Ex Parte Pandya et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 15, 2014

11638412 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2014)

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.
11/638,412 12/14/2006 Hemal Pandya 1933.0210000 3095
26111 7590 12/15/2014
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
HO, BINH VAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2163
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/15/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte HEMAL PANDYA and ITYSHREE HINGLE
____________

Appeal 2012-007756
Application 11/638,412
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before STEPHEN C. SIU, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
DENISE M. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judges.

POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–23. App. Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We affirm.

Appeal 2012-007756
Application 11/638,412

2
Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a method, medium, and system for
organizing a visual representation of data into a structured data format.
See Spec. ¶¶ 1, 17, Abstract. Claim 1 is reproduced below with the key
disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
identifying a cell data structure within a visual representation of data;
identifying, within the visual representation, a neighbor of the cell
data structure; and
assembling data from the cell data structure and the neighbor into a
structured data format that tracks a structural relationship between the data
from the cell data structure and the neighbor, wherein the structural
relationship is available to a data processing algorithm.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Burch US 6,088,708 July 11, 2000
Leduc US 6,639,611 B1 Oct. 28, 2003
Focazio US 2005/0210053 A1 Sept. 22, 2005

THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 12, 13, and 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Leduc. Ans. 5–10.
2. The Examiner rejected claims 3–7, 9–11, 14–18, and 20–221 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Leduc and Burch. Ans. 11–19.
3. The Examiner rejected claims 8 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Leduc and Focazio. Ans. 19–21.

1
The rejection’s heading lists claim 19 and excludes claim 20. However,
the body of the rejection discusses claim 20 and not claim 19. Ans. 11,
17–19.
Appeal 2012-007756
Application 11/638,412

3
ANTICIPATION REJECTION OVER LEDUC
Appellants argue that Leduc fails to disclose producing structured data
from a visual representation of data. App. Br. 10–12; Reply Br. 2–4.
Appellants further assert that Leduc does not disclose structural data format
that tracks a structural relationship between the data from the cell data
structure and the neighbor. App. Br. 12–14.
Claims 1, 2, 12, 13, and 23 are argued as a group. App. Br. 10–14.
We select claim 1 as representative. 37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ISSUES
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Leduc discloses:
(1) identifying a cell data structure within a visual representation of
data, and
(2) assembling data from the cell data structure and the neighbor into
a structured data format that tracks a structural relationship between the data
from the cell data structure?

ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 1. Appellants contend that the broadest
reasonable construction of the recited “visual representation of data”
consistent with the disclosure requires “a construct that is not already in the
form of a ‘data structure.’” App. Br. 11 (citing Spec. ¶ 17). Appellants
assert that Leduc does not start with a visual representation as a source, from
which a structured data format is produced, but rather uses a table
Appeal 2012-007756
Application 11/638,412

4
description in a machine readable form to create a data structure. Id. (citing
Leduc 5:6–24). We are not persuaded.
The Specification discusses data being presented in a visual manner
using HTML coding to generate tables. Spec. ¶ 19. In one embodiment, at
step 102, individual cell data structures are identified by analyzing a visual
representation of data and, more specifically, analyzing a table that is an
HTML implementation of a table, including examining identification of cells
by locating tags and holding data enclosed in tags in a data structure.
Spec. ¶ 21; Fig. 1. Additionally, Appellants state that an example of a visual
representation includes “HTML code.” Reply Br. 3 (stating “a visual
representation (e.g., HTML code)”). Accordingly, the broadest reasonable
construction of the limitation “a visual representation of data” as recited in
claim 1, consistent with the disclosure and as Appellants understand the
phrase, includes HTML code, and the broadest reasonable construction of
the limitation “identifying a cell data structure within a visual representation
of data” includes locating tags within a HTML document.
The Examiner finds that Leduc discloses identifying a cell data
structure within a visual representation of the data at various steps, including
step 500, which parses a table description that is used to create data
structures representing the table description. Ans. 5 (citing Leduc 5:64–
6:12; Figs. 2, 3). Leduc further states that display tables, such as HTML
tables, may be described in a textual format using markup language tags and
the display table description may include information, such as row and
column definitions and the content of each table cell. Leduc 5:3–15.
Contrary to Appellants’ contentions, we find this HTML table description in
Appeal 2012-007756
Application 11/638,412

5
Leduc is HTML code and, thus, reasonably is part of a visual representation
as broadly as recited. See Reply Br. 4.
Additionally, Leduc states that the number of table rows and columns
may be recorded when parsing the table description. Leduc 6:9–11. Leduc
also states that the table description, which can be described using markup
language tags, may include information regarding the table cell’s content
and may be processed and used to create data structures. Leduc 1:22–27,
5:8–15. As such, when parsing the HTML code, Leduc teaches an
embodiment where identifying cell data structure (e.g., a cell’s content or a
table cell in a row or column) involves using markup language tags (e.g.,
tags for the rows, columns, or cell content) within its description to
determine cell data structures. See Leduc 5:11–15, 6:3-6. As such, Leduc
discloses an embodiment involving “identifying a cell data structure within a
visual representation of data” as recited in claim 1 when parsing of the table
description to create table description data structures.
Moreover, Leduc discloses assembling data from the cell data
structure and the neighbor into a structured data format. As stated above,
Leduc creates table description data structures from information regarding
table element types as well as mapping these data structures into a table data
structure, such as a two-dimensional array, suitable for accessing efficiently
individual table cells. Leduc 6:3–16; Fig. 3; see Ans. 5–6. Accordingly,
Leduc discloses assembling data from the cell data structure and the
neighbor into a structured data format (e.g., the resulting table data
structure).
Concerning whether this structured data format “tracks a structural
relationship between the data from the cell data structure and the neighbor,”
Appeal 2012-007756
Application 11/638,412

