Ex Parte Kennedy et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 13, 201612431437 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 13, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/431,437 04/28/2009 22879 7590 06/15/2016 HP Inc. 3390 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 35 FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Meghan J. KENNEDY 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. 82250543 5147 EXAMINER NGUYEN, TAND ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3689 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/15/2016 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): ipa.mail@hp.com barbl@hp.com yvonne.bailey@hp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MEGHAN J. KENNEDY, NATHAN MORONEY, and UDI CHATOW Appeal2013-009618 Application 12/431,437 Technology Center 3600 Before ANTON W. PETTING, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges. PETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Meghan J. Kennedy, Nathan Moroney, and Udi Chatow (Appellants) seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a non-final rejection of claims 1-20, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed January 28, 2013) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed July 22, 2013), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed May 20, 2013), and Non-Final Action ("Non-Final Act.," mailed August 29, 2012). Appeal2013-009618 Application 12/431,437 The Appellants invented a way of publishing collaboration. Specification para. 1. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some paragraphing added). 1. A method comprising: [ 1] executing program code on a computer system to define a publishing project requiring work product from a set of contributors, the publishing project comprising sections; [2] executing program code on the computer system to associate selectively editable project elements with the contributors and associate a set of contributor permissions with the project elements, at least one of the elements being indicative of a content type that is present in more than one of the sections of the publishing project; [3] storing the work product and associated with the project elements in a project repository on the computer system, which is accessible to all of the contributors; [ 4] executing program code on the computer system to permit a contributor to only edit the project elements for which the contributor has perm1ss10n. 2 Appeal2013-009618 Application 12/431,437 The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: Amado Frisco Wodtke US 6,898,601 B2 US 2003/0061330 Al US 2005/0027585 Al May 24, 2005 Mar. 27, 2003 Feb.3,2005 Claims 1-10 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention. Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14, and 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Amado. Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14, and 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Amado. Claims 6, 13, 15, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Amado, Frisco, and Wodtke. ISSUES The issues of definiteness tum primarily on whether one of ordinary skill would understand the scope of the claims. The issues of obviousness tum primarily on whether Amado provides a mechanism for editors to permit or deny access by content type, and the scope of such recited content type. FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 3 Appeal2013-009618 Application 12/431,437 Facts Related to Claim Construction 01. The disclosure contains no lexicographic definition of "content type." 02. The plain meaning of "content type" is a "type" that is in some manner modified by the noun adjective "content." Nothing in the disclosure narrows the manner of such modification or the breadth of the word "type." 03. A type is a number of people or things having in common traits or characteristics that distinguish them as a group or class.2 Facts Related to Appellants' Disclosure 04. The Specification and claims as originally filed do not use in any way the phrase "content type" or the word "type" per se. Facts Related to the Prior Art Amado 05. Amado is directed to digital content management, and more particularly to simplifying and enhancing the planning, production and distribution processes for creators and publishers of printed and/ or electronic materials. Amado 1: 11-17. 06. Amado describes a need for a system whereby a multitude of contributors can submit personalized content to a 2 https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=type 4 Appeal2013-009618 Application 12/431,437 developing publication, and whereby upon submission, the organizers of the end publication can consider the submitted content as part of a richer content base than would otherwise be available. There is further a need for a system whereby the organizers and producers of the end publication can more easily collaborate on production, set calendar deadlines, plan layouts and budgets, implement monetization strategies and easily visualize their product throughout the creation process. Amado 1 :41-51. 07. Amado describes invited individuals being allowed access to various levels of program functionality. For example, a yearbook advisor may invite several students to be section editors, and once the students accept their roles, they can access to one or more publication development areas of the tool. An access control component allows a member to obtain authorized access to the publication and optionally add or remove additional members of the publishing collaboration. Section editors can be given limited access to their section only, or section editors can be given access to all content sections or selected content sections at the will of the advisor or administrator. Further, users with proper authority can revoke accesses previously granted, as well as deny access upon receiving user access requests. Amado 5 :25--46. 08. Amado describes an editorial review process where editors approve different elements of each page, including photos, graphics, copy, layout, and publishing form. The different elements of each page can be locked with each corresponding approval, meaning that no authorized user can modify the 5 Appeal2013-009618 Application 12/431,437 approved elements on an individual page. An authorized user can remove the approval to allow continued modification of those elements on a page. For example, if a photo editor approves the photographs on page five of a publication, no members of the collaboration would later be able to change the photos selection on page five of the publication. Amado 8:34--42. Frisco 09. Frisco is directed to an automated tool for managing activities related to a project. Frisco para. 2. 10. Frisco shows project management screens defining expected and actual completion dates for various project activities. Frisco Figs. 8, 14a, 14B, 15A-D, 16A-H. Wodtke 11. W odtke is directed to mechanisms for executing and scheduling work items in a defined way. Wodtke para. 10. 12. Wodtke shows project management screens defining expected and actual completion dates for various project activities. Wodtke Figs. 5, 6, 7. ANALYSIS Claims 1-10 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S. C. § 112, second paragraph, as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that one of ordinary skill would understand the broad scope of the claims. 6 Appeal2013-009618 Application 12/431,437 Claims i-5, 7-i 2, j 4, and j 6--20 rejected under 35 U.S. C. § j 02(b) as anticipated by Amado Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14, and 16--20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Amado As to claim 1, the sole issue is whether Amado describes limitation [2] "executing program code ... to associate selectively editable project elements with the contributors and associate a set of contributor permissions with the project elements, at least one of the elements being indicative of a content type that is present in more than one of the sections of the publishing project." In particular, it is the final phrase that is at issue as Amado's very purpose is to selectively permit contributors access to different portions of a project, and Appellants admit that Amado does this much. App. Br. 13. As a matter of claim construction, the phrase at issue is extremely broad. "Content type" means no more than some characteristic common to more than one instance of content. Such characteristics could be grammatical, syntactic, organizational, language referent, encoding medium, or any other manner of characterizing content. The Examiner rejects alternately under anticipation and obviousness, presumably depending on whether implicit findings are recognized. The Examiner finds that Amado explicitly describes content type access in the negative sense by tying access to editorial approval based on content type such as images. Final Act. 11; FF 08. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that "Amado fails to disclose a technique, which would assign, for example, an editor access to 7 Appeal2013-009618 Application 12/431,437 certain text content, regardless of where the content appears in the publication." App. Br. 14. First, this argument is not commensurate with the scope of the limitation. The limitation at issue is "at least one of the elements being indicative of a content type that is present in more than one of the sections of the publishing project." That is the content type must be present in plural sections. Nothing in the claims recites that the contributor permissions must extend to more than one of the sections of the publishing project. Further, the claims recite one of the elements being only indicative of a content type, not that content type drives or ties together operations upon the elements. The claims also recite an association between contributor permissions and project elements, without reciting or narrowing the implementation, manner, or degree of such association. In particular, a "many to many" association such as associating all elements in a section to all current permissions in a section is within the scope of such an association. Thus, there is no necessarily functional (many to one) linkage between the recited project elements and content type and the association between elements and permissions is loosely defined, so that an association based on section is within its scope. Finally, the transition "comprising" allows additional permission restrictions beyond those recited. Presumably, Appellants mean that because a content type extends to plural sections and some project element is indicative of that content type and there are a set of permissions associated with project elements, this implies such a linkage requiring permissions to plural sections. But as Appellants choose to not recite implementations for associating and indicating in the claims, Appellants have expressed an intent to broadly 8 Appeal2013-009618 Application 12/431,437 cover any and all possible implementations. The breadth of the limitations extends the scope beyond the particular implementations necessary for such a syllogism to be valid. In any event, as the Examiner finds, because Amado provides editors the authority to allow and deny privileges by content type within each section, a contributor with permission for all sections for which a content type is still open for publishing would be permitted to edit that content type in all such sections, contrary to Appellants' contention. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the § 103 rejection of claim 1 is based solely on a per se rule of obviousness, or "design choice." The Examiner did not make a per se finding of obviousness. Design choice is not an alias for per se obviousness. It is a finding of fact that is used to support a conclusion of obviousness. In this instance, the Examiner based this finding on the known interchangeability of permissions criteria. That is, given the established process of basing content access on permissions and the basing of those permissions on data criteria, simply changing the particular data used as criteria is predictable based on the suitability of the criteria for the purpose and does not alter the process or function. See In re Hopkins, 342 F.2d 1010, 1015 (C.C.P.A. 1965). This is particularly apt here where the recited criterion of content type is explicitly described in the art and the only issue is the domain to which access is permitted. As with the decision criteria, the domain affected is equally only a matter of suitability to a particular purpose, and with Amado, this is only a matter of how editors choose to open and close sections for editing. Having all sections open for a particular content type is at least a predictable context. 9 Appeal2013-009618 Application 12/431,437 Claims 6, i3, i5, and i8-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § i03(a) as unpatentable over Amado, Frisco, and Wodtke As to claim 6, reciting "varying contributor permissions over various time windows defined over a life of the project," we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that Wodtke or Frisco fails to describe this. App. Br. 16-21. The claim does not recite or narrow the implementation, manner, or degree of such definition. As the Examiner finds, each of Frisco and W odtke shows project management screens defining expected and actual completion dates for various project activities. Non-Final Act. 15-16. As Amado describes a project for which editors will retract editing privileges when sections are ready, it was predictable to vary the editors' permissions grants generally along the expected completion dates. As to claim 18, reciting "one of the elements is associated with an image or text content such that the act of executing the program code to associate the contributor permissions with the elements allows one of the contributors to edit said image or text content wherever it occurs throughout the project," we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the art fails to describe this. App. Br. 21-23. The claim does not recite or narrow the implementation, manner, or degree of such association or allowing. Again, as Amado controls access to project and content elements by section and content type, any arrangement of such permissions is predictable based on the particular project and timing. Again, as no implementation is recited, this is within the scope of allowing. 10 Appeal2013-009618 Application 12/431,437 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The rejection of claims 1-10 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention is improper. The rejection of claims 1-5, 7-12, 14, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Amado is proper. The rejection of claims 1-5, 7-12, 14, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Amado is proper. The rejection of claims 6, 13, 15, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Amado, Frisco, and W odtke is proper. DECISION The rejection of claims 1-20 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2011). AFFIRMED 11 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation