Ex Parte Smyth et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2016

13776326 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
131776,326 02/25/2013
50447 7590 09/22/2016
DUFT BORNSEN & FETTIG, LLP
1526 SPRUCE STREET
SUITE 302
BOULDER, CO 80302
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Patrick Smyth
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.
4-080_FN"201300225 1033
EXAMINER
ZONG,HELEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2673
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/22/2016 ELECTRON"IC
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@dbflaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte PATRICK SMYTH and KUMAR V. KADIYALA
Appeal2015-006342
Application 13/776,326
Technology Center 2600
Before DAVID M. KOHUT, DAVID C. McKONE, and
ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges.
McKONE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-20, which constitute all the claims pending in this
application. See Br. 5-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
Appeal2015-006342
Application 13/776,326
fNVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to Graphical User Interfaces ("GUI") for
print workflow systems. Spec. i-f 1. A workflow defines an ordered set of
activities to perform when processing a print job at a print shop. For
example, a workflow may indicate that a print job should be rendered, then
printed, and then cut before being delivered to a user. Id. i-f 18. "Activities
may be performed by pieces of equipment in print shop 100 (e.g., cutters,
stackers, staplers, etc.). Activities may even be performed by people within
the print shop (e.g., activities such as pre-flight or proofing of a print job
may be performed by a person at the print shop)." Id. i-f 23.
Figures 3-7, viewed in sequence, illustrate an example process of
using a GUI to generate and edit a workflow. Figure 6, in particular, is
reproduced below:
2
Appeal2015-006342
Application 13/776,326
r FIG. 6
WORKFLOW EDITOR
FRntf :· ~·"-" 8 RECEIVE
t'REATr .... ;: :~
SF"K CREATE sos . f\v .. JOB
I R~DER 11 DRY I
---~ ~TA~U ...... ~ J ' ~
I ~na: 11 I
~IPACKAGEl \.·~10
:.,.! :£,
EJ DELIVER
I ITTITT I
REMOVE "'\.310
JOB
~1
APPROVED
LOCATIQ~iN
WORKFLOW lN MEMORY
GRE~TEJGB
''\io'\D~'l "' \'
~
PRE·FllGHT
PRJNT
........
REMOVE JOO
r~r.2f\'-i .::o!lUlli~K
......................... ~· ...................... J '''"'"'"'"''"vi .. I I I PREPARE PRNT i""'M 'lE"<:T -I I I 1)J<~ n:
I 600 ...... I I
I ' I I r-.l.-,
I I I K"V·111E
.~I I ~ PRNT :i... t 't~:. ... .; -
I ·1 I I
. 'I,,.:
I JOB
I L---J I I
I r500 I I
I ~ s I I
i po,.
! ~ : ~~"· I I .. ~ -
i FW'W I i 1.1 .i I I l
I I I
I I I
I J I I r,, ' r ' 8 I 400_} I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
to--
•
(iJD 1~
Figure 6 is a block diagram of a GUI for generating and editing workflows
in a workflow system. Id. ii 14. Window 300 includes palette 310 of print
shop activities 312. Each activity can be dragged from the palette and
dropped onto workspace 320 to assemble and edit a workflow. Id. ii 33.
3
Appeal2015-006342
Application 13/776,326
Time worktlow 400 is shown as an ordered list 410 of activities stored in a
memory. Id. i-f 34. To modify the workflow, a user selects pre-flight activity
500 from palette 310 and drags it along workflow 400. Id. i-f 35. A
processing system tracks the horizontal locations of each of the workflow
activities and determines a proposed location (ghost box 600) for pre-flight
activity 500, at which the requirements for activity 500 would be met.
Id. i-fi-135-37. If the activity is dragged to a location where the activity's
requirements are not met, the GUI generates an alert, such as graphical
indicator 700 (shown in Figure 7), and, if the user attempts to drop the
activity, the activity is returned to the palette without modifying workflow
400. Id. i-f 38.
Claim 1, which is illustrative of the invention, reads as follows:
1. a system comprising:
a memory that stores requirements for sequencing each
of multiple activities available at a print shop into workflows;
a Graphical User Interface (GUI) operable to graphically
present a workflow comprising an ordered subset of the
activities to perform for processing a print job, to graphically
present the available activities, and to enable a user to drag the
available activities onto the workflow and drop the available
activities onto the workflow in order to alter the workflow; and
a processing system operable to detect an activity being
dragged by a user, to determine locations in the workflow
where requirements for the activity are met while the activity is
being dragged, and to operate the GUI to highlight the
determined locations while the activity is being dragged.
