Ex Parte Kelley

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2016

11769302 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111769,302
108982 7590
Wolfe-SBMC
601 W. Main Avenue
Suite 1300
Spokane, WA 99201
0612712007
07/05/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Y ohko Kelley
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.
B473 4546
EXAMINER
FABER, DAVID
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2177
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/05/2016 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):
docket@sbmc-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YOHKO KELLEY
Appeal2015-001138
Application 11/769,302 1
Technology Center 2100
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-31. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Adobe Systems
Incorporated (App. Br. 3).
Appeal2015-001138
Application 11/769,302
STATEMENT OF THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to document authoring using a graphical user
interface which reveals hidden data in the final version of a document when
hidden data is manipulated in an authoring panel (Spec. i-fi-f 17, 20). Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method, comprising:
presenting a first panel in a first portion of a display, the
first panel displaying one or more content portions of a
document, wherein one of the one or more displayed content
portions of the document has a hierarchical relationship with
another content portion of the document, wherein at least part of
the another content portion of the document is not displayed,
wherein the hierarchical relationship enables a manipulation of
the one of the one or more displayed content portions in the
document to cause the at least part of the another content portion
to be displayed; and
presenting a second panel in a second portion of a display,
the second panel displaying hidden data associated with the one
or more content portions of the document and the another content
portion of the document regardless of whether the another
content portion is displayed, wherein the displayed hidden data
comprises hidden data pertaining to the hierarchical relationship
between the one of the one or more displayed content portions
and the another content portion, wherein a manipulation of the
hidden data pertaining to the hierarchical relationship causes the
at least part of the another content portion to be displayed in the
first panel, and the manipulation further causes additional
displayed hidden data to be revealed;
wherein at least some of the displayed hidden data is
arranged in the second panel to have a spatial relationship with
an associated portion of the one or more content portions of the
document in the first panel.
2
Appeal2015-001138
Application 11/769,302
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Yankovich et al. US 7,000,179 B2 Feb. 14,2006
Microsoft Word 2003 (2003) (hereinafter "Word 2003").
Evrsoft First Page 2006 (2006) (hereinafter "Evrsoft").
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 21, 25, and 27-29 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Evrsoft and
Yankovich (Final Act. 5-10).
Claims 2, 4, 7-9, 11, 13, 16, 18, 20, 22-24, 26, 30, and 31 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Evrsoft,
Yankovich, and Word 2003 (id. at 11-12).
ISSUES
Issue 1 a: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Evrsoft
and Yankovich teaches or suggests "presenting a second panel in a second
portion of a display, the second panel displaying hidden data ... wherein a
manipulation of the hidden data ... further causes additional displayed
hidden data to be revealed," as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in
claims 10, 19, and 25?
Issue 1 b: Did the Examiner improperly combine the teachings of
Evrsoft and Yankovich in rejecting claims 1, 10, 19, and 25?
3
Appeal2015-001138
Application 11/769,302
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant's
conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Final Action from which the appeal is taken (Final Act. 5-
17) and the reasons set forth in the Examiner's Answer in response to
Appellant's Appeal Brief (Ans. 3-13). We highlight and address specific
findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
Issue la
Appellant argues the combination of Evrsoft and Yankovich does not
teach or suggest "presenting a second panel in a second portion of a display,
the second panel displaying hidden data ... wherein a manipulation of the
hidden data ... further causes additional displayed hidden data to be
revealed," as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 10, 19, and 25
(App. Br. 14--16, 19-21, 23-26, 28-31; Reply Br. 6-7). Specifically,
Appellant argues the "additional hidden data" revealed by Evrsoft is a
"displayed element[] in Evrsofts's first panel" (App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 6-7),
but the claims require the "additional displayed hidden data" to be
"displayed in the second panel" (App, Br. 16; Reply Br. 5). Appellant
further argues Yankovich "does not cause additional non-viewable data to be
revealed" (App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 7).
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Evrsoft
discloses a two panel display layout: a first panel which displays table output
and a second panel with HTML code defining the table output of the first
panel (Final Act. 7 (citing Evrsoft Fig. 14); Ans. 6-8). The Examiner further
4
Appeal2015-001138
Application 11/769,302
finds, and we agree, the second panel includes "hidden data" including
HTML comment start and end tags (Ans. 7; Final Act. 8). In addition, we
agree with the Examiner that in Evrsoft, when the HTML comment tags are
removed from the second panel, text associated with those comment tags is
revealed in the first panel; i.e., additional displayed hidden data is revealed
in Evrsoft's first panel (Final Act. 8; Ans. 7-8).
Appellant's argument, that the text revealed in Evrsoft's first panel
does not teach or suggest revealed additional displayed hidden data (App.
Br. 14--16; Reply Br. 6-7), is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1.
We agree with the Examiner's broad, but reasonable, interpretation that the
claim does not require additional displayed hidden data to be revealed in the
second panel (Ans. 4). Specifically, the claim recites a "manipulation
further causes additional displayed hidden data to be revealed," but does not
recite where the additional display hidden data is revealed, e.g., on the
second panel, or any other particular panel. Indeed, while the claim recites
"the second panel display[s] hidden data," the claim does not include
language that relates "hidden data" to "additional displayed hidden data"
such that the additional displayed hidden data is displayed in the second
panel (i.e., hidden data and additional displayed hidden data can be
independent elements). It follows, we agree with the Examiner that the
additionally revealed text Evrsoft's first panel teaches or suggests revealing
additional displayed hidden data.
Additionally, while Appellant argues Yankovich does not disclose
additional displayed hidden data (App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 7), the Examiner
relies on Evrsoft to disclose additional displayed hidden data (Ans. 5-8;
Final Act. 6-9).
5
Appeal2015-001138
Application 11/769,302
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred by finding the
combination of Evrsoft and Yankovich teaches or suggests "presenting a
second panel in a second portion of a display, the second panel displaying
hidden data ... wherein a manipulation of the hidden data ... further causes
additional displayed hidden data to be revealed," within the meaning of
claims 1, 10, 19, and 25.
Issue lb
Appellant argues the Examiner improperly combined Evrsoft and
Yankovich in rejecting claims 1, 10, 19, and 25. Specifically, Appellant
argues the Examiner's motivation is "sweepingly broad" and "rests on
hindsight reconstruction" (App. Br. 16, 21, 26, 31 ).
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Yankovich
teaches displaying hidden elements having a hierarchical relationship (Final
Act. 9 (citing Yankovich 7:19-22, 8:15-29, Fig. 8)). The Examiner
combines Yankovich' s element hierarchy with Evrsoft to "convey[ ]
electronically visual and graphically displayable user data" and to improve
"electronically displayable forms containing user provided information"
(Ans. 9 (citing Yankovich 1:11-16, 2:16-20); Final Act. 9).
We are not persuaded the Examiner's motivation is based on
impermissible hindsight because the Examiner's motivation comes from the
references themselves (Ans. 10-11 (citing Yankovich 1: 11-16, 2: 16-20)).
More specifically, the Examiner finds Yankovich teaches its invention
improves the display of data and, based on that teaching, applies Yankovich
to improve the display of Evrsoft' s data (Ans. 9-11 (citing Yankovich 1: 11-
16, 2: 16-20); Final Act. 9). Further, the Examiner has articulated reasoning
6
Appeal2015-001138
Application 11/769,302
with a rational underpinning - improving a system by reducing system
complexity, time consumption, and maintenance (Ans. 11 ).
Appellant next argues the combination of Evrsoft and Yankovich
"would change the principle of operation of the references" (App. Br. 16-
17). Specifically, Appellant argues "displaying additional hidden data in the
second panel ... would change the principle of operation of Evrsoft" (id. at
16). According to Appellant, "displaying additional non-viewable data
responsive to manipulating non-viewable data would change the principle of
operation of Yankovich" (id. at 16-17).
We are not persuaded. As discussed supra, the claims do not require
displaying hidden data in Evrsoft's second panel, and thus, we do not find
this argument persuasive. Furthermore, the Examiner's combination does
not modify Evrsoft to display additional hidden data in the second panel (see
Final Act. 9; see also Ans. 10), and Appellant's arguments discussing a
modification to Evrsoft the Examiner does not make, do not persuade us
Evrsoft's principle of operation would be changed.
Furthermore, we are not persuaded the combination would render
Yankovich "unsatisfactory for its intended purposes" (App. Br. 16-17),
because the Examiner relies on Yankovich to teach a hierarchical
relationship between elements and combines Yankovich's teaching with the
teaching of Evrsoft (Final Act. 9). Moreover, the features of a secondary
reference need not be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference, but instead, the teachings of multiple patents may be fit together
like pieces of a puzzle. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420
(2007); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
7
Appeal2015-001138
Application 11/769,302
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner improperly
combined Evrsoft and Yankovich in rejecting claims 1, 10, 19, and 25.
Remaining Claims 2-9, 11-18, 20--24, and 26--31
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, 20-24, and 26-31 are not separately
argued by Appellant and thus, these claims fall with their respective
independent claims (see App. Br. 17, 22, 27, 32).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of dependent
claims 3, 5, 6, 12, 14, 15, 17, 21, and 27-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Evrsoft and Yankovich and dependent claims 2, 4,
7-9, 11, 13, 16, 18, 20, 22-24, 26, 30, and 31under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Evrsoft, Yankovich, and Word 2003.
DECISION
TheExaminer'srejectionofclaims 1, 3, 5, 6, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19,
21, 25, and 27-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Evrsoft and Yankovich is
affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 4, 7-9, 11, 13, 16, 18, 20, 22-
24, 26, 30, and 31under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Evrsoft, Yankovich, and
Word 2003 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8