Ex Parte Hull et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2013

11461147 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JONATHAN J. HULL, DAR-SHYANG LEE,
and KURT W. PIERSOL

___________

Appeal 2010-011932
Application 11/461,147
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and
GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-011932
Application 11/461,147

2
This is an appeal1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-8, 17-19, 21, 23-26, 28-29, and 31-35.2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 9-16, 20, 22, 27, and 30 were previously
cancelled by Appellants.
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to providing mixed media documents,
which include media of at least two types (printed paper, digital content, and
/or web links). (Spec. ¶ [0002]; Abstract.) The mixed media reality (MMR)
system includes a content-based retrieval database configured with an index
table to represent two-dimensional geometric relationships between objects
extracted from a printed document in a way that allows look-up using a text-
based index. (Abstract.)

Exemplary Claim
Claims 1, 17, 21, and 29 are independent. Independent claims 1 and
21 are representative of the invention, and are reproduced below with
disputed limitations in italics:
1. A computer implemented method for organizing and accessing
information in a mixed media reality document system, the method
comprising:

1 The Real Party in Interest is Ricoh Co., Ltd.
2 Although claims 1, 17, 21, and 29 are the only claims addressed by
Appellants on appeal, all pending claims are within the jurisdiction of the
Board and are the subject of this Decision.
Appeal 2010-011932
Application 11/461,147

3
generating an electronic representation of the paper document;

identifying features on the paper document that indicate two-
dimensional aspects of the paper document;

identifying locations of the features; and

indexing the features by their respective locations, thereby
generating an index table.

21. A computer implemented method for accessing information in a
mixed media reality document system, the method comprising:

receiving at least an image patch of a target document;

determining, from the received image patch, a query term that
indicates two-dimensional relationships between objects in the
target document;

comparing the query term to an index table of document features
from mixed media reality documents to identify candidate regions
in the mixed media reality documents that comprise the query
term, the index table further comprising locations of the document
features in the mixed media reality documents; and

responsive to comparing the query term to the document features
in the index table, identifying one or more of the mixed media
reality documents comprising the identified candidate regions
comprising the query term.

Examiner’s Rejections
1. Claims 1-8, 17-19, 21, 23-26, 28-29, and 31-35 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Page (US Patent Publication
No. 2004/0122811 A1, Jun. 24, 2004) and in view of the common sense
of one of ordinary skill in the art of processing documents. (Ans. 9.)

Appeal 2010-011932
Application 11/461,147

4
2. Claims 1-8, 17-19, 21, 23-26, 28-29, and 31-35 are provisionally rejected
under obviousness-type (non-statutory) double patenting in light of US
Application No. 11/461,164 (claims 1-24). (Ans. 5-8.)

ISSUE 1
Improper Issuance of a Final Office Action
Appellants argue that the issuance of the Final Office Action was
premature because (i) the claims were grouped together by the Examiner for
analysis (App. Br. 5), (ii) specific limitations in certain claims were not
addressed (App. Br. 5), and (iii) the Examiner did not provide a response to
most of Appellants’ argument presented in an amendment (App. Br. 5-6).

Issue 1: Does the PTAB have jurisdiction over whether the issuance
of a Final Office Action was premature and improper?

ANALYSIS
Appellants present arguments and seek our review of the Examiner’s
issuance of a Final Office Action (App. Br. 5-6). The propriety of the
issuance of a Final Office Action is, however, a matter reviewable by
petition to the Technology Center Director. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.444; MPEP
§§ 818.03(c), 1002.02(c)(2), and 1201. Petitionable issues are not subject to
review by the Board. See In re Berger, 279 F.3d 975, 984-85 (Fed. Cir.
2002). Accordingly, we have no opinion concerning the propriety of the
issuance of the Final Office Action.

Appeal 2010-011932
Application 11/461,147

5
ISSUE 2
35 U.S.C. 103(a) Rejection of claims: 1-8 and 17-19
Appellants contend that the claim limitation “indexing the features by
their respective locations, thereby generating an index table,” which features
“indicate two-dimensional aspects of the paper document” is not taught or
suggested by Page. (App. Br. 7-8.)

Issue 2: Has the Examiner erred in determining that Page, in view of
the knowledge and motivation of one of ordinary skill in the art of computer
programming, teaches or suggests “indexing the features by their respective
locations, thereby generating an index table,” which features “indicate two-
dimensional aspects of the paper document” as recited in independent claim
1?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We are unpersuaded by Appellants’
argument (App. Br. 7-9) that Page, in view of the knowledge and motivation
of one of ordinary skill in the art of computer programming, fails to teach or
suggest “indexing the features by their respective locations, thereby
generating an index table,” which features “indicate two-dimensional aspects
of the paper document” as recited in independent claim 1.
Appellants contend there is no disclosure in Page describing an index
that is indexed by the “respective locations” of features in a paper document,
where the features “indicate two-dimensional aspects” of the paper
document, as claimed. According to Appellants, Page merely discloses
Appeal 2010-011932
Application 11/461,147

6
creating an index of data sets of printed documents, where the index is
simply based on what keywords are present in the data sets. (App. Br. 8;
citing Page, ¶ [0042].) Further, Appellants contend that Page does not
describe the concept of indexing, much less “indexing” identified “features
by their respective locations, thereby generating an index table” as
claimed. Appellants argue that “[a]t best, [Page] at paragraph 65 states that
portions of an electronic image are arranged in locations corresponding to
printed media.” (App. Br. 8.) Appellants note that Page discloses hyper
linking a portion of a first electronic image to another portion of a second
electronic image, and contend that adding a hyper link between two
documents does not illustrate “identifying features on the paper document
that indicate two-dimensional aspects of the paper document.” (App. Br. 9;
citing Page, ¶ [0045] and ¶ [0051].) According to Appellants, Page’s
system does not “identify” two-dimensional aspects since it merely describes
a human editor that determines which portions of documents are to be
hyperlinked. (App. Br. 9; citing Page, ¶ [0048].)
However, the Examiner finds that Page meets the disputed claim
limitation, because Page expressly teaches a searchable INDEX created in
the database (¶ [0042], ¶¶ [0006, 0045, and 0047]) and Page teaches that
features are stored based on “location” (¶ [0065]). Further, the Examiner
finds that given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
Appellants’ Specification, the term “two dimensional geometric
relationship” allows for a text based look up/query. (Ans. 19; citing Spec. ¶
[0248].) Specifically, the Examiner notes that Appellants’ Specification at ¶
[0248] discloses

Appeal 2010-011932
Application 11/461,147

7
[t]he system 3400 is configured for content-based retrieval,
where two-dimensional geometric relationships between objects
are represented in a way that enables look-up in a text-based
index (or any other searchable indexes) (i.e., a Search
Engine). In other words, the claimed ‘two dimensional
geometric relationship’ allow for text based look up” and that
“the claimed 2D relationship is simply a relationship for text
searching (see specification page 66. [paragraph 0248]).

(Ans. 19-20, emphasis in original.) The Examiner further finds that “since
the ‘features’ of Page are in fact stored in a searchable relational database
then this is the same (or practically the same).” (Id.) Moreover, the
Examiner finds that Page teaches a search engine on top of a relational
database ([0005]) where requests come in the form of a query (e.g., a set of
words that are related to a desire topic) ([0026]) and Page shows the media
is used to store “relationships between electronic image portions.” (Ans. 20;
Page, ¶ [0045] and ¶ [0051], i.e. two-dimensional relationships). We agree
with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions.
Therefore, Page, in view of the common sense of one of ordinary skill
in the art of processing documents, teaches or suggests “indexing the
features by their respective locations, thereby generating an index table,”
which features “indicate two-dimensional aspects of the paper document” as
recited in independent claim 1. We agree with the Examiner. Thus,
Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding Page
discloses the claim limitation as recited in independent claim 1.
Appellants have not presented any substantially different arguments
for independent claim 17, which requires the same disputed claim limitations
as claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Similarly, Appellants have not presented any
Appeal 2010-011932
Application 11/461,147

8
substantive arguments with respect to dependent claims 2-8 and 18-19, thus,
these claims fall with their respective independent claims. Therefore, we
sustain the rejection of claims 1-8 and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

ISSUE 3
35 U.S.C. 103(a) Rejection of claims: 21, 23-26, 28-29, and 31-35
Appellants contend that the claim limitation “determining, from the
received image patch, a query term that indicates two-dimensional
relationships between objects in the target document” is not taught or
suggested in Page. (App. Br. 10.)

Issue 3: Has the Examiner erred in determining that Page, in view of
the common sense of one of ordinary skill in the art of processing
documents, teaches or suggests “determining, from the received image
patch, a query term that indicates two-dimensional relationships between
objects in the target document” as recited in independent claim 21?

ANALYSIS
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 10) that Page,
in view of the common sense of one of ordinary skill in the art of processing
documents, teaches or suggests “determining, from the received image
patch, a query term that indicates two-dimensional relationships between
objects in the target document” as recited in independent claim 21.
Appellants contend that Page merely discloses creating electronic
representations of received printed documents. However, no subsequent
query term is “determined” from the received printed documents, as
Appeal 2010-011932
Application 11/461,147

9
claimed. Page’s printed documents are received merely to create the
electronic representations that form a data set of the printed documents from
which searches are performed. (App. Br. 10; citing Page, ¶
[0028].) According to Appellants, Page’s search queries are simply
traditional keyword-based searches (Page, ¶ [0027]), and do not include “a
query term that indicates two-dimensional relationships between objects in
the target document.” Appellants further contend that Page teaches
“[r]eceiving ‘relational database’ queries” and that a “search engine attempts
to return relevant information in response to a request from the user,” but in
contrast, the claimed invention “determin[es] from the received image patch,
a query term that indicates two-dimensional relationships between objects in
the target document” (i.e., the query does not come from the user). (App.
Br. 10-11, emphasis in original.)
However, as discussed above, the Examiner finds Appellants’
Specification at ¶ [0248] discloses
“[t]he system 3400 is configured for content-based retrieval,
where two-dimensional geometric relationships between objects
are represented in a way that enables look-up in a text-based
index (or any other searchable indexes) (i.e., a Search
Engine). In other words, the claimed ‘two dimensional
geometric relationship’ allow for text based look up” and that
“the claimed 2D relationship is simply a relationship for text
searching (see specification page 66. [paragraph 0248]).”

(Ans. 22-23, emphasis in original.) Appellants’ Specification further shows
a two-dimensional geographic relationship that is extracted from “features”
in a “paper document” and where the two-dimensional relationships are
simply “query terms” (i.e. queries/searches) such that these queries capture
the two-dimensional relationships. (Ans. 23.) The Examiner finds that Page
Appeal 2010-011932
Application 11/461,147

10
captures and indexes the “two-dimensional bar codes or conventional
characters,” illustrating that Page shows media is used to store “relationships
between electronic image portions.” (Ans. 23; citing Page, ¶ [0045] and ¶
[0051], i.e. two-dimensional relationships). We agree with the Examiner’s
findings and conclusions.
Thus, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding
Page discloses the invention as recited in independent claim 21.
Appellants have not presented any substantially different arguments
for independent claim 29, which requires the same disputed claim limitation
as claim 21. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 29
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Similarly, Appellants have not presented any
substantive arguments with respect to dependent claims 23-26, 28, and 31-
35, thus, these claims fall with their respective independent claims.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 21, 23-26, 28-29, and 31-35
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-8, 17-19, 21, 23-26, 28-29,
and 31-35 is 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED
tj