6
Appellants contend that the recited language requires “an actual tracking
mechanism (e.g., a notation) identifying these relationships.” App. Br. 12–
13 (citing to Spec. ¶ 24). In Appellants’ view, Leduc does not disclose such
a mechanism. App. Br. 13. Appellants further argue that the parsing of the
table into a set of objects related to each other, as specified by a Document
Object Model (DOM), does not track a structural relationship. App. Br. 13.
We disagree.
The recitation to “a structured data format that tracks a structural
relationship between the data from the cell data structure and the neighbor”
does not require notation. Although the Specification discusses “notations
are made by keeping a list within each identified cell of that cell’s
neighbors” (Spec. ¶ 24) as an example of tracking the relationship between a
cell and its neighbors, claim 1 is not limited to this form of tracking. That is,
the disclosure remains open to “[o]ther method for tracking a cell’s neighbor
[that] will be apparent to persons skilled in the relevant arts . . . .” Id.
The DOM in Leduc used during parsing creates objects related to each
other as specified by the DOM, such as those in the same row or column.
App. Br. 13; see also Leduc 5:22–25, 6:3–6. These structures are, in turn,
used to create the overall table data structure in Leduc. Leduc 6:13–17.
Because the DOM creates objects related to each other and the objects are
specified by a standard DOM, the DOM follows or tracks a relationship
between objects or table element types (e.g., cell data structure and its
neighbor) that are created after parsing, when Leduc creates a table
description data structures of data element types (e.g., a table row or
column) of the table description. See Leduc 5:16–25, 6:3–6. Accordingly,
Leduc discloses embodiments of creating a data structure or a structured data
Appeal 2012-007756
Application 11/638,412

7
format comprising information about a table element type (e.g., a table row
or column) that “track a structural relationship between the data from the
cell data structure and the neighbor” (e.g., cell and its neighbor are within
the same row or column) as broadly as recited.
Additionally, the Examiner explains that Leduc discloses “fitting one
table (on a bigger display structured format) into another table (on a smaller
display structured format such as cell phone) requires taking into
consideration column-spanning cells and rows (group of cells and size of
cells)” (Ans. 26 (citing Leduc 5:25–39; Fig. 2)) and formatting a table “into
a visualization displayed on a portable device, which represents an exact
replica of that of the original group of cells in the original database”
(Ans. 6). Appellants have not disputed these findings. App. Br. 12–13;
Reply Br. 5–7. We find that this reformatting of the cell data structures from
larger to a smaller display format in Leduc involves creating table
description data structures and the table data structure of cell data structure
and the neighbor for the smaller display prior to display in the portable
device. See Ans. 26; Leduc 5:25–39. This is yet another example of
assembling data into a structured data format that monitors or tracks a
structural relationship between the data from the cell data structure and the
neighbor as recited.
Contrary to Appellants’ contention, we further find that Leduc
discloses “the structural relationship is available to a data processing
algorithm” as recited. App. Br. 13. That is, Leduc’s table description data
structure is in a format that permits mapping to a table data structure and,
thus, is available for some type of data processing algorithm. Additionally,
as discussed above, the table data structure is used to convert the structure
Appeal 2012-007756
Application 11/638,412

8
into a display on a portable device or is available to yet another data
processing algorithm. See Ans. 26 (citing Leduc 5:25–39, 7:17–19; Fig. 2);
see also Leduc 2:5–45. As such these structures and their structural
relationships are available for “a data processing algorithm” as recited.
Lastly, Appellants further argue that Leduc fails to disclose “each and
every one of the” claim features. App. Br. 10. However, other than the
limitations discussed already, there is no further discussion of the remaining
claim features found in claim 1. Accordingly, we are not persuaded.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 2, 12, 13, and 23 not
separately argued with particularity.

OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
Appellants argue claims 3–7, 9–11. 14–18, and 20–22 as a group, and
we select claim 3 as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Regarding
claim 3, Appellants repeat arguments made concerning Leduc, for which we
are not persuaded. App. Br. 14–15. Additionally, Appellants argue “Burch
is similarly concerned with visual representation of a layout of objects in a
table form.” App. Br. 14. In a nutshell, Appellants argue the combination
fails to teach the recited “visual representation of data” and a “structural data
format that tracks a structural relationship between the data from the cell
data structure and the neighbor.” App. Br. 14–15. We are not persuaded for
the above reasons when addressing Leduc. For the foregoing reasons,
Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the rejection of claims 3–7, 9–
11, 14–18, and 20–22.
Appeal 2012-007756
Application 11/638,412

9
As for the remaining rejection, Appellants assert that the Focazio does
not cure the purported missing limitations. App. Br. 16–17. Given that
Focazio was not relied upon to teach the discussed alleged missing
limitations, we are not persuaded and refer to our previous discussion for
details. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 19.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 12, 13, and 23 under
§ 102.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 3–11 and 14–22 under
§ 103.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–23 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