Ex Parte Vion-Dury

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 21, 2016

12754812 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121754,812 04/06/2010
62095 7590 03/21/2016
FAY SHARPE I XEROX - ROCHESTER
1228 EUCLID A VENUE, 5TH FLOOR
THE HALLE BUILDING
CLEVELAND, OH 44115
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jean-Yves Vion-Dury
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.
20091625USNP-XER2412US01 7417
EXAMINER
BLOOMQUIST, KEITH D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2178
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
03/21/2016 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 JEAN-YVES VION-DURY
Appeal2014-003441
Application 12/754,812 1
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JOHN A. HUDALLA, and
MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 11-17, and 19-24. Claims 3, 5, 10, and 18 have been
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part.
THE INVENTION
Appellant's invention is directed to encoding and handling self-
contained and incremental document history for documents encoded in a
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Xerox Corporation.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-003441
Application 12/754,812
markup language such as Extensible Markup Language (XML). Spec. i-f 1.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer-implemented method for processing a
markup language document, comprising:
receiving a first version of a target document into
computer memory;
receiving a second version of the target document into
computer memory;
using a computer memory, encapsulating one of the first
and second versions of the target document within an
encapsulating document, the encapsulated document being
represented in the encapsulating document as a tree of
interconnected nodes encoding the entire one of the first and
second versions of the document;
encoding a change history corresponding to a difference
between the first version and second version of the target
document, wherein the change history contains a versioning
point for each of a plurality of versions of the target document
and a respective version identifier;
wherein in the encoding of the change history, a
diff engine compares the two versions of the target
document and outputs the differences between the two
versions in a change description language; and
wherein at least one of the versioning points
contains a version difference derived from the diff engine
output;
encapsulating the change history within the encapsulating
document;
providing for receiving a version identifier into computer
memory corresponding to one of the versions encapsulated in
the encapsulating document;
2
Appeal2014-003441
Application 12/754,812
applying version differences contained within the change
history to the version of the target document within the
encapsulating document such that, after the version differences
are applied, the encapsulated version of the target document
represents the versioning point corresponding to the received
version identifier;
re-encoding the versioning points, which are contained
within the change history of the encapsulating document,
relative to the focused target document; and
outputting the encapsulating document.
Reply Br. 25-262 (Claims App.).
THE EXAMINER'S REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 11-13, 16, 17, and 19-21 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Roberts (US 2008/0077848 Al, Mar.
27, 2008), Tsao (US 2003/0149699 Al, Aug. 7, 2003), Aridor (US
7,454,745 R2, Nov. 18, 2008), and Hamburg (US 2001/0049704 Al, nee. 6,
2001). Ans. 2-12.
Claims 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Roberts and Hamburg. Ans. 12-14.
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Roberts, Hamburg, and Aridor. Ans. 14--15.
2 Throughout this Decision, we make reference exclusively to Appellant's
Reply Brief, which Appellant states "may be treated as a substitute for the
Appeal Brief filed on August 13, 2013." Reply Br. 8. The Reply Brief
appears to include the entirety of Appellant's opening Appeal Brief plus
responses to the Examiner's Answer.
3
Appeal2014-003441
Application 12/754,812
Claims 23 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Roberts, Tsao, Aridor, Hamburg, and Baer (US
2008/0172607 Al, July 17, 2008). Ans. 15-17.
ISSUES
Does the Examiner err in finding the combination of Roberts, Tsao,
Aridor, and Hamburg teaches or suggests "re-encoding the versioning points
... relative to the focused target document," as recited in claim 1?
Does the Examiner err in finding the combination of Roberts and
Hamburg teaches or suggests "the encoded change history" limitations in
claim 14?
Does the Examiner err in finding the combination of Roberts and
Hamburg teaches or suggests "each version difference of the encoded
change history has a link direction which is one of forward and backward,"
as recited in claim 15?
ANALYSIS
A. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6--9, 11-13, 16, 17, 19-21, 23, and 24
In the obviousness rejection of claim 1, the Examiner finds Hamburg
teaches "re-encoding the versioning points, which are contained within the
change history of the encapsulating document, relative to the focused target
document."3 Ans. 6-7. Specifically, the Examiner finds this limitation
reads on Hamburg's purported re-encoding of changes "from an undo to a
3 The phrase "the focused target document" in claim 1 lacks antecedent
basis. In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner should consider
rejecting claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite.
4
Appeal2014-003441
Application 12/754,812
redo operation" when a user utilizes "commands for stepping through
various changes in a document." Id. (citing Hamburg i-fi-135-36). The
Examiner also finds "Appellant offers no explanation in the appeal brief of
what is meant by 're-encoding versioning points,' nor is there any
description of what this operation is in the claim itself." Id. at 18.
Appellant argues "Hamburg does not disclose re-encoding versioning
points." Reply Br. 10. Specifically, Appellant argues "Hamburg works by
deleting the subsequent history from a selected prior state." Id. Appellant
further argues Hamburg merely "stores a set of states the state history" and
"does not encode the changes between states." Reply Br. 13 (citing
Hamburg i129).
Contrary to the Examiner's findings, re-encoding versioning points is
described in Appellant's Specification. Specifically, "versioning points" are
"one or more significant states ... [that] a document adopted during its
existence,'' Spec. ,-r 25 (cited at Reply Br. 11 ), and at least one of the
versioning points in claim 1 "contains a version difference derived from the
diff engine output." Also in claim 1, after "the encapsulated version of the
target document" is changed to correspond with "the received version
identifier," the versioning points are "re-encode[ d]" relative to the changed
version of the target document, i.e., "the focused target document." This is
described in paragraph 69 of Appellant's Specification: "The focusing
module 116 then re-encodes the focused encapsulating document 20 such
that the target XML document and history contained within the
encapsulating document reflect the version state indicated by the input
version number 106." Spec. i169 (quoted at Reply Br. 11). For example,
when a new versioning point is created, re-encoding can include changing
5
Appeal2014-003441
Application 12/754,812
"the previous versioning points ... [to] include new deltas which will allow
transformation from the previous versioning points ... to the new versioning
point 26." Id. i-f 97 (quoted at Reply Br. 11). In general, "delta elements ...
capture the transition from the focused versioning point ... to another
versioning point," such as "[a] forward link [that] links a prior version to a
later version, and a backward link [that] links a later version to a prior
version." Spec. i-f 41; see also id. at Fig. 4 B ("bwd" delta element 54 and
"fwd" delta element 56). As summarized by Appellant, re-encoding
therefore "entails encoding [the] delta encodings again so that the backward
(and/or forward) transitions from the currently focused version of the
document to the other versioning points is available." Reply Br. 12.
Hamburg teaches "[t]he state of the document is recorded in the state
history after the user makes a change to the document that changes the state
of the document." Hamburg i-f 29 (cited at Ans. 5). Moreover, "[ w ]hen a
document state is recorded, it is appended as an item at the end of the history
list portion 206." Id. i-f 30 (cited at Ans. 5). The Examiner characterizes
these states as "undo or redo operations relative to a currently active version
of a target document." Ans. 18. Yet the Examiner has not cited to any
portion of Hamburg in which undo or redo operations are encoded or re-
encoded "relative to the focused target document," as recited in claim 1. In
fact, Hamburg teaches that a state history "provides a way to implement
multiple undo efficiently while avoiding operation sequence dependencies."
Hamburg i-f 15 (emphasis added). Avoiding operating sequence
dependencies is contrary to the recited versioning points, which are re-
encoded "relative to the focused target document." We therefore agree with
Appellant that Hamburg does not teach "encod[ing] the changes between
6
Appeal2014-003441
Application 12/754,812
states," Reply Br. 13, so the Examiner errs in applying Hamburg for
teaching "re-encoding the versioning points ... relative to the focused target
document," as recited in claim 1. Under these circumstances, the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1 cannot stand.
For these reasons, we are persuaded of error in the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1, so we do not sustain the rejection. Independent claim
16 recites a similar limitation ("re-encode the versioning points contained
within the change history relative to the second focused version of the target
document"), and is rejected on a basis similar to that of claim 1, so we
likewise do not sustain the rejection of claim 16. We additionally do not
sustain the rejection of claims 2, 4, 6-9, 11-13, 17, 19-21, 23, and 24, which
depend from claim 1 or 16.
B. Claims 14 and 22
Claim 14 recites, inter alia:
the encoded change history comprises a plurality of versioning
points, each including a respective version identifier, the
plurality of versioning points including a prior versioning point
and a subsequent version point, and the encoded change history
further comprises at least two version differences: one which is
a link pointing backward to the prior versioning point and one
which is a link pointing forward to the subsequent versioning
point ....
Reply Br. 28-29. The Examiner again cites Hamburg for teaching
"versioning points" that "contain links to both an 'undo' and 'redo' point
that steps backward and forward to a different document state." Ans. 23
(citing Hamburg i-fi-135-36); see also id. at 13 (citing Hamburg i-fi-129-30,
32),. The Examiner also cites Roberts for teaching "version differences."
7
Appeal2014-003441
Application 12/754,812
Id. at 13 (citing Roberts i-f 61, Fig. 3), 23 (citing Roberts i-f 64). The
Examiner explains "Roberts describes that documents may contain both
starting and ending document states which would then allow for stepping
both forward and backward through document histories." Id. at 23 (citing
Roberts ,-r 64).
Appellant argues "Hamburg ... does not suggest version differences
pointing both forward and backward, as Hamburg describes a user interface,
not a document having an encapsulated history." Reply Br. 19. We are not
persuaded by this argument, however, because we agree with the Examiner
that Hamburg's "step forward and step backward commands" in paragraph
36 are at least suggestive of "a link pointing backward to the prior
versioning point and one which is a link pointing forward to the subsequent
versioning point." Hamburg i-f 36 (cited at Ans. 23). We are not persuaded
that the association between this teaching and a user interface in Hamburg
undermines the Examiner;s finding.
Appellant also argues Hamburg "does not disclose that [Hamburg's]
history [list] is part of an encapsulated document." Reply Br. 19-20. This
argument is also not persuasive, because the Examiner relies on Roberts, not
Hamburg, for teaching an encapsulated document. See Ans. 13 (citing
Roberts ,-r 61, Fig. 3).
Furthermore, Appellant argues "Roberts does not disclose a forward
and backward link in the same document." Reply Br. 20. We are not
persuaded by Appellant's argument. The Examiner establishes Roberts
teaches "a 'two-sided' delta document that references both a start and an end
document." Roberts i-f 64 (cited at Ans. 23). We agree with the Examiner
8
Appeal2014-003441
Application 12/754,812
that this reference to various document states "would then allow for stepping
both forward and backward through document histories." Ans. 23.
Finally, referring to Roberts's teaching on delta documents, Appellant
argues "Roberts ... uses a separate document" to track changes. Reply Br.
20 (citing Roberts, Abstract). Nevertheless, we are not persuaded of error in
the Examiner's rejection, because Appellant's argument attacks Roberts
individually, rather than the combination of Roberts and Hamburg posited
by the Examiner. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). In this
case, the Examiner proposes combining Hamburg's document histories with
Roberts's "facilities for universal, portable document histories" to obtain
"the benefits of a simple interface for manipulating a document with those of
creating the version history." Ans. 14. Appellant has not persuasively
shown error in this rationale for the combination, which we find to be
supported by adequate reasoning, including a rational underpinning drawn
from the cited references. See KS'R Int? Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418 (2007).
For these reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error in the
Examiner's rejection of claim 14. We therefore sustain the rejection of
claim 14. Appellant relies on the same argument for claim 22, see Reply Br.
22, so we likewise sustain the rejection of that claim.
C. Claim 15
Claim 15 depends from claim 14 and recites "each version difference
of the encoded change history has a link direction which is one of forward
and backward .... " The Examiner cites Hamburg paragraphs 29, 31-32,
and 35 and Appellant's purported admission relative to Roberts paragraph
9
Appeal2014-003441
Application 12/754,812
64 for teaching this limitation. See Ans. 14, 24. Although Appellant
contends "Hamburg does not suggest that there are version differences with
a direction associated with these earlier or later documents," Reply Br. 21,
Hamburg teaches "earlier and later document states," which are at least
suggestive of directionality. Hamburg i-f 32 (cited at Ans. 24). In addition,
Roberts' s teachings in paragraph 64 on forward or backwards deltas further
supports the Examiner's findings. Ans. 24 (citing App. Br. 17).
Specifically, Roberts's "'two-sided' delta document" teaches references in
two directions: toward a start document state and toward an end document
state. Roberts i-f 64. For these reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner's rejection of claim 15. We therefore sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 15.
DECISION
The Examiner;s rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 11-13, 16, 17, 19-
21, 23, and 24 are reversed.
The Examiner's rejections of claims 14, 15, and 22 are 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)(l).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
10