect the
added text.
Spec. ¶ 00021 and Fig. 2. We interpret the "matching" limitation in claim 6
to read on "Tag completion" in Towers (at handwritten page 9). The
limitation of "said textual definition" refers back to a "textual definition of a
tag." Therefore, "a portion of said textual definition" reads on part of the
tag, e.g., the opening tag "
" which is part of the whole tag "
."
When a user types "
," the tag completion code engine performs
"matching at least a portion of said textual definition with a template"
because there has to be a template against which the tag is compared. The
template also has to contain information "specifying an additional textual
edit to said textual definition," which is the completion of the tag, i.e.,
"
." The code engine performs the step of "applying said additional
textual edit to said textual definition" by actually adding the end tag "
"
Appeal 2009-002811
Application 10/641,574
8
after the "
" tag; note that we interpret "said textual definition" to be the
"portion of said textual definition" for consistency. Therefore, we find that
claim 6 is anticipated. The rejection of claims 6, 8-12, and 14-17 is
affirmed.
CONCLUSION
The rejections of claims 1, 4-6, 8-12, and 14-17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a) are affirmed.
Requests for extensions of time are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(b).
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
llw
CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
950 PENINSULA CORPORATE CIRCLE
SUITE 2022
BOCA RATON, FL 33487
