Ex Parte Stinger

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 16, 2009

10693403 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 16, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte JAMES R. STINGER
____________________

Appeal 2009-005286
Application 10/693,403
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Decided: September 16, 2009
____________________

Before JAMES D. THOMAS, ST. JOHN COURTENAY, III, and
THU A. DANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

I. STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 7,
9, 12, and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
We affirm.
Appeal 2009-005286
Application 10/693,403

A. INVENTION
According to the Appellant, the invention relates to a “method for
automatically detecting table data in a document that is described by a page
definition language and converting the table data into a markup language
representation” (Spec. 27, ll. 2-4).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary and reproduced below:

1. A computer-implemented method of identifying
table data in a document comprising the steps of:

receiving a page description language representation of
the document for providing a list of words in the document and
position information for the words; and

automatically identifying table data in the document
based on the page description language representation of the
document and at least one table identifying feature, wherein the
identifying step includes,

dividing the document into one or more pages;

dividing each page into a plurality of lines;

for each line, clustering the words of the line into
one or more word clusters, wherein each cluster includes
one or more words, each cluster having a horizontal
beginning point, horizontal midpoint, and horizontal end
point;

for clusters in the plurality of lines, comparing
alignment of the horizontal beginning point, horizontal
midpoint, and horizontal end point of clusters between
lines, wherein a cluster in a first line is aligned with a
2
Appeal 2009-005286
Application 10/693,403

cluster in a previous line if at least one of the horizontal
beginning point, horizontal midpoint, and horizontal end
point of the cluster in the first line is aligned with at least
one of the horizontal beginning point, horizontal
midpoint, and horizontal end point of the cluster in the
previous line; and

identifying a line as being part of a table in
response to more than one cluster of the line being
aligned with clusters of previous lines identified as part
of the table; and

outputting data descriptive of the lines of the table.

C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Alam U.S. 6,336,124 Jan. 1, 2002
(filed as Jul. 7, 1999)

Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 12, and 15-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e) as being anticipated by Alam.

II. ISSUES
1) Has Appellant shown the Examiner erred in finding that Alam
teaches “comparing alignment of the horizontal beginning point, horizontal
midpoint, and horizontal end point of clusters between lines” (claim 1)?
2) Has Appellant shown the Examiner erred in finding that Alam
teaches “identifying a line as being part of a table in response to more than
one cluster of the line being aligned with clusters of previous lines identified
as part of the table” (claim 1)?
3
Appeal 2009-005286
Application 10/693,403

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Alam
1) Alam converts an input format of a document to a different
output format by grouping data of the input format into one or more
intermediate format blocks representing paragraphs, lines, words, tables, and
images (Abstract).
2) In joining page lines into paragraphs, Alam determines if the
left-most, right-most, and middle (average) X-coordinates of a current page
line are aligned with those coordinates of a previous page line within a
paragraph (col. 10, l. 64 – col. 11, l. 30).
3) Alam locates tables and determines their upper and lower
boundaries by evaluating the document’s horizontal projection profile, i.e.,
measuring white space in the horizontal direction (col. 12, ll. 45-52).

IV. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claim Interpretation
The claims measure the invention. See SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec.
Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). “[T]he PTO gives
claims their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.’” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d
1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed.
Cir. 2000)). “Moreover, limitations are not to be read into the claims from
the specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
(citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
4
Appeal 2009-005286
Application 10/693,403

“An intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the
claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in
which the invention operates.” Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v.
Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
35 U.S.C. § 102
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art
reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a
claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm.
Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).
“Anticipation of a patent claim requires a finding that the claim at issue
‘reads on’ a prior art reference.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d
1342, 1346 (Fed Cir. 1999). “In other words, if granting patent protection
on the disputed claim would allow the patentee to exclude the public from
practicing the prior art, then that claim is anticipated, regardless of whether
it also covers subject matter not in the prior art.” Id. (citations omitted).

V. ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 5, 7, 12, and 16
With respect to claim 1, Appellant argues that Alam does not teach
“comparing alignment of the horizontal beginning point, horizontal
midpoint, and horizontal end point of clusters between lines” because
“[w]here Alam does look at X coordinates of words on lines, the use does
not include comparison of any horizontal midpoint of a word, and that use is
not for the purpose of identifying a line as being part of a table” (Br. 8).
However, the Examiner finds that Alam’s teaches such step (Ans. 17-18).
Accordingly, an issue we address on appeal is whether Alam teaches
5
Appeal 2009-005286
Application 10/693,403

“comparing alignment of the horizontal beginning point, horizontal
midpoint, and horizontal end point of clusters between lines” (claim 1).
We begin our analysis by giving the claims their broadest reasonable
interpretation. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1324. Furthermore, our analysis
will not read limitations into the claims from the specification. See In re
Van Geuns, 988 F.2d at 1184.
Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, claim 1 does not require a
“comparison of any horizontal midpoint of a word” (Br. 8; Board’s
emphasis). Rather, claim 1 requires comparing the horizontal beginning,
middle, and end points of “clusters” having one or more words.
Accordingly, we will not read such “midpoint of a word” limitation into
claim 1.
Further, claim 1 does not require this comparison to be “for the
purpose of identifying a line as being part of a table” as Appellant argues
(Br. 8). Rather, claim 1 recites “automatically identifying table data . . . ,
wherein the identifying step includes” this comparison. Again, we will not
read such purpose of identifying “as part of a table” limitation into claim 1.
Furthermore, we note that such purpose of identifying is also an
intended use of the comparison. Thus, even assuming that the comparison
has a purpose of identifying table data, such an intended use merely defines
its context and does not limit the scope of claim 1. See Boehringer, 320
F.3d at 1345.
Alam converts a document’s input format to a different output format
by grouping data of the input format into blocks of paragraphs, lines, words,
tables, and images (FF 1). In joining page lines into paragraphs, Alam
determines if the left-most, right-most, and middle X-coordinates of a
6
Appeal 2009-005286
Application 10/693,403

current page line are aligned with those coordinates of a previous page line
(FF 2). A skilled artisan would have understood this process of Alam as
“comparing alignment of the horizontal beginning point, horizontal
midpoint, and horizontal end point of clusters between lines” (claim 1),
where “clusters between lines” reads on the joined current and previous page
lines of a paragraph.
Alam determines the upper and lower boundaries of tables by
evaluating a document’s horizontal projection profile, i.e., measuring white
space in the horizontal direction (FF 3). We find this process compares the
alignment of the beginning, middle, and/or end points of page lines because
a document’s horizontal projection profile is controlled by the alignment and
shifting of page lines, e.g., aligned end points produce a static right margin.
Thus, a skilled artisan would have understood this process of Alam as
“comparing alignment of the horizontal beginning point, horizontal
midpoint, and horizontal end point of clusters between lines” (claim 1),
where “clusters between lines” reads on the page lines forming an evaluated
horizontal projection profile.
Appellant also argues that Alam does not teach “identifying a line as
being part of a table in response to more than one cluster of the line being
aligned with clusters of previous lines identified as part of the table” (Br. 5).
In doing so, Appellant contends that Alam provides “no apparent reference
to the use of alignment of more than one cluster between a line and a
previous line in the identifying of a line as being part of a table” (Br. 6); and
further contends that Alam “locates boundaries of a table and does not
identify a line as being part of a table based on alignment of clusters” (Id.).
However, the Examiner finds that Alam’s teaches such step (Ans. 6).
7
Appeal 2009-005286
Application 10/693,403

Accordingly, another issue we address on appeal is whether Alam teaches
“identifying a line as being part of a table in response to more than one
cluster of the line being aligned with clusters of previous lines identified as
part of the table” (claim 1).
Alam locates tables by evaluating a document’s horizontal projection
profile, i.e., white space in the horizontal direction (FF 3). We find that
Alam thereby identifies a current page line and previous page line as part of
the same table in response to their left-most and right-most clusters being
aligned, i.e., in response to their horizontal projections being the same.
Thus, a skilled artisan would have understood Alam as “identifying a line as
being part of a table in response to more than one cluster of the line being
aligned with clusters of previous lines identified as part of the table” (claim
1), where “more than one cluster of the line” reads on the left-most and
right-most clusters of a current table line and the “clusters of previous lines
identified as part of the table” reads on the left-most and right-most clusters
of a previous table line.
Accordingly, for the above reasons, we conclude that Appellant has
not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and claims 5, 7, 12, and
16 falling therewith, as anticipated by Alam under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

Claims 3 and 9
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and recites,
using the word clusters to generate column position
information, wherein the column information includes for each
column a horizontal beginning point, horizontal midpoint, and
horizontal end point; and

8
Appeal 2009-005286
Application 10/693,403

updating the column position information by performing
a union operation between the column position information of a
previous line and the column position information of a current
line.

According to Appellant, “Alam appears to be silent on any use of a
horizontal midpoint of a column” and “there is no apparent teaching or
suggestion by Alam that the word clusters are used to generate column
information that includes a horizontal midpoint” (Br. 10-11).
Contrary to Appellant’s argument, claim 3 does not require that the
column position information be generated by word clusters. In fact, claim 3
does not place any limitation on what “column position information” means,
includes, or represents, other than that it “includes for each column a
horizontal beginning point, horizontal midpoint, and horizontal end point.”
We interpret “column position information” as reading on the mere position
of any format block that is arranged within a column and has horizontal
beginning, middle, and end points, e.g., as reading on the vertical and/or
horizontal position of any paragraph, table, or line.
Claim 3 also does not place any limitation on what “updating the
column position information by performing a union operation” means or
represents, other than that it requires the use of column position information
for a previous line and current line. We interpret “updating the column
position information by performing a union operation” as reading on any
determination of column position that is based on the column position of a
previous line and current line.
As explained with respect to claim 1, we find that Alam adds page
lines to paragraphs and tables based on whether a current page line and
9
Appeal 2009-005286
Application 10/693,403

previous page line are aligned. We also find, consequently, that Alam
determines a paragraph’s or table’s vertical column position based on the
horizontal column positions of a current line and previous line. A skilled
artisan would have therefore understood Alam as “updating the column
position information by performing a union operation between the column
position information of a previous line and the column position information
of a current line” (claim 3), where “updating the column position
information” reads on adding a page line to a paragraph or table.
Accordingly, we conclude that Appellant has not shown the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 3, and claim 9 falling therewith, as anticipated by
Alam under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Claims 18, 19, and 20
Claim 18 depends from claim 1 and recites, “determining whether the
number of word clusters in a line is greater than a threshold value; and
classifying the word clusters in the line as a row of a table in response to the
number of word clusters in a line being greater than the threshold value.”
Appellant argues that the cited teaching of Alam merely “determines
whether a word is in the current line based on the distance between that
word and another word in the current line” and does not determine whether
that current line is part of a table (Br. 11-12).
Alam’s process of locating tables includes evaluating the horizontal
projection of a line or lines (FF 3). We find that this process includes
determining whether a line has at least one word cluster, because the line
would otherwise have no horizontal projection. Consequently, we find a
skilled artisan would have understood Alam as “determining whether the
number of word clusters in a line is greater than a threshold value” (claim
10
Appeal 2009-005286
Application 10/693,403

18) of zero; and as “classifying the word clusters in the line as a row of a
table in response to the number of word clusters in a line being greater than
the threshold value” (claim 18).
Accordingly, we conclude that Appellant has not shown the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 18, and claims 19 and 20 falling therewith, as
anticipated by Alam under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

VI. CONCLUSION
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 12, and 15-20 are anticipated by Alam.

VII. DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 12, and 15-20
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 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

peb

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION
3404 E. HARMONY ROAD
MAIL STOP 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528
11