4
Appeal2015-006342
Application 13/776,326
THE REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Nakashima US 2013/0222829 Al Aug.29,2013
(filed Feb. 11, 2013)
Dumitrescu I US 2012/0243028 Al Sept. 27, 2012
(filed Mar. 24, 2011)
Suese US 2011/0181900 Al July 28, 2011
Bachman US 2011/0153051 Al June 23, 2011
Dumitrescu II US 2006/0092467 Al May4, 2006
Kayama US 2006/0044612 Al Mar. 2, 2006
Claims 1--4, 8-11, and 15-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Kayama, Suese, and Nakashima. See Final Act.
2-7.
Claims 6, 13, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kayama, Suese, Nakashima, and Dumitrescu I. See Final
Act. 7-9.
Claims 5 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kayama, Suese, Nakashima, and Bachman. See Final
Act. 9-10.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kayama, Suese, Nakashima, Dumitrescu I, and
Dumitrescu II. See Final Act. 10-11. 1
1 The Final Action states that claims 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under
Kayama, Suese, Nakashima, and Dumitrescu II, without mention of
Dumitrescu I. Nevertheless, claims 6, 13, and 19, from which claims 7, 14,
and 20 depend, respectively, are rejected under Kayama, Suese, Nakashima,
and Dumitrescu I. Accordingly, we interpret the examiner's rejection of
claims 7, 13, and 20 to include Dumitrescu I.
5
Appeal2015-006342
Application 13/776,326
ANALYSIS
REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1--4, 8-11, AND 15-18 UNDER35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Scope and Content of the Prior Art
Kayama describes an information processing system that manages
operation schedules of a printing device. Kayama, Abstract. The system
includes a workflow manager that, in tum, includes a workflow editor,
which is a GUI used by an operator to edit a workflow. Id. i-f 90. Figure 8,
reproduced below, illustrates an example:
FIG. 8
my Book GJ[QJGJ
File Based
Workflow Editor
r-::-.-1 BOOKBINDING
F're-fiight 1-:..:._j AND LAYOUT
sb2 r.~r F:: :~:~:G
if'L:.:..J•
MONOCHROME
DEVICE A
MONOCHROME
DEVICE B
S0
3< ~1'1 ::=~=61=1T=ION=: 5~0g~ .__ _ ___, ,\\ 1-.:..::J i ,__ __ .....
~801 j/11 I j) DATA
804 . MMRININI< 'I __ ... _.,, ... _ I
PC B Nup LAYOUT RESERVE DEV!CE
Figure 8 is a drawing of an operation screen of workflow editor 607.
Id. i-f i-f 19, 91.
?
Icons indicating processes used for print processing are illustrated in
the upper part of the operation screen of workflow editor 607. Id. i-f 92. A
workflow can be generated by dragging and dropping icons from the upper
part of the operation screen to the lower part of the screen. Id.
6
Appeal2015-006342
Application 13/776,326
Suese describes a multifunction machine for processing items relating
to document reading operations. Suese, Abstract. Figure 4, reproduced
below, illustrates an example customization screen for workflow templates:
FIG.4
IC2 IC3 IC4 IC5
;
TEMPLATES AND WORKFLOWS/ / i // / / -
( / / I
I JTEM: lql ITTM2'J1Bql JTEM: lql ITEM: le;
i
«I• I
I
101
_ ..... I. ..
' '
~/·
_, ,
··············' IOB
PROCESS!_tro'lTEMS /" -- .. ~-... / I
I ITE~ ~ I B B
---«l• I
'
!CA
!»
ICC ICD ICE ICF
I ' / / _,./ / /" ,.··· ,.···
/ / I
B I ITEM~ I I ITEM~ r"
I»
!CANCEL! [-~
:
81
Figure 4 is a block diagram of a customization screen. Id. i-f 11. Icons IC 1 to
ICs represent processing items and are displayed as a workflow in display
region XI. Id. at i-fi-155, 58. A user can drag an icon, e.g., processing item A
(ICA) from second display region X2 and drop it in a position between icons
IC2 and IC3 in first display region XI. Id. i-f 58. Suese's multifunction
machine includes a determination portion that determines whether or not the
insertion position is appropriate based upon information in a table (shown in
Figure 5). Id. i-f 103. If the determination portion determines that the
insertion position is not appropriate, a display control portion of the
multifunction machine displays a warning message and displays a button to
7
Appeal2015-006342
Application 13/776,326
enable the user to select whether or not to change the insertion position.
Id. ii 105.
Nakashima describes, inter alia, a user interface of a virtual device
application for dragging a computer document onto icons corresponding to
virtual device objects for output functions, such as "print," "fax," "print
preview," and "convert to PDF." Nakashima ii 36, Figs. 7, 12, 13. In one
embodiment, the virtual device application, when it receives a drag
operation of a document file over a virtual device object, determines whether
a license for the virtual device object is valid or expired and, if the license is
expired, indicates that the function cannot be performed. Id. ii 38. In the
example shown in Figure 13, the icon portions "Print Preview" and "Convert
to PDF" are grayed out, indicating that they are invalid functions. Id.
Examiner's Findings, Appellants' Arguments, and Analysis
The Examiner finds that Kayama teaches a memory that stores
requirements for sequencing each of multiple print shop activities into a
workflow. Final Act. 2. The Examiner cites to Kayama's Figure 8 as an
example of:
a Graphical User Interface (GUI) operable to graphically
present a workflow comprising an ordered subset of the
activities to perform for processing a print job, to graphically
present the available activities, and to enable a user to drag the
available activities onto the workflow and drop the available
activities onto the workflow in order to alter the workflow,
as recited in claim 1. Id. at 3.
The Examiner acknowledges that Kayama does not teach "a
processing system operable to detect an activity being dragged by a user, to
determine locations in the workflow where requirements for the activity are
8
Appeal2015-006342
Application 13/776,326
met while the activity is being dragged, and to operate the GUI to highlight
the determined locations while the activity is being dragged," as recited in
claim 1. Id. Nevertheless, the Examiner finds these features in Suese and
Nakashima.
First, the Examiner finds that Suese teaches a processing system that
detects an activity being dragged by a user to determine locations in a
workflow where requirements for that activity are met and that operates a
GUI to indicate the determined locations while the activity is being dragged.
Id. Nevertheless, the Examiner concedes that "Kayama in view of Suese
still does not explicitly disclose that determination is made while the activity
is being dragged and the indication is to highlight the determined locations."
Id. at 4. Read together, we understand the Examiner's position to be that
Suese teaches a processing system that determines locations in a workflow
where requirements for an activity are met, and highlights those locations,
but does not make the determination or perform the highlighting while the
activity is being dragged. This is consistent with the Examiner's citation to
Figure 9 and paragraph 105 of Suese. The Examiner finds that a skilled
artisan would have incorporated this feature of Suese into Kayama's device.
Id. at 3--4. According to the Examiner, "[t]he suggestion/motivation would
have been in order to provide the operation screens for processing items
relating to document reading operations are displayed prior to operation
screens for processing items relating to operations other than document
reading operations suggested by Suese (abstract)." Id. at 4.
Second, the Examiner finds that Nakashima teaches making a
determination that a position for an activity is invalid while that activity is
being dragged, citing to Nakashima's example of graying out the "Print
9
Appeal2015-006342
Application 13/776,326
Preview" and "Convert to PDF" functions of Figure 13, and finding that the
"Print" button remains highlighted. Id. The Examiner finds that a skilled
artisan would have incorporated this feature of Nakashima such that the
determination in the system of Kayama and Suese is made while the activity
is being dragged and that determined locations would be highlighted. Id.
According to the Examiner, "[t]he suggestion/motivation would have been
in order to provide an information processing apparatus capable of reducing
a setting load of a virtual device object obtained by integrating a plurality of
printer objects suggested by Nakashi[ma] (p0006)." Id. at 4--5.
Appellants argue that the items of Suese are not "activities to perform
for processing a print job," as recited in claim 1. Br. 7. Suese' s "processing
items" include "number of copies, sheet size, magnification ratio, darkness,
aggregate printing, document image quality, and double-sided division to be
applied in the functions for each function such as the copy operation."
Suese i-f 50. Appellants characterize these as "physical characteristics of a
print job." Br. 7. Appellants do not provide a construction of "activities to
perform for processing a print job," or explain why processing of physical
characteristics of documents to be printed are excluded from such activities.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument.
Appellants also raise several alleged deficiencies of the individual
references cited by the Examiner, but fail to rebut the Examiner's specific
findings that those aspects of claim 1 are taught in other references. As the
Federal Circuit has cautioned, "[n]on-obviousness cannot be established by
attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the
teachings of a combination of references." In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800
10
Appeal2015-006342
Application 13/776,326
F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(CCPA 1981)).
Specifically, Appellants argue that Suese does not provide a reason to
perform processing while an item is being dragged into a workflow and,
instead, describes waiting until an item is dropped at a specific location
before determining if the location is acceptable or generating an error. Br. 7.
The Examiner, however, cites to Nakashima for this aspect of claim 1. Final
Act. 4.
As to Nakashima, Appellants argue that dragging and dropping a
document onto a print icon has nothing to do with inserting an activity into a
workflow for a print job. Id. at 7-8. According to Appellants, a print job is
dragged onto a static icon rather than being inserted into a workflow; thus,
Appellants argue, Nakashima teaches away from altering an ordered set of
activities by a drag and drop operation. Id. at 9. Similarly, Appellants argue
that Nakashima does not indicate locations in a workflow where the
requirements for an activity are met and that a skilled artisan "wouldn't be
drawn to use the 'grey out' techniques of Nakashima to indicate where an
activity could be placed in a workflow." Id. The Examiner, however, cites
to Kayama and Suese for these aspects of claim 1. Final Act. 3. Moreover,
Appellants give no persuasive reasons why Nakashima discourages altering
an ordered set of activities. Thus, we are not persuaded that Nakashima
teaches away from the proposed combination.
Appellants contend that Nakashima does not indicate that its icons are
grayed out in response to determinations made while a workflow activity is
dragged. Br. 9. Nakashima states that "[t]he virtual device application 400
confirms whether the license is valid or invalid when it receives a drag
11
Appeal2015-006342
Application 13/776,326
operation of the document over the virtual device object 701 (503) by the
user." Nakashima i-f 38 (emphasis added). Appellants argue that Nakashima
describes "drag operation" as interchangeable with "drag and drop" and
"drop operation." Br. 9. Appellants do not explain persuasively why this
distinguishes over claim 1.
Finally, Appellants contend that "[t]he Examiner's rejection is
indicative of hindsight bias." Br. 10. Appellants, however, do not provide
any argument or evidence challenging the Examiner's stated reasons to
incorporate the teachings of Suese and Nakashima into the system of
Kayama. Thus, Appellants' argument is not persuasive.
In sum, Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1.
As to claim 2, Appellants essentially repeat their arguments as to the
alleged individual failings for Suese and Nakashima without accounting for
the combination of their teachings. Br. 11-12. Those arguments are
similarly unpersuasive as to claim 2. Thus, Appellants have not shown that
the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 2.
The Examiner rejects claims 8 and 15 for the same reasons as claim 1.
Final Act. 6. Appellants incorporate their arguments for claim 1 as to claims
8 and 15. Br. 10-11. The Examiner rejects claims 9 and 16 for the same
reasons as claim 2. Final Act. 6-7. Appellants, in tum, incorporate their
arguments for claim 2 as to claims 9 and 16. Br. 12. Appellants do not
challenge separately the Examiner's findings as to claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 17,
and 18. For the reasons given above for claim 1, Appellants have not shown
that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 3, 4, 8-11, and 15-18.
12
Appeal2015-006342
Application 13/776,326
REJECTION OF CLAIMS 5 AND 12 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Bachman describes a workflow editor with a graphical editor pane
that displays a current workflow document that is being edited. Bachman
i-f 216. This editor pane is shown in Figure 21, reproduced below:
·•~.; ./~---.,,,_. . //
.~ :/ >, ./
j lSTART'
·-, 2102
;;;-2104
~~": ... ~~~,-.._v._ ~ :./~'
/
Figure21
13
Appeal2015-006342
Application 13/776,326
Figure 21 is a block diagram of a graphical user interface editor display.
Id. i-f 51. Graphics 2104, 2106, and 2108 represent components of workflow
2102. Id. i-f 214. Dragging and dropping a New Workflow item, from the
category W orkflow Instances of workflow components pane 2110, onto
editor pane 2100 creates start node 2112 and end node 2114. Id. i-fi-1 215,
219. W orkflow components pane 2110 includes additional categories
"Triggers" and "Actions." Id. The workflow can include such triggers
when a Trigger node is dragged and dropped on the Start node. Id. at 217.
Only trigger nodes can be dropped onto a start node. Id. at 216. According
to Bachman, in the illustrated embodiment, only one Trigger node can be
added to a workflow. Id. at 217.
Regarding claim 5, the Examiner finds that Bachman teaches a
maximum number of instances (one) of an activity (Trigger node) allowed in
a single workflow, and that a skilled artisan would have combined this
aspect of Bachman with the system of Kayama, Suese, and Nakashima.
Final Act. 9. The Examiner incorporates this analysis for claim 12. Id. at
10.
Appellants argue claims 5 and 12 together. Br. 12-13. Appellants
contend that Bachman's Trigger node is not an activity, but rather is a
trigger for starting an entire workflow. Id. at 12. Appellants argue that
Bachman's Trigger node is tied to the Start node and also is distinguished
from "Action Nodes." Id. at 12-13. Appellants argue that it is unreasonable
for the Examiner to equate triggers with actions. Id. at 13.
Presumably, Appellants are arguing that an "action" corresponds to
"activity," as recited in claims 5 and 12. Appellants, however, do not
provide a construction for "activity," nor do they point to evidence that it
14
Appeal2015-006342
Application 13/776,326
should be read to distinguish from what Bachman terms a "trigger" while
including what Bachman terms an "action." We find no definition of
"activity" in the Specification. Instead, the term is described using non-
limiting examples. See, e.g., Spec. i-f 5 ("For example it may be important to
perform certain activities in a certain order (e.g., a print job cannot be
packaged for delivery before it has been printed). [T]here are a vast number
of possible workflow activities (e.g., hundreds), and each activity may have
its own unique requirements .... "), i-f 18 ("[E]ach workflow defines an
ordered set of activities to perform to process the print job at the print shop.
For example, a workflow may indicate that a print job should be rendered,
then printed, and then cut before being delivered to a user."), i-f 23
("Activities may be performed by pieces of equipment in print shop 100
(e.g., cutters, stackers, staplers, etc.). Activities may even be performed by
people within the print shop (e.g., activities such as pre-flight or proofing of
a print job may be performed by a person at the print shop)."). Appellants
have not introduced persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the
Examiner's finding that Bachman's Trigger node is an activity.
Accordingly, Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 5 and 12.
REJECTION OF CLAIMS 6, 13, AND 19 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Dumitrescu I describes assigning print shop activities priorities,
whereby higher priority activities may be placed before lower priority
activities in a sequence. Dumitrescu I i-f 42. Figure 3 illustrates this in
sequence bar 310. According to Dumitrescu I, multiple activities can have
the same priority. Id. Regarding claim 6, the Examiner contends that this
15
Appeal2015-006342
Application 13/776,326
description teaches dividing a worktlow into multiple phases. Final Act. 8.
The Examiner incorporates this analysis for claims 13 and 19. Id. at 8-9.
Appellants argue claims 6, 13, and 19 together. Br. 13-14.
Appellants argue that sequence bar 310 itself is not a workflow. Br. 13. The
Examiner, however, does not rely on Dumitrescu I as teaching a workflow.
Rather, the Examiner cites Kayama for that teaching. Final Act. 3.
Nevertheless, Dumitrescu I describes using the priorities represented in
sequence bar 310 to determine a workflow. Dumitrescu I i-fi-142, 46. Thus,
Appellants' argument is unpersuasive.
Appellants further argue that "Dumitrescu I makes clear that priority
numbers are not 'allowable phases' in which to place an activity, but rather
indicate how to order activities in relation to each other." Br. 13. Similarly,
Appellants argue that Dumitrescu I's "priority value does not tie an activity
to the beginning, middle, or end of a workflow." Id. at 14. This is incorrect.
Dumitrescu I's priority values serve to separate print shop activities into
groups of activities that are performed in an order, with groups of higher
priority activities performed at the beginning and groups of lower priority
activities performed at the end of a workflow. Dumitrescu I i142.
Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive.
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
6, 13, and 19.
REJECTION OF CLAIMS 7, 14, AND 20 UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Dumitrescu II describes representing different kinds of print job
workflow processing elements using different shapes. Dumitrescu II i-fi-1 66,
72. Examples of different shapes are shown in Figure 6. Regarding claim 7,
16
Appeal2015-006342
Application 13/776,326
the Examiner finds that Dumitrescu II's teaching of depicting different kinds
of workflow elements as different shapes would have been similarly
applicable to the system of Kayama, Suese, and Nakashima, and would have
been used to visually separate the activities of different phases. Final Act.
10-11. As to representing different phases with different colors, the
Examiner finds that using differences in color, rather than differences in
shape, would have been a matter of design choice. Id. at 10. The Examiner
incorporates these findings for claims 14 and 20. Id. at 11.
Appellants argue claims 7, 14, and 20 together. Br. 13-15.
Specifically, Appellants argue that Dumitrescu II's categories are not phases
of a workflow and, thus, Dumitrescu II does not teach matching activities to
specific phases of a workflow based on color. Br. 14--15. Accordingly,
Appellants argue, the Examiner's reasoning is based on hindsight. Id. at 14--
15. As explained above for claim 6, the Examiner cites Dumitrescu I as
teaching dividing a workflow into multiple phases. Thus, Appellants'
argument is unpersuasive.
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
7, 14, and 20.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20 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).
AFFIRMED
17