Ex Parte Schrichte

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 15, 2016

12454561 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/454,561 05/18/2009
29683 7590 08/15/2016
HARRINGTON & SMITH
4 RESEARCH DRIVE, Suite 202
SHELTON, CT 06484-6212
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Christopher K. Schrichte
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.
062A.0008 .Ul(US) 4222
EXAMINER
WALLACE, JOHN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2673
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
08/15/2016 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 CHRISTOPHER K. SCHRICHTE
Appeal2015-003086
Application 12/454,561
Technology Center 2600
Before THU A. DANG, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and
MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
Appeal2015-003086
Application 12/454,561
A. INVENTION
According to Appellant, the invention relates to "creating redacted
documents," and more particularly, to "automated redaction" (Spec. i-f 2).
B. REPRESENTATIVE CLAIMS
Claims 1 and 8 are exemplary:
1. A method comprising:
scanning a plurality of documents by a scanner to form
new respective electronic scanned documents, where the
plurality of documents comprise at least two different forms of
documents which are scanned;
determining the form of each of the plurality of
documents which have been scanned, where the form is
determined based, at least partially, upon the scanning of the
plurality of documents by the scanner; and
redacting a cell in at least one of the scanned documents,
based upon the determined form of the document which was
scanned to form the at least one scanned document, to thereby
form a scanned redacted document.
8. A method comprising:
opening an electronic non-redacted scanned version of a
document by a computer; and
when the electronic non-redacted scanned version of the
document is opened, automatically redacting a portion of the
opened electronic non-redacted scanned version of the
document based upon opening the scanned version to thereby
automatically create a redacted version of the document.
2
Appeal2015-003086
Application 12/454,561
C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Luther et al.
Quaeler et al.
Baylis et al.
Carlson et al.
Nakashita
US 6,449,065 B 1
US 2007 /0030528 Al
US 2007/0219966 Al
US 2008/0049271 Al
US 2008/0180765 Al
Sept. 10, 2002
Feb. 8,2007
Sept. 20, 2007
Feb.28,2008
July 31, 2008
Claims 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Quaeler.
Claims 1, 4--7, 11, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over the teachings Quaeler and Luther.
Claims 2 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the teachings Quaeler, Luther, and Official Notice.
Claims 3 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the teachings Quaeler, Luther, and Carlson.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the teachings Quaeler and N akashita.
Claims 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the teachings Quaeler and Baylis.
II. ISSUES
The principal issues before us are whether the Examiner erred in
finding that:
1) Quaeler discloses "automatically redacting a portion of the opened
electronic non-redacted scanned version of the document based upon
opening the scanned version" (claim 8 (emphasis added)).
3
Appeal2015-003086
Application 12/454,561
2) The combination of Quaeler and Luther teaches or suggests
"redacting a cell ... based upon the determined form" wherein "the form is
determined based, at least partially, upon the scanning of the plurality of
documents" (claim 1 ).
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Quaeler
1. Quaeler discloses a redaction system that enables a user to define a
redaction of a part of a document (Abstract). In particular, a user specifies
more than one category, and/or reason, and/or description for redaction, and
the system is configured to allow the specification of redaction reasons
(if 150).
2. Attributes of the abstract redaction specification and its relation to the
specific instances of physical redactions are stored, wherein information
pertaining to the redaction is dependent on the type of document (image,
text, motion/sound, mixed type) (if 55).
Luther
3. Luther discloses scanning a document and analyzing the image data to
identify image type (for example, text, line drawing, grayscale image, or
full-color image) (Abstract). In particular, Luther discloses processing a
document to capture the document contents in such a manner that text, line
drawing, grayscale and color portions are treated in a way suitable for each
of these image types (col. 2, 1. 65---col. 3, 1. 4).
4
Appeal2015-003086
Application 12/454,561
4. A scanner analyzes bi-level information output from the scanner to
identify blocks of features on the document (col. 8, 11. 4--5). Additional
information such as information derived by the block analysis algorithm,
relating to page size, margins, frames, etc. are identified in the document
(col. 13, 11. 17-27). The information relating to the document type is then
stored (col. 13, 11. 38-39).
IV. ANALYSIS
35 us.c. § 102(b)
As to claim 8, Appellant contends Quaeler does not disclose or
suggest "automatically redacting a portion of the opened electronic non-
redacted scanned version of the document based upon opening the scanned
version" as claimed (App. Br. 8). According to Appellant, in claim 8,
"'opening the scanned version' forms the basis for automatically redacting
a portion of the opened electronic non-redacted scanned version of the
document," wherein "claim 8 has a condition precedent event to the
automatic redacting" because "[a]n 'opening the scanned version' step must
occur in order for the redacting to automatically occur" (id. at 7-8).
We have considered all of Appellant's arguments and evidence
presented. However, we disagree with Appellant's contentions regarding the
Examiner's rejections of the claims. Based on the record before us, we are
unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that claim 8 is anticipated by
Quaeler.
As a preliminary matter of claim construction, we give the claims
their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification.
See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). While we interpret
5
Appeal2015-003086
Application 12/454,561
claims broadly but reasonably in light of the Specification, we nonetheless
must not import limitations from the Specification into the claims. See
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane).
We find no error with the Examiner's finding that Quaeler discloses
"automatically redacting a portion of the opened electronic non-redacted
scanned version of the document based upon opening the scanned version"
(Ans. 2-3), as recited in claim 8. Although we agree with Appellant that, in
claim 8, "[a]n 'opening the scanned version' step must occur in order for the
redacting to automatically occur" (App. Br. 7-8), we agree with the
Examiner that "[i]n Quaeler, the document is opened before redaction
occurs ... "(Ans. 15).
In particular, Quaeler discloses a user defining the category, and/or
reason, and/ or description for redacting a part of a document, and the system
is configured to automatically create a redacted version of an opened
document based on the user-defined category/reason/description (FF 1). We
agree with the Examiner that "the step of opening is a basis for the redaction
process" (id. at 15). That is, in Quaeler, to redact an opened document,
similar to claim 8, "[a]n 'opening the scanned version' step must occur in
order for the redacting to automatically occur" (App. Br. 7-8).
Thus, contrary to Appellant's contentions, we are not persuaded of
error in the Examiner's reliance on Quaeler for disclosing "automatically
redacting a portion of the opened electronic non-redacted scanned version of
the document based upon opening the scanned version" (claim 8).
As for dependent claim 9, Appellant merely sets forth the cited
sections of Quaeler and then similarly contends that Quaeler does not
disclose "'automatic' ... redacting of the opened electronic scanned
6
Appeal2015-003086
Application 12/454,561
version of the document which occurs in a visual editor software program
on a client computer (based upon opening of the scanned document ... "
(App. Br. 13-17 (citing the language of the claim)). As discussed above
with respect to claim 8 and based on the record before us, we are
unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in also rejecting claim 9 over Quaeler.
As for dependent claim 10, Appellant merely contends "[t]he absence
from the reference of a virtual redaction portion element clearly negates
anticipation" (App. Br. 17-19). However, as the Examiner points out,
Appellant's Specification does not provide any clear definition for "virtual"
portal (Ans. 18-19). Accordingly, we are unpersuaded that the Examiner
erred in interpreting "virtual portal" as "an electronic (i.e., 'virtual') medium
for a user to communicate with the system" (id.), and thus, find no error with
the Examiner's finding of anticipation of claim 10 over Quaeler.
35 US.C. § 103(a)
Regarding claim 1, although Appellant concedes "'document type' is
mentioned" in Luther, Appellant contends "there is no disclosure or
suggestion that the form of at least two different forms of documents is
determined based upon the scanning" (App. Br. 22). According to
Appellant, there is a difference between a "block scanning operation" as
claimed, and "[a]ssigning a 'document type' to the resultant document which
is created after the block scanning operation" (App. Br. 23).
We have considered all of Appellant's arguments and evidence
presented. However, we disagree with Appellant's contentions regarding the
Examiner's rejections of the claims.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
7
Appeal2015-003086
Application 12/454,561
425 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986). Here, we agree with the Examiner's findings that claim 1 would have
been obvious over the combination of Quaeler and Luther.
Quaeler discloses storing information pertaining to redaction that is
dependent on the type of document, i.e., whether the document includes
image, text, motion/sound, or a mixed type (FF 2). We find no error with
the Examiner's reliance on Quaeler for teaching and disclosing redacting a
document based upon (dependent on) the determined form (type) of the
document (such as an image document, a text document, a motion/sound
document or a mixed type document) as required by claim 1. In particular,
we agree with the Examiner's finding that "Quaeler discloses redaction
dependent on the type of document detected" wherein such redacting step
"includes the step of determining the type of document" because "such a
determination would be necessary in order to redact dependent on type"
(Ans. 20-21).
Although Appellant contends Luther does not inherently/necessarily
disclose" ... at least two different forms of documents which are scanned; ..
. where the form is determined based, at least partially, upon the scanning of
the plurality of documents by the scanner" (App. Br. 24 (emphasis omitted)),
we find no error with the Examiner's reliance on Quaeler in view of Luther
for teaching and suggesting the contested limitation (Ans. 4--5). In
particular, we find no error with the Examiner's reliance on Quaeler for
teaching and suggesting determining different (at least two) forms (types) of
documents such as image, text, and the like (Ans. 20; FF 2).
Further, Luther discloses scanning a document and
processing/analyzing the image data to identify text, line drawing, and the
8
Appeal2015-003086
Application 12/454,561
like (FF 3). In Luther, a scanner analyzes output data from the scanner to
identify features on the document and the information relating to the
document type is then stored (FF 4 ). That is, Luther discloses and suggests
at least two forms (type) such as image, text, and the like, that are
determined by scanning (FF 3--4),
Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner's finding that the
combination of Quaeler and Luther teaches or at least suggests the contested
limitation of "redacting a cell ... based upon the determined form" wherein
"the form is determined based, at least partially, upon the scanning of the
plurality of documents" of claim 1.
Appellant repeats that the references combined still do not disclose or
suggest "redacting ... is based upon the determined form of the document
(the 'document' which is scanned by the scanner)" with respect to
independent claim 11 (App. Br. 30 (emphasis omitted)). However, as the
Examiner points out, "one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking
references individually" (Ans. 22-23 (citing Keller, 642 F.2d at 426; Merck,
800 F .2d at 1091 ). We find no error with the Examiner's reliance on Luther
for teaching and suggesting "[a] variety of documents [that] can be scanned
using the scanner" (Ans. 7).
Based on this record, we find no error in the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 1 and 11, and claims 4--7, 14, and 15, depending
respectively therefrom and not separately argued over Quaeler and Luther.
As for claim 16, Appellant repeats that the references do not disclose
or suggest "redacting ... based upon the determined form of the document
which was scanned" (App. Br. 32 (emphasis omitted)). However, as the
Examiner points out, "Quaeler et al. is not relied upon for scanning the
9
Appeal2015-003086
Application 12/454,561
document" (Ans. 22), wherein the Examiner relies on Nakashita for teaching
and suggesting "[a] scanner which has both a photo and text mode" (Ans.
11 ). Accordingly, we also affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 16 over
Quaeler and Nakashita.
As for claim 17, Appellant contends "Baylis et al. does not appear to
disclose assembling collected data as results with prioritization" (App. Br.
34 ). As for claim 20 depending therefrom, Appellant repeats "[p ]rioritized
results are not disclosed" in Baylis (id. at 37). However, we are
unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in finding Baylis discloses and
suggests "collect[ing] email addresses," which constitute "collected data as
results" wherein "hiding of particular email addresses [of Baylis] ...
constitute 'prioritizing' those results" (Ans. 23).
As for claims 18 and 19, Appellant merely repeats the claim language
and contends the combined references do not disclose or suggest the
contested limitations (App. Br. 35-36). Our reviewing court guides that
mere conclusory statements, such as merely contending that the references
do not disclose or suggest repeated claim limitations, which are unsupported
by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116
F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed.
Cir. 1984); Ex parte Belinne, Appeal 2009-004693, 2009 WL 2477843, at
* 3--4 (BP AI Aug. 10, 2009) (informative).
Consequently, Appellant does not persuade us of reversible error in
the Examiner's rejection of claims 17-20 over Quaeler and Baylis.
Appellant provides no arguments with respect to claims 2, 3, 12, and 13.
Accordingly, we also affirm the rejections of claims 2 and 12 over Quaeler,
10
Appeal2015-003086
Application 12/454,561
Luther, and Official Notice; and of claims 3 and 13 over Quaeler, Luther,
and Carlson.
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 8-10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) and claims 1-7 and 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
11