Ex Parte PetriDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 10, 201411671836 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 10, 2014) 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. 11/671,836 02/06/2007 John Edward Petri ROC920060314US1 9692 46797 7590 04/10/2014 IBM CORPORATION, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW DEPT 917, BLDG. 006-1 3605 HIGHWAY 52 NORTH ROCHESTER, MN 55901-7829 EXAMINER BLACKWELL, JAMES H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2177 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/10/2014 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 JOHN EDWARD PETRI1 __________ Appeal 2012-002451 Application 11/671,836 Technology Center 2100 __________ Before DONALD E. ADAMS, ERIC GRIMES, and ULRIKE W. JENKS, Administrative Patent Judges. GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a method for managing a document in a content management system, which have been rejected as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellant identifies the Real Party in Interest as International Business Machine Corporation (App. Br. 3). Appeal 2012-002451 Application 11/671,836 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE “Content management systems (CMS) allow multiple users to share information. Generally, a CMS allows users to create, modify, archive, search, and remove data objects from an organized repository.” (Spec. 1, ¶ 2.) A “CMS may be configured with rules for processing documents whenever a document flows into or out of the repository” (id. at 2, ¶ 4). “Often these rules are included with a logical collection of other XML configuration artifacts such as document type definitions (DTDs), schemas, style sheets, etc. This collection of XML configuration artifacts is sometimes referred to as a configuration set.” (Id.) The Specification discloses “techniques for a CMS to join configuration rules from multiple configuration sets and for rule inheritance between configuration sets” (id. at 6, ¶ 22). “A CMS administrator may configure relationships between different XML configuration sets so that they can be chained together” (id. at 7, ¶ 23). “Additionally, as part of configuring the base and subordinate XML configuration set relationships, the CMS administrator may specify policies to determine how each chained relationship should interact with others in a given chain” (id. at 7, ¶ 24). Claims 1-23 are on appeal. Claim 1 is representative and reads as follows: 1. A method for managing a document in a content management system (CMS), the method comprising: receiving a request to access a document of a specified type; identifying a first configuration set associated with the document specified in the request, wherein the first configuration set specifies a plurality of first processing rules for processing the document; Appeal 2012-002451 Application 11/671,836 3 identifying a second configuration set associated with the document specified in the request, wherein the second configuration set specifies a plurality of second processing rules for processing the document; identifying a chaining policy associated with the document specified in the request, wherein the chaining policy incorporates the first configuration set and the second configuration set and specifies a predetermined chaining rule for applying the plurality of first processing rules and the plurality of second processing rules to the document; and binding the document to the chaining policy, wherein the plurality of first processing rules and the plurality of second processing rules are applied to the document as specified by the chaining policy. DISCUSSION Issue The Examiner has rejected claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious based on the admitted prior art discussed in the Specification combined with Shiigi2 (Ans. 5). The Examiner finds that Appellant’s Specification admits that the prior art included the “receiving,” “identifying a first configuration set,” and “identifying a second configuration set” limitations of claim 1 (id. at 6). The Examiner finds that Shiigi discloses the limitations of “identifying a chaining policy” and “binding the document to the chaining policy” recited in the claim (id. at 7-9) and concludes that it would have been obvious to combine the admitted prior art with Shiigi’s teaching to “provide[ ] the benefit of ‘template hierarchies’ which define the structure and content of a given requested document and when processed by the system generate the requested document which is then returned to the requestor by the management system” (id. at 10). 2 Shiigi et al., US 2003/0014442 A1, published Jan. 16, 2003. Appeal 2012-002451 Application 11/671,836 4 Appellant argues that Shiigi’s template hierarchy does not correspond to the “chaining policy” recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 12-13). The issue presented is whether the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “chaining policy” limitation of claim 1 encompasses the template hierarchy disclosed by Shiigi. Findings of Fact 1. The Examiner finds that Appellant’s Specification admits that the prior art discloses a “method for managing a document in a content management system (CMS)” comprising “receiving a request to access a document of a specified type; identifying a first configuration set associated with the document specified in the request, wherein the first configuration set specifies a plurality of first processing rules for processing the document” and “identifying a second configuration set associated with the document specified in the request, wherein the second configuration set specifies a plurality of second processing rules for processing the document” (Ans. 5-7). Appellant does not dispute this finding (see App. Br. 11-13). 2. The Examiner finds that Shiigi discloses identifying a “chaining policy” in its description of a “template hierarchy” (Ans. 7). 3. Shiigi discloses “a system and method for developing an application for serving a document to a client in a client/server network” (Shiigi 1, ¶ 7). 4. Shiigi’s “invention uses a template inheritance model for defining objects in hierarchies for the generation of webpages of a Web site. A basic template hierarchy includes a master template, at least one template Appeal 2012-002451 Application 11/671,836 5 extension, and a document, all of which can reference content objects through tagging.” (Id. at 1-2, ¶ 15.) 5. “Templates specify the formatting of the document and include tags as placeholders for content objects to be incorporated in the document” (id. at 2, ¶ 16). 6. A “template extension inherits the structure and content specified in the template” (id. at 1, ¶ 9) and “can expand upon the number of tags specified in a parent, add additional formatting to the layout, and/or refine the definition of tags that already exist in the inheritance hierarchy” (id. at 2, ¶ 16). 