Ex Parte MillerDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 19, 201612545407 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2016) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 12/545,407 08/21/2009 Steven M. Miller RSW920080385US1 (765) 1276 46320 7590 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG 7900 Glades Road SUITE 520 BOCA RATON, EL 33434 12/21/2016 EXAMINER LOWENBERGER, AARON J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2173 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/21/2016 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): docketing@crgolaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STEVEN M. MILLER Appeal 2016-000129 Application 12/545,407 Technology Center 2100 Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, MICHAEL M. BARRY, and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of claims 1—21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. STATEMENT OF THE INVENTION According to Appellant, the claims are directed to a visual selection and rendering of multiple clip board formats (Abstract). Claiml5, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: Appeal 2016-000129 Application 12/545,407 15. A method for facilitating copy and paste operations of an object between a source application and a target application in an interactive computing environment, comprising: placing an object into a clipboard in memory of a computer; determining a set of target formats for the object in the clipboard; formatting the object in the clipboard in each of the target formats; and installing a container into the target application, wherein the container includes a system for selectively rendering the object in each of the target formats within the container. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Koppolu US 5,581,686 Dec. 3, 1996 Stuple US 7,757,165 B1 July 13,2010 Jones US 2004/0172584 A1 Sept. 2, 2004 Hurwitz US 2006/0112007 A1 May 25, 2006 Hahn US 2007/0061747 A1 Mar. 15,2007 Sullivan US 2008/0307308 A1 Dec. 11,2008 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stuple, Hahn, and Koppolu (Final Act. 2—9). 2 Appeal 2016-000129 Application 12/545,407 Claims 3, 10, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stuple, Hahn, Koppolu, and Jones (Final Act. 9—10).1 Claims 6, 13, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stuple, Hahn, Koppolu, and Hurwitz (Final Act. 11—12). Claims 7, 14, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stuple, Hahn, Koppolu, and Sullivan (Final Act. 12—13). ISSUES 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, and 19 Appellant contends the invention as recited in claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, and 19 is not obvious over Stuple, Hahn, and Koppolu (App. Br. 4—8). The issue presented by the arguments is: Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Stuple, Hahn, and Koppolu teaches, suggests, or otherwise renders obvious “formatting the object in the clipboard in each of the target formats” and “selectively rendering the object in each of the target formats,” as recited in claim 15? ANALYSIS We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions and adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken; and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in 1 We note claims 3, 10, and 17 were mistakenly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stuple, Hahn, and Jones (Final Act. 9— 10). However, because these claims depend from independent claims 1, 8, and 15, the claims are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stuple, Hahn, Koppolu, and Jones. The Examiner should correct the record to reflect the correct references relied upon in rejecting claims 3, 10, and 17. 3 Appeal 2016-000129 Application 12/545,407 the Answer in response to the Appeal Brief. With respect to the claims argued by Appellant, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. Appellant asserts Hahn’s paragraph 31 fails to teach the recited determination of a set of target formats for an object (App. Br. 5—6). More specifically, Appellant argues Hahn teaches a copy mechanism “that determines a multiplicity of formats in which an object can be formatted singularly for a past operation”; however, Hahn does not “suggest that an object to be pasted is actually formatted multiple different times in corresponding multiple different formats” (id. at 6). In contrast, according to Appellant, Hahn chooses only a single target format for which the paste operation is to be performed (id.). Appellant additionally asserts although two formats are taught in Hahn, Hahn teaches “a format may be selected other than the default format— not in addition to the default format” (Reply Br. 3). We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Appellant’s arguments are directed to Hahn individually, while the Examiner is relying on the combination of Hahn and Stuple as teaching “formatting the object in the clipboard in each of the target formats” (Final Act. 4). Appellant has not addressed the combination of teachings of Hahn and Stuple relied upon by the Examiner and, thus, Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner’s finding are in error. Moreover, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that Hahn teaches data content is copied to the clipboard in multiple formats (Hahn || 23, 26, 31). Specifically, Hahn teaches “data content may be copied to the clipboard in multiple formats” (id. 123; see also Hahn, claim 6). Hahn 4 Appeal 2016-000129 Application 12/545,407 further teaches various formats may be selected and a selected format pasted {id. ]Hf 23, 26). The Examiner determines Hahn’s teachings, combined with Stuple’s teaching of determining target formats for objects already in the clipboard, teach or at least suggest “formatting the object in the clipboard in each of the target formats,” as recited in claim 15 (Ans. 4). Appellant has not proffered sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us of error in the Examiner’s findings. Appellant further argues limitations not recited in the claim. More specifically, claim 15 recites “selectively rendering the object in each of the target formats within the container” (emphasis added). Claim 15 does not require the “rendering” in each of the target formats be performed simultaneously, but instead recites “selectively rendering.” We agree with the Examiner that Hahn teaches at least two formats being available, and further teaches pasting the object in each of the target formats (Ans. 5; Hahn 126). Moreover, Appellant’s argument that in Hahn “only a single target format is chosen for which the paste operation is to be performed” is unpersuasive (App. Br. 6). Hahn teaches the data may be rendered in multiple formats; therefore, we are not persuaded an ordinarily skilled artisan would have failed to find the disputed limitation, “selectively rendering the object in each of the target formats within the container” obvious in light of the teachings and suggestions of Stuple, Hahn, and Koppolu (see also Hahn, claim 7 which does not preclude all the data (in multiple formats) from being pasted). Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us the combination of Stuple, Hahn, and Koppolu fails to teach, suggest, or otherwise render obvious the limitations as recited in independent claim 15. Independent 5 Appeal 2016-000129 Application 12/545,407 claims 1 and 8 were not separately argued, instead relying on arguments set forth for claim 15 (App. Br. 4). Therefore, these claims fall with claim 15. Dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, 16, 18, and 19 also were not separately argued and, thus, these claims fall with their respective independent claims. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Stuple, Hahn, and Koppolu. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 3, 10, and 17; Claims 6, 13, and20; Claims 7, 14, and 21 Appellant does not separately argue claims 3,10, and 17; claims 6, 13, and 20; and claims 7, 14, and 21 (App. Br. 8—9). Rather, Appellant relies on arguments set forth with respect to claim 15 (id.). For the reasons set forth above, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments regarding claim 15. Accordingly, claims 3,10, and 17; claims 6, 13, and 20; and claims 7, 14, and 21 fall with their respective independent claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 3,10, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Stuple, Hahn, Koppolu, and Jones; of claims 6, 13, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Stuple, Hahn, Koppolu, and Hurwitz; and of claims 7, 14, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Stuple, Hahn, Koppolu, and Sullivan. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stuple, Hahn, and Koppolu is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 10, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 6 Appeal 2016-000129 Application 12/545,407 § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stuple, Hahn, Koppolu, and Jones is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 13, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stuple, Hahn, Koppolu, and Hurwitz is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 14, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stuple, Hahn, Koppolu, and Sullivan 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). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation