Ex Parte Schleppenbach et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 25, 201310579644 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE __________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD __________ Ex parte DAVID A. SCHLEPPENBACH and JOE P. SAID1 __________ Appeal 2011-005158 Application 10/579,644 Technology Center 2100 __________ Before ERIC GRIMES, MELANIE L. McCOLLUM, and ERICA A. FRANKLIN, Administrative Patent Judges. GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to methods of communicating content, in particular to persons with special needs. The Examiner has rejected the claims as obvious based on the prior art. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. 1 Appellants identify the Real Party in Interest as gh LLC (Appeal Br. 3). Appeal 2011-005158 Application 10/579,644 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claims 1-9, 27, 30-45, and 47-51 are on appeal. Claims 1, 27, 35, 37, and 41 are illustrative and read as follows: 1. A method of communicating content, said method comprising the steps, of: converting inputted content into an XML format to form converted content; applying a DOM tree to the content; outputting the converted content into a plurality of output devices; and coordinating the plurality of output devices so that the plurality of the output devices delivers synchronized output. 27. A method of communicating content to a special needs person, said method comprising the steps of: accepting content input; using a processor to convert said content input into a converted content, providing a computerized output configuration toolbar to the special needs person; and modifying output to the special needs person based upon a selected configuration, wherein the toolbar is configured to modify an existing third- party software application. 35. The method of claim 27, comprising the further steps of: loading a test onto a portable system; providing a plurality of communication channels on the portable system by which the person may interact with the portable system; and recording responses from said individual communicated via at least one of said channels. 37. The method of claim 35, comprising the further step of using the processor to prevent the person from returning to a portion of the test. 41. The method of claim 35, wherein the providing of channels step includes permitting access to at least one of an access group comprising a Braille keyboard and a sip-and-puff device. Appeal 2011-005158 Application 10/579,644 3 The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows: • Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 51 based on Kolfman2 and Schwerdtfeger3 (Answer 4); • Claim 3 based on Kolfman, Schwerdtfeger, and Willian4 (Answer 7); • Claim 6 based on Kolfman, Schwerdtfeger, and Whitledge5 (Answer 8); • Claims 7-9 based on Kolfman, Schwerdtfeger, and Decary6 (Answer 9); • Claim 43 based on Kolfman, Schwerdtfeger, Decary, and Slotznick7 (Answer 11); • Claims 44 and 45 based on Kolfman, Schwerdtfeger, Decary, and LeCapelain8 (Answer 11); • Claims 27, 30, and 34 based on Kolfman and Holm9 (Answer 13); • Claim 33 based on Kolfman, Holm, and Bravin10 (Answer 15); • Claim 35 based on Kolfman, Holm, and Willian (Answer 15); • Claims 36-40 based on Kolfman, Holm, Willian, and Doty11 (Answer 17); 2 Kolfman, US 6,912,529 B1, June 28, 2005. 3 Schwerdtfeger et al., US 6,725,424 B1, Apr. 20, 2004. 4 Willian et al., US 2005/0021859 A1, Jan. 27, 2005. 5 Whitledge et al., US 6,925,595 B1, Aug. 2, 2005. 6 Decary et al., US 7,065,483 B2, June 20, 2006. 7 Slotznick et al., US 2002/0178007 A1, Nov. 28, 2002. 8 LeCapelain, US 4,470,821, Sept. 11, 1984. 9 Holm et al., US 5,850,629, Dec. 15, 1998. 10 Bravin et al., US 7,333,507 B2, Feb. 19, 2008. Appeal 2011-005158 Application 10/579,644 4 • Claims 41 and 4212 based on Kolfman, Holm, Willian, and Schwerdtfeger (Answer 19); • Claim 31 based on Schwerdtfeger and Bravin (Answer 20); • Claims 32 and 5013 based on Holm, Schwerdtfeger, and Willian (Answer 22); and • Claims 47-49 based on Holm, Schwerdtfeger, Willian, and Doty (Answer 25). I. Issue The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 51 as obvious based on Kolfman and Schwerdtfeger. The Examiner finds that Kolfman discloses a method that includes converting content into an XML format and outputting the converted content to a plurality of output devices (Answer 4), while Schwerdtfeger discloses applying a DOM tree to content and “output[ting] commands to two output devices (74) and (24) [as] synchronized output” (id. at 5). The Examiner concludes that it would have 11 Doty, Jr., US 2003/0152904 A1, Aug. 14, 2003. 12 The Examiner’s statement of the rejection does not include claim 42 but immediately after discussing claim 41, the Examiner finds that Kolfman teaches the limitation of claim 42 (Answer 20). We therefore understand the rejection to apply to claims 41 and 42. Appellants understood the rejection to also apply to claim 42, and argued it accordingly (Appeal Br. 14). 13 The Examiner’s statement of the rejection does not include claim 50 but immediately after discussing claim 32, the Examiner finds that Schwerdtfeger teaches the limitation of claim 50 (Answer 25). We therefore understand the rejection to apply to claims 32 and 50. Appellants understood the rejection to also apply to claim 50, and argued it accordingly (Appeal Br. 15). Appeal 2011-005158 Application 10/579,644 5 been obvious “to combine the method of converting documents to XML in Kolfman with the method of creating a DOM tree in Schwerdtfeger” because the “combination would have been useful for creating a document that can [be] easily manipulated using the DOM” (id. at 6). Appellants contend that “Schwerdtfeger does not disclose coordinating output devices such that their outputs are synchronized with each other” (Appeal Br. 11). With regard to the Examiner’s position that the limitation is met by Schwerdtfeger’s output devices 24 and 74, Appellants argue that “this so-called ‘synchronized output’ of Schwerdtfeger is delivered from a single output device (i.e., client machine 22), and not from a plurality of output devices, as required by claim 1” (Reply Br. 2). The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the evidence support the Examiner’s conclusion that a method meeting all the limitations of claim 1 would have been obvious based on Kolfman and Schwerdtfeger? Findings of Fact 1. Kolfman discloses that financial information about stocks, bonds, etc. is provided by companies and can be downloaded by subscribers (Kolfman, col. 1, ll. 31-40). 2. Kolfman discloses that the information is provided in PDF format with a separate report summarizing the contents of the PDF document (id. at col. 1, ll. 52-67). 3. Kolfman discloses that this approach limits the search criteria that can be applied to the information (id. at col. 2, ll. 18-34) and that what is needed is a system that stores documents without information loss and Appeal 2011-005158 Application 10/579,644 6 permits searching the actual information in the documents (id. at col. 2, ll. 50-54). 4. Kolfman discloses a document storage and retrieval system (id. at col. 17, l. 28) having a central repository server coupled to remote contributor workstations (id. at col. 17, ll. 55-57). 5. Kolfman discloses that each contributor workstation is provided with XML generator software which converts all input text into an XML file (id. at col. 18, ll. 6-10) 6. Kolfman discloses that “the contributor writes the report using any suitable word processing application. . . . Once the report is finished, the XML generator software module 30 translates the information content of the report to XML.” (Id. at col. 18, ll. 27-31.) 7. Kolfman discloses that the XML report is transferred to a central site (id. at col. 18, ll. 36-38), “allow[ing] a search engine to search the actual text contents of the document itself” (id. at col. 18, ll. 22-23). 8. Schwerdtfeger discloses “an electronic document delivery system . . . including a client machine coupled to . . . a transcoder proxy. . . . In one embodiment of the system, the client machine includes an assistive technology device for presenting information to a user (e.g., a Braille display or a speech engine).” (Schwerdtfeger, col. 3, ll. 10-18.) 9. Schwerdtfeger discloses that the “transcoder proxy is coupled to receive electronic documents. The electronic documents are expressed in a first digital format (e.g., a text-based markup language such as HTML or XML).” (Id. at col. 3, ll. 19-22.) Appeal 2011-005158 Application 10/579,644 7 10. Schwerdtfeger discloses “One embodiment of the transcoder proxy includes a synchronous document object model (DOM) generator coupled to a transcoder and an assistive technology interface generator. The synchronous DOM generator is adapted to receive the electronic document in the first digital format.” (Id. at col. 3, ll. 62-66.) 11. “The Document Object Model (DOM) is an application programming interface (API) for ‘documents’. . . . In the DOM, documents have a logical structure which is very much like a tree.” (Id. at col. 2, ll. 27- 40.) 12. Schwerdtfeger discloses that the “synchronous DOM generator forms a pre-transcoded DOM representing a logical structure of the electronic document” (id. at col. 4, ll. 2-4). 13. Schwerdtfeger discloses its system can include “an assistive technology 74 . . . [which] may provide an interface between user agent 40 and, for example, a device such as a Braille display or a speech engine” (id. at col. 10, ll. 20-23). 14. Schwerdtfeger discloses that a “Braille display may be coupled to assistive technology 74. In this case, a user may press a ‘next line’ button on the Braille display in order for a next line of document 12 to be presented.” (Id. at col. 10, ll. 39-42.) 15. Schwerdtfeger discloses that user agent 40 of client machine 22 modifies transcoded DOM 42 and issues new output commands to assistive technology 74 and/or output device 24. Assistive technology 74 may use the output commands to produce Braille display commands, and provide the Braille display commands to the Braille device. As a result, the next line portion of document 12 is displayed by Appeal 2011-005158 Application 10/579,644 8 the Braille device. The next line portion of document 12 may also be displayed or otherwise presented by output device 24. (Id. at col. 11, ll. 17-25.) Analysis We agree with the Examiner that the teachings of Kolfman and Schwerdtfeger would have made obvious a method meeting the limitations of claim 1. Kolfman discloses converting financial reports into XML format in order to make them more easily searchable (FFs 4-7). Schwerdtfeger discloses an electronic document delivery system that receives documents in, e.g., XML format (FF 9) and supplies the documents to a DOM generator, which forms a logical structure of the electronic document (FFs 10-12). Schwerdtfeger also discloses that its system can include an assistive technology 74 coupled to a Braille display (FFs 13, 14). Finally, Schwerdtfeger discloses that the assistive technology 74 can provide Braille display commands to a Braille display: “As a result, the next line portion of document 12 is displayed by the Braille device. The next line portion of document 12 may also be displayed or otherwise presented by output device 24” (FF 15). The display of the next line of the document on a Braille device and on output device 24 is “synchronized content,” as recited in claim 1. Appellants argue, however, that Schwerdtfeger’s content is not synchronized over a plurality of devices because elements 24 and 74 are both part of the same output device (Reply Br. 2). This argument is not persuasive. Schwerdtfeger states that a “Braille display may be coupled to assistive technology 74” (FF 14, emphasis added) Appeal 2011-005158 Application 10/579,644 9 and assistive technology 74 “produce[s] Braille display commands, and provide[s] the Braille display commands to the Braille device” (FF 15). Thus, the Braille display is a separate device from the client machine 22 that includes display 24, and Schwerdtfeger describes coordinating a plurality of devices to provide synchronized output. Conclusion of Law The evidence supports the Examiner’s conclusion that a method meeting all the limitations of claim 1 would have been obvious based on Kolfman and Schwerdtfeger. Claims 2, 4, 5, and 51 have not been argued separately and therefore fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appellants argue that the rejections of claim 3, claim 6, claims 7-9, claim 43, claims 44 and 45, and claim 31 should be reversed for the same reason presented as to claim 1 (Appeal Br. 11-12, 14). The argument is unpersuasive for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1. Since Appellants have waived the opportunity to present additional arguments directed specifically to the rejections of claims 3, 6-9, 31, and 43- 45, we affirm the rejections of those claims. II. Issue The Examiner has rejected claims 27, 30, and 34 based on Kolfman and Holm. The Examiner finds that Kolfman teaches a method meeting the limitations of claim 27 except that it does not teach providing an output configuration toolbar that modifies an existing software application (Answer Appeal 2011-005158 Application 10/579,644 10 13). The Examiner finds that Holm teaches such a toolbar (id. at 13-14) and concludes that it would have been obvious “to combine the method of converting documents to XML in Kolfman with the method of creating a screen reader toolbar in Holm” in order to “creat[e] a document that can easily [be] manipulated using the screen reader” (id. at 14). Appellants contend that “although transport bar 36 is configured to perform already-available software functions on text content, transport bar 36 is not configured to modify the underlying third-party software application” (Reply Br. 3). The issue with respect to this rejection is: Does the broadest reasonable interpretation of the toolbar recited in claim 27 encompass the transport bar 36 that is described by Holm? Findings of Fact 16. Holm discloses a “system for enabling a user to interact with and control a TTS [text-to-speech] synthesizer” (Holm, col. 1, ll. 8-9). 17. Holm’s Figure 1 is reproduced below: Appeal 2011-005158 Application 10/579,644 11 Figure 1 shows “the principal graphical user interface panels of the preferred embodiment of the invention in conjunction with an example of a target application (a word processing application)” (id. at col. 2, ll. 29-32). 18. Holm discloses that “activation of the text-to-speech (TTS) conversion application . . . produces the transport bar 36 in the Windows 30 display” (id. at col. 3, ll. 23-25). 19. Holm discloses that “the user selects text in the open text window 34 which is to be converted to audible speech . . . by the user highlighting that portion of the text” (id. at col. 3, ll. 25-28). 20. Holm discloses that “[a]fter the user selection, the conversion of the highlighted text 44 begins once the play button 46, contained on the transport bar 36, is activated by the user” (id. at col. 3, ll. 31-34). Appeal 2011-005158 Application 10/579,644 12 21. Holm discloses that the conversion process begins with the TTS conversion application directing the word processing application to copy the highlighted text into the Windows clipboard (id. at col. 3, ll. 39-55); “[t]he ‘copy’ operations are performed automatically when the user highlights selected text and activates the play button 46” on transport bar 36 (id. at col. 3, ll. 63-65). 22. The Specification states that “elements of the disclosed software may be incorporated into a toolbar 193 for an existing program . . . having a tool bar. . . . The toolbar would provide options such as speech enablement, keystroke echo, contrast control, highlighting, color choice, enlargement of text, etc.” (Spec. 13:6-11.) Analysis We agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to apply Holm’s text-to-speech conversion application to the financial reports described by Kolfman in order to create a document that can be manipulated using the screen reader (Answer 14); converting text to speech would be useful, for example, to sight-impaired users. Appellants argue that “transport bar 36 does not select functions that are available in the third-party software application, and transport bar 36 does not modify a third-party software application in any other way” (Reply Br. 3). Appellants argue that a toolbar 193 (FIG. 14) of the present invention may be used to select functions that are to be available in the third-party software application, such as speech enablement, keystroke echo, contrast control, highlighting, color choice, enlargement of text, etc. (Page 13, lines 6-11 of the present specification). According to the present invention, these user-configured Appeal 2011-005158 Application 10/579,644 13 functions are to be available for performance on text content that is not yet opened or created. (Id.) This argument is not persuasive. The Specification does not define the meaning of “modify,” as used in claim 27. We therefore apply the ordinary meaning of the term, which is “to change some parts of (something) while not changing other parts.”14 Holm’s transport bar 36 reasonably appears to “modify” the word processing application, since it directs that application to copy specific text content to the Windows clipboard for use by the TTS converter. That is, by operation of transport bar 36, the word processing application is “modified,” or changed, from the state it would otherwise have had. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language therefore encompasses Holm’s transport bar 36. Although Appellants point to the Specification’s description of a toolbar having specific functions (Reply Br. 3), that embodiment is described in the Specification as “toolbar 193 for an existing program . . . having a tool bar” (FF 22). Claim 27 does not limit the recited toolbar to one having the options described in the Specification, nor does the Specification define “modify” to require providing those options, or any other specific options. The claim language therefore does not limit the recited toolbar to the one described on page 13 of the Specification, and it would be an error to read limitations from the Specification into the claims. 14 www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/modify, accessed Sept. 23, 2013. Appeal 2011-005158 Application 10/579,644 14 Conclusion of Law The broadest reasonable interpretation of the toolbar recited in claim 27 encompasses the transport bar 36 that is described by Holm. Claims 30 and 34 have not been argued separately and therefore fall with claim 27. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appellants argue that the rejections of claim 33, claim 35, claims 36 and 38-40, and claim 42 should be reversed for the same reason presented as to claim 27 (Appeal Br. 13-14). The argument is unpersuasive for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 27. Since Appellants have waived the opportunity to present additional arguments directed specifically to the rejections of claims 33, 35, 36, 38-40, and 42, we affirm the rejections of those claims. With respect to claim 37, which the Examiner rejected based on Kolfman, Holm, Willian, and Doty, Appellants argue that “Claim 37 recites in part ‘using the processor to prevent the person from returning to a portion of the test’. Appellants submit that the cited references are completely silent as to this subject matter of claim 37.” (Appeal Br. 14.) This argument is persuasive. The Examiner finds that Doty describes the disputed limitation at paragraphs 117 and 174 (Answer 18), but it does not. Doty’s disclosure relates to “an Internet based education system” (Doty 1, ¶ 3). At paragraph 117, Doty describes “an embodiment of a Windows Media Encoder Interface” (id. at 7, ¶ 117). The function of the interface is to allow encoding content as Windows Media files (see id. at 7, ¶ 120), not to administer a test. At paragraph 174, Doty describes a portal that allows administrators to pose test questions to students in order to “ensure[ ] that Appeal 2011-005158 Application 10/579,644 15 learners are actively engaged at the desk top,” and states that failure to answer the question in the allotted time can result in forfeiting the course (id. at 13, ¶ 174). We agree with Appellants that neither of the passages cited by the Examiner describes “using the processor to prevent the person from returning to a portion of the test,” as required by claim 37. We therefore reverse the rejection of claim 37. III. The Examiner has rejected claims 41 and 42 based on Kolfman, Holm, Willian, and Schwerdtfeger. With regard to the Braille keyboard or sip-and-puff device recited in claim 41, the Examiner finds that Schwerdtfeger discloses a Braille display that includes keys or buttons for user input, as well as “multiple types of input devices, including speech-to- text converter or other input devices not show[n]” (Answer 19). Appellants argue that “a display is not a keyboard by which an individual can provide responses” (Appeal Br. 14). Appellants argue that “Schwerdtfeger does not disclose or fairly suggest a ‘Braille keyboard,’ which has a specific meaning in the industry. A Braille keyboard enables the user to input all of the letters of the alphabet.” (Reply Br. 4.) We agree with Appellants that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a Braille keyboard, as recited in claim 41, does not encompass a Braille display. The ordinary meaning of a keyboard, in this context, is “the set of keys that are used for a computer or typewriter.”15 This definition is 15 www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/keyboard, accessed Sept. 23, 2013. Appeal 2011-005158 Application 10/579,644 16 consistent with Appellants’ position that a keyboard enables a user to input all the letters of the alphabet. The Examiner has not provided evidence or persuasive reasoning to support his position that a Braille display, even one having buttons or keys to allow a user to navigate through an electronic document (Schwerdtfeger, col. 10, ll. 35-38), would be considered a “Braille keyboard” by those skilled in the art. Although the Examiner finds that Schwerdtfeger also discloses “multiple types of input devices, including speech-to-text converter or other input devices not show[n]” (Answer 19), he has not pointed to evidence showing that Schwerdtfeger would have made obvious the Braille keyboard or sip-and-puff device recited in claim 41. We therefore reverse the rejection of claim 41. Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 42 should be reversed for the same reason presented as to claim 35 (Appeal Br. 14). This argument is addressed above together with the rejection of claim 27, from which claim 35 depends. Appellants argue that the rejections of claims 32 and 50, and the rejection of claims 47-50, should be reversed for the same reason presented as to claim 41 (Appeal Br. 15). We agree. Claim 32, like claim 41, requires “communication channels . . . including at least one of a Braille keyboard and a sip-and-puff device” (Appeal Br. 20 (Claims Appendix)). Claims 47- 50 depend on claim 32. We therefore reverse the rejections of claims 32 and 47-50 for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 41. Appeal 2011-005158 Application 10/579,644 17 SUMMARY We affirm the rejections of claims 1-9, 27, 30, 31, 33-36, 38-40, 42- 45, and 51. We reverse the rejections of claims 32, 37, 41, and 47-50. 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-IN-PART lp Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation