Ex Parte Walker

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 23, 2017

12750818 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 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.
12/750,818 03/31/2010 Sean M. Walker TRGR(NAL)_026_U S1 9489
90879 7590 02/27/2017
Thomson Reuters c/o Intellectual Property
3 Times Square
New York, NY 10036
EXAMINER
PENG, HUAWEN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2158
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2017 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):
IPDocketing@ThomsonReuters.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SEAN M. WALKER
Appeal 2016-003753
Application 12/750,818
Technology Center 2100
Before: CARLA M. KRIVAK, MICHAEL M. BARRY, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final rejection
of claims 1—19. Non-Final Act. l;Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2016-003753
Application 12/750,818
CLAIMED INVENTION
According to Appellant, his invention relates to systems, methods, and
interfaces for analyzing electronic files. Spec. 1:10—11. Claim 1,
reproduced below with its disputed limitations italicized, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A computer-implemented method for analyzing electronic
files comprising:
receiving an electronic file, wherein the electronic file is
associated with at least one pattern, the at least one pattern
having been parsed from a structure of the electronic file,
wherein the structure of the electronic file comprises a delimiter
within the electronic file;
determining if the at least one pattern is recognized and;
if not, creating a record for at least one
unrecognized pattern, including relating the at least one
unrecognized pattern to the associated electronic file,
within a storage mechanism; and
if so, relating at least one recognized pattern to the
associated electronic file within the storage mechanism;
querying the storage mechanism based on at least one
criteria;
generating a signal associated with a set of results based
on the at least one criteria; and transmitting the signal associated
with the set of results.
REFERENCES
Davis US 7,089,238 B1 Aug. 8,2006
Bluhm US 2006/0294077 A1 Dec. 28, 2006
2
Appeal 2016-003753
Application 12/750,818
REJECTION
Claims 1—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Bluhm and Davis. Non-Final Act. 2.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Bluhm teaches or suggests the disputed
limitations of “wherein the electronic file is associated with at least one
pattern, the at least one pattern having been parsed from a structure of the
electronic file.” Non-Final Act. 3—5; Ans. 3—7. In that regard, the Examiner
finds Bluhm discloses extracting (parsing) a table of contents from metadata
in an electronic file. Ans. 3—6. Further, the Examiner finds the table of
contents is a pattern related to a document collection, which is used to
reference the document collection. Id. at 6.
Appellant argues the Examiner errs because Bluhm’s table of contents
is value-added information created to arrange, describe, track and otherwise
enhance access to information objects, and, therefore, is not analogous to a
pattern. Br. 5. We are not persuaded by this argument because Appellant
does not provide persuasive arguments or evidence as to why such a table of
contents is not analogous to a pattern. In the Answer, the Examiner sets
forth findings explaining why it is, and Appellant has not rebutted those
findings. Ans. 3—7.
Appellant further argues Bluhm’s table of contents contains annotated
or linguistic data and, therefore, is not a pattern from a structure of an
electronic file. Br. 7. We are not persuaded by this argument because the
Examiner finds Figure 6 of Bluhm demonstrates that Bluhm’s metadata 152
is associated with the structure of the displayed document. Ans. 6—7.
Appellant does not demonstrate any errors in this finding.
3
Appeal 2016-003753
Application 12/750,818
Appellant further argues Bluhm’s table of contents references multiple
documents, whereas claim 1 is directed to the pattern recognition of the
structure of a single document. Br. 5—6. We are not persuaded by this
argument because, as the Examiner finds, claim 1 is not limited to pattern
recognition of a single document. Ans. 7. Claim 1 requires an electronic
file be associated with a pattern, however, as the Examiner finds, and
Appellant does not rebut, an electronic file can contain more than one
document. Id.
Accordingly, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and rationale set forth
in the Non-Final Action and in the Answer for rejecting the pending claims,
and we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and of claims 2—19, not separately
argued. Br. 6—7.
DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 1—19.
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
4