Ex Parte Straten

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 15, 2017

13659905 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 15, 2017)

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.
13/659,905 10/24/2012 Jens Straten 2087 8151
23899 7590 09/19/2017
DOT TOT AST WFT T FR
EXAMINER
1832 Rosemary Drive
Gilroy, CA 95020
NGUYEN, LUU-PHUONG T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2177
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/19/2017 ELECTRONIC
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):
patents @ dougweller. com
US PTO @ dockettrak. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JENS STRATEN
Appeal 2017-003444
Application 13/659,9051
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JOHN D. HAMANN, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant files this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s December 31, 2015 Final Rejection (“Final Act.”) rejecting
claims 21—39. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Jens Straten. May 2,
2016 Appeal Brief (“App. Br”) 3.
Appeal 2017-003444
Application 13/659,905
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to document error handling. See
October 24, 2012 Specification (“Spec.”) 12. Claims 21 and 26 are
illustrative of the subject matter of the appeal and are reproduced below.
21. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set
of instructions that when executed cause a computer system to
perform a method of document error handling for intermediate
documents used to interface between two enterprise resource
planning systems or between an enterprise resource planning
system and a translator module, the method comprising:
accessing an electronic document by an editor;
displaying a data node list that includes a plurality of data
nodes;
identifying a selected data node from among the plurality
of data nodes;
displaying a data field arrangement for the selected data
node, wherein the data field arrangement includes a plurality of
data fields associated with the selected data node from the
electronic document, wherein selection of a different selected
data node would result in displaying a different data field
arrangement that includes a different plurality of data fields;
allowing editing of a selected field so as to correct or
eliminate one or more errors listed in an error list, where the
one or more errors appear in the selected field;
adding at least one data segment to the data field
arrangement for the selected data node in response to a data
group addition selection, so that henceforth the at least one data
segment will now be displayed in the data field arrangement for
the selected data node; and,
removing at least one data segment from the data field
arrangement for the selected data node in response to a data
group removal selection, so that the at least one data segment
will no longer be displayed in the data field arrangement for the
selected data node.
2
Appeal 2017-003444
Application 13/659,905
26. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set
of instructions that when executed cause a computer system to
perform a method of document error handling for intermediate
documents used to interface between two enterprise resource
planning systems or between an enterprise resource planning
system and a translator module, the method comprising:
selecting a first editor in response to a first editor
selection, including:
displaying a first editor screen that includes an
error list,
allowing field edits using a field editor so as to
correct or eliminate one or more errors listed in the error
list, and
configuring the first editor screen in response to
user selections; and,
selecting a second editor in response to a second editor
selection, including:
accessing electronic documents by the second
editor,
generating a data node list that includes a plurality
of data nodes,
identifying a selected data node from among the
plurality of data nodes,
generating a data field arrangement for the selected
data node, wherein the data field arrangement includes a
plurality of data fields associated with the selected data
node, and
allowing editing, using the second editor, of a
selected field so as to correct or eliminate one or more
errors that appear in the selected field, where the one or
more errors are listed in the error list.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 21, 26, 27, and 32—35 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Paoli et al. (US 2004/0268229
Al; published Dec. 30, 2004) (hereinafter “Paoli”).
3
Appeal 2017-003444
Application 13/659,905
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 22, 28, and 36 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Paoli, Garding et al.
(US 7,272,795 B2; issued Sept. 18, 2007) (hereinafter “Garding”), and
Bright et al. (US 2002/0013731 Al; published Jan. 31, 2002) (hereinafter
“Bright”).
(3) The Examiner rejected claims 23, 29, and 37 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Paoli and Kusterer et
al. (US 8,510,682 B2; issued Aug. 13, 2013) (hereinafter “Kusterer”).
(4) The Examiner rejected claims 24, 25, 30, 31, 38, and 39 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Paoli and
Roach et al. (US 2008/0115064 Al; published May 15, 2008) (hereinafter
“Roach”).
ISSUES
The dispositive issues for this appeal are whether Paoli discloses:
(1) “[Displaying a data field arrangement for the selected data
node, wherein the data field arrangement includes a plurality of data fields
associated with the selected data node from the electronic document,” as
recited in independent claim 21; and
(2) “[Generating a data node list that includes a plurality of data
nodes,” as recited in independent claims 26 and 32.
4
Appeal 2017-003444
Application 13/659,905
ANALYSIS
We find Appellant’s arguments discussed herein persuasive.
(1) Displaying a data field arrangement
Appellant argues Paoli fails to disclose the disputed limitation for
independent claim 21. App. Br. 16—18; Reply Br. 4—5. More specifically,
Appellant argues Paoli fails to disclose that the cited data field arrangement
is actually displayed. App. Br. 17 (citing Paoli 136, Fig. 1). “Rather, the
data file tree 102 appears only in Figure 1 as an explanation of the structure
of the data file that stores data entered by a user into the data-entry fields of
travel itinerary form 100.” Id.', see also Reply Br. 5 (arguing that the claim
shows the display is interactive, and thus, cannot simply be shown in the
printed patented publication of Paoli’s Fig. 1).
The Examiner finds Paoli discloses the disputed limitation. See Ans.
17. The Examiner begins by finding claim 21 “does not specify” that the
data field arrangement “must be displayed to a user.” Id. The Examiner
finds the cited portions of Paoli “obviously indicate a travel itinerary form
and the graphical representation of the data file tree having icons/data nodes
are displayed/shown.” Id. (citing Paoli Figs. 1—2; || 36—37, 79). “Also,
there is no indication in Paoli that a graphical representation of data file tree
and data nodes cannot be displayed to a user.” Id.
We agree with Appellant as our interpretation of the disclosure of
Paoli coincides with that of Appellant. Claim 21 relates to computer-
readable medium that stores computer instructions that when executed
display the data field arrangement. See App. Br. 30—31 (reciting claim 21).
We agree with Appellant that Paoli depicting the data arrangement for
illustrative purposes is insufficient to disclose “displaying” in accordance
5
Appeal 2017-003444
Application 13/659,905
with the disputed limitation. See Paoli Fig. 1, || 36—37. Furthermore, the
Examiner’s finding that “there is no indication in Paoli” that the data
arrangement (i.e., data tree) “cannot be displayed” is insufficient for finding
Paoli is anticipatory. See Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d
628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (“A claim is anticipated only if each and every
element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently
described, in a single prior art reference.”); In re Montgomery, 677 F.3d
1375, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The inherent result must inevitably result
from the disclosed steps; ‘[ijnherency . . . may not be established by
probabilities or possibilities.’”) (citations omitted).
(2) Generating a data node list
Appellant argues Paoli fails to disclose “generating a data node list
that includes a plurality of data nodes,” as recited in independent claims 26
and 32. App. Br. 23—24; Reply Br. 8—9. Appellant argues Paoli’s teaching
of a command tool fails to disclose this functionality. App. Br. 23—24. In
particular, Appellant argues while Paoli discloses “‘activation of a command
tool’ . . . , no further information is given by Paoli of what a command tool
is or what a command tool does. Paoli merely mentions the term ‘command
tool.’” App. Br. 23 (citing Paoli 47, 84); see also Reply Br. 9 (citing
Paoli 147).
The Examiner finds that Paoli discloses the disputed limitation. Ans.
19—20. More specifically, the Examiner finds Paoli discloses “generating a
data node list that includes a plurality of data nodes” via its teaching of
“displaying a data file tree that shows icons representing nodes of the
markup language data file.” Final Act. 6 (citing Paoli, Figs. 1—2; || 36—37,
79).
6
Appeal 2017-003444
Application 13/659,905
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. We agree with
Appellant that the cited portions of Paoli fail to disclose generating a data
node list, which the claims require occurs in response to a selection of a
second editor. See App. Br. 32, 34 (reciting claims 26 and 32). Rather, the
cited portions of Paoli disclose a data file tree (which the Examiner finds is a
data node list) without disclosing whether or how the data file tree is
generated, including not disclosing whether the data file tree is generated in
response to a selection. See Paoli, Figs. 1—2; || 36—37, 47, 79, 84.
Therefore, on this record, we find the weight of the evidence supports the
position articulated by Appellant in the Briefs.
CONCLUSION
Based on our above findings and reasoning, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s § 102 rejection of independent claims 21, 26, and 32, as well as
claims 22—25, 27—31, and 33—39, which each depend directly or indirectly
from one of these independent claims.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 21—39.
REVERSED
7