7. “Documents can descend from either templates or extensions. When a document is viewed or served using the page server, all tags are combined from it and its templates and extensions.” (Id.) 8. Shiigi states that the page serving process starts when a request for a document comes from a client (web browser). . . . The serving process begins by retrieving the template hierarchy data and using the data to construct a table object. . . . The table object incorporates all tagged content and objects that are inherited from the parent templates and extensions, as well as those tags which have not been defined in the template hierarchy (those defined in the document). When the document is served, the contents referenced by the tags are retrieved from the system database and filled in the structure of the document specified by the template hierarchy. (Id. at 2, ¶ 20.) 9. The Specification states that the CMS administrator may specify policies to determine how each chained relationship should interact with others in a given chain. For example, one relationship may be configured to Appeal 2012-002451 Application 11/671,836 6 allow inheritance (rules from the base configuration set are carried forward to subordinate configuration sets, while subordinate configuration sets can override rules defined in the base set or add new ones). (Spec. 7, ¶ 24.) 10. The Specification states that configuration sets provide a set of processing rules or artifacts used with content managed by the CMS, (e.g., a collection of XML documents). For example, a configuration set may provide a logical collection of other XML configuration artifacts such as document type definitions (DTDs), schemas, style sheets, etc used with an XML document. (Id. at 6-7, ¶ 22.) 11. The Specification states that [c]ontent management systems (CMS) allow multiple users to share information. Generally, a CMS allows users to create, modify, archive, search, and remove data objects from an organized repository. . . . A CMS typically includes tools for document publishing, format management, revision and/or access control, along with tools for document indexing, searching, and retrieval. (Id. at 1, ¶ 2.) Principles of Law “[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Analysis The Examiner finds, and Appellant does not dispute, that the steps of receiving a request for a document and identifying first and second Appeal 2012-002451 Application 11/671,836 7 configuration sets associated with the document, as recited in claim 1, were known in the art (FF 1). Appellant argues, however, that Shiigi does not disclose the “chaining policy” required by claim 1 (App. Br. 12-13). Claim 1 recites “identifying a chaining policy” associated with the requested document that “specifies a predetermined chaining rule” for applying the processing rules specified in the first and second configuration sets. The Specification does not expressly define the phrase “chaining policy” but it does describe “policies to determine how each chained relationship should interact with others” (FF 9, emphasis added), which is reasonably interpreted to be the same thing. The Specification expressly identifies “inheritance” as one such policy, and the inheritance described by the Specification appears to be the same policy described by Shiigi: The Specification states that “rules from the base configuration set are carried forward to subordinate configuration sets, while subordinate configuration sets can override rules defined in the base set or add new ones” (FF 9), while Shiigi states that a template extension “inherits the structure and content specified in the template” and “can expand upon the number of tags specified in a parent . . . and/or refine the definition of tags that already exist in the inheritance hierarchy” (FF 6). Shiigi’s template and template extension “specify the formatting of the [requested] document” (FF 5) and “reference content objects through tagging” (FF 4), for incorporation in the document (FF 5). Shiigi’s template and template extension therefore are reasonably interpreted to correspond to first and second configuration sets, respectively, that each specify a plurality of processing rules for processing the document; in particular, specifying the Appeal 2012-002451 Application 11/671,836 8 formatting and content of a requested document to be served in the page serving process (FF 8). Appellant argues that a “template hierarchy as disclosed in Shiigi is not used to apply processing rules to a document accessed in a content management system. Rather, such template hierarchy is used for formatting a website.” (App. Br. 13.) Appellant argues that “Shiigi discloses nothing with respect to applying document processing rules in the context of a content management system” (id.). However, Appellant has not pointed to a definition in the Specification that would exclude Shiigi’s webpage-serving system from the “content management system” (CMS) recited in claim 1. The Specification describes a CMS as “[g]enerally” allowing users to carry out certain functions and “typically” including certain tools (FF 11), but does not define a CMS as necessarily having those properties, nor has Appellant provided evidence that Shiigi’s system lacks any of the properties recited as typical for a CMS. Appellant therefore has not shown that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “content management system” excludes the system disclosed by Shiigi. Appellant also argues that while templates as disclosed in Shiigi may be arranged in a hierarchy, where the results of one template are used as input to another template, Shiigi fails to teach or suggest a chaining policy that specifies a predetermined chaining rule indicating how to apply different sets of processing rules to a document. (App. Br. 13.) More specifically, Appellant argues that “a template hierarchy as disclosed in Shiigi enables a user to apply pre-built content Appeal 2012-002451 Application 11/671,836 9 objects such as conditional expressions to a website (see, e.g., Shiigi paragraphs [0052]-[0075]). However, such template hierarchy does not apply pluralities of processing rules to a document.” (Id.) This argument is also unpersuasive. As discussed above, Appellant’s Specification describes inheritance as an example of a chaining policy. Appellant has not explained how the rule of inheritance described in the Specification differs from the template inheritance described by Shiigi, and therefore has not persuasively explained how the claimed invention differs from the invention made obvious by Shiigi and the admitted prior art. Conclusion of Law The broadest reasonable interpretation of the “chaining policy” limitation of claim 1 encompasses the template hierarchy disclosed by Shiigi. Claims 2-23 have not been argued separately and therefore fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). SUMMARY We affirm the rejection of claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious based on the admitted prior art discussed in the Specification combined with Shiigi. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED Appeal 2012-002451 Application 11/671,836 10 cdc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation