Ex Parte Woolsey

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 1, 2017

11398575 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 1, 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.
11/398,575 04/04/2006 Les G. Woolsey 58083-857792 (B204) 8666
72058 7590 02/03/2017
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Adobe Systems, Inc. 58083
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309-4530
EXAMINER
BURKE, TIONNA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/03/2017 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):
ipefiling @ kilpatrickstockton .com
jlhice@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LES G. WOOLSEY
Appeal 2016-001053
Application 11/398,575
Technology Center 2100
Before DONALD E. ADAMS, JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, and
ULRIKH W. JENKS, Administrative Patent Judges.
FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal1 under 35U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to an
automated method of facilitating recovery from an error encountered during
creation of a document from a template. The Examiner rejected the claims
as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
Statement of the Case
Background
“When creation of a document fails, or the created document contains
an error, it is often very difficult to correct the error or errors” (Spec. 1:23—
1 Appellant identifies the Real Party in Interest as Adobe Systems
Incorporated (see App. Br. 4).
Appeal 2016-001053
Application 11/398,575
24). The Specification teaches that “help desk or technical support
personnel may not be able to trace or reproduce the error even if they
attempt to create the same document using the same form, because they may
be doing so with different parameters” (Spec. 2:1—3).
The Specification teaches a method which includes “gathering some
or all input collateral (e.g., the document template, input data, instructions
for creating the document) and adding it to the target document. If the target
document is not created, the input collateral may be placed in an error
document” (Spec. 2:17—20).
The Claims
Claims 19-29 are on appeal. Claim 19 is representative and reads as
follows:
19. A method comprising:
performing by one or more computing devices:
receiving input providing data in a document creation
environment;
receiving a request to create a document by merging a
template and the data;
detecting an error when attempting to merge the data
and a template to create the document;
in response to detecting the error:
assembling collateral items identifying
operating conditions in the document creation
environment when the error occurred, the collateral
items comprising log documents generated during the
attempt to create the document, the template, the data,
a configuration file used to configure the document, a
driver file defining formatting rules for the document,
and instructions for creating the document; and
providing the collateral items in a single document for
error recovery.
2
Appeal 2016-001053
Application 11/398,575
The issues
A. The Examiner rejected claims 19, 22, and 25—29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Stiegemeier2 and McElhannon3 (Ans. 2—8).
B. The Examiner rejected claims 20-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Stiegemeier, McElhannon, and Dryer4 (Ans. 8—9).
Because the same issues are dispositive for both rejections, we will
consider these rejections together.
The Examiner relies upon Stiegemeier for the document and error
detection claim limitations but finds “Stiegemeier fails to expressly disclose
reporting operation conditions during a merger of a template and data to
create documents” (Ans. 3—4). The Examiner relies upon McElhannon to
teach “assembling collateral items'1'’ including “all the error information and
conditions needed to recover the error when the user attempted to create the
document” (Ans. 4).
The Examiner finds it obvious to “modify the method disclosed by
Stiegemeier, to include log document generated for error recovery for the
purpose of efficiently reporting error information for accurate and easily
error recovery, as taught by McElhannon” (Ans. 5).
The issue with respect to these rejections is: Does the evidence of
record support the Examiner’s conclusion that Stiegemeier and McElhannon
render the claims obvious?
2 Stiegemeier et al., US 6,192,381 Bl, issued Feb. 20, 2001
(“Stiegemeier”).
3 McElhannon, J., US 2005/0137916 Al, published June 23, 2005.
4 Dryer, J., US 7,451,321 B2, issued Nov. 11, 2008.
3
Appeal 2016-001053
Application 11/398,575
Findings of Fact
1. Stiegemeier teaches that “the user may also create a new
document” (Stiegemeier 9:67).
2. Stiegemeier teaches that before “the system displays the
document, the system must retrieve a document template from the server or
another storage device, locally or remotely, in step 303. The template
contains, for example, instructions for formatting the document data”
(Stiegemeier 10:3—7).
3. Stiegemeier teaches that:
The document may optionally include a code which
identifies the appropriate template that will provide the
format for displaying the data. The system looks for this
code and, if the code exists, in step 403 the system
determines whether a template corresponding to that code is
available in active memory or on one of the storage devices.
(Stiegemeier 10:36-41).
4. Stiegemeier teaches that the “features of the system client script
program are used when the system activates a document in step 306”
(Stiegemeier 10:15—17).
5. Stiegemeier teaches that:
The second feature of the client script program is that
it allows the user to automatically or manually correct,
validate, and/or enter additional information when required.
Referring again to FIG. 5, in this example the Social
Security Number (“SSN”) field 504 requires the user input a
nine-digit number. When the user enters information into
this field, the client script program will review the entry and
return an error message if the entry does not contain nine
digits (e.g., the entry contains only eight digits, or the entry
contains characters that are not numbers). This error
4
Appeal 2016-001053
Application 11/398,575
message may appear immediately, and the user may be
required to correct the information before proceeding.
Alternatively, or in addition, the message may appear in a
“To Do list” box 505 within which all error messages are
stored for further review and correction by the user. Such
error messages may also appear if the user fails to enter data
into a required field, as illustrated in the FIG. 5 example,
where the user failed to enter information in a “Blood Type”
field 507, and the system accordingly returned an error
message in the “To Do” list box 505.
(Stiegemeier 12:11—30).
6. Stiegemeier teaches that
The client script program may also optionally provide for
automatic formatting of certain types of data. For example,
if the user neglects to include dashes, or includes dashes in
the wrong place, when entering a Social Security Number
into the “SSN” field 504, the system may automatically
insert dashes into the entry at the appropriate locations. As
another example, the client script program may allow the
user to enter abbreviations, such as the simple entry “M” in
a field labeled “Sex” 506, which the client script program
will recognize as meaning “male”.
(Stiegemeier 12:31—40).
7. McElhannon teaches: “This invention relates generally to
common use self-service (CUSS), or stand alone, kiosks. More specifically,
this invention relates to systems and methods for error detection and
recovery in CUSS kiosks, thereby allowing the user to more rapidly
complete a desired task” (McElhannon 12).
8. McElhannon teaches:
At step S250 the system detects for errors. If an error occurs or
another command failure is detected, an error message is
5
Appeal 2016-001053
Application 11/398,575
displayed on the display screen 20 and error information is
generated by the error detection module of the system at step
S500. A recovery coupon 60 is printed at step S600 at the
kiosk printer 50, and the agent's display 90 is updated. The
passenger is prompted to take the recovery coupon 60 to an
agent workstation 80 for assistance and the application yields to
the launch application.
(McElhannon 148).
9. McElhannon teaches: “Upon detection of a failure during
check-in, a recovery coupon 60 containing a pointer to the error condition’s
data is printed at the boarding pass printer 50 and the agent’s display 90 is
updated. At step S700 the passenger delivers the recovery coupon 60 to the
agent” (McElhannon 1 53).
10. McElhannon teaches “upon receipt of the recovery coupon 60,
the agent reads the information contained on the coupon 60 at either the
recovery coupon reader 120 or the travel document reader/printer 130”
(McElhannon 1 54).
11. McElhannon teaches:
The error recovery module of the system uses the information
provided on the recovery coupon 60 to view the passenger’s
information and the error information generated by the error
detection module. From this information, the system
determines which commands succeeded and which failed at
step S720. Depending on the successes and failures reported,
the error recovery module of the system offers solutions to the
agent based on the information provided on the coupon 60.
(McElhannon 155).
6
Appeal 2016-001053
Application 11/398,575
Principles of Law
A prima facie case for obviousness “requires a suggestion of all
limitations in a claim,” CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int’l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333,
1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003) and “a reason that would have prompted a person of
ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the
claimed new invention does.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418 (2007).
Analysis
Appellants contend:
Determining which commands succeeded and which failed is
merely determining the progress of an application, and does not
describe assembling the operating conditions the application
was running in. McElhannon’s disclosure of why an identified
step in an identified session failed is not the same as or
suggestive of the operating conditions in a document creation
environment when an error occurred.
(App. Br. 10). Appellants also contend the rejection lacked reasoning “why
any of the references would have suggested to the skilled artisan to combine
creating a ‘To Do List’ of data entry errors in a draft document with creating
an error recovery coupon indicating what commands were completed . . .
when a user attempts to perform a transaction at a kiosk” (App. Br. 14—15).
The Examiner responds “[s]ome of the error information includes
error condition data, information inputted into the system and reasons the
error occurred. An administrator is able to tell which commands succeeded
and which commands failed. All this information, operating conditions, is
included in a recovery coupon” (Ans. 9). The Examiner also responds
“[tjhese references are combined because both documents] have error
7
Appeal 2016-001053
Application 11/398,575
detection and recovery. McElhannon is about to provide a recovery coupon
that includes specific commands used and information to determine a
resolution, which are steps that are not included in Stiegemeier” (Ans. 13).
We agree with Appellants that McElhannon does not teach that the
“error information” generated by system at step S250 involves the assembly
of error information associated with operating conditions including the
configuration file, driver file, log documents or template as required by
claim 19 (see FF 8—11). Instead, McElhannon simply teaches “error
information” is generated to determine “which commands succeeded and
which failed” (FF 11). We therefore agree that the cited prior art does not
support the Examiner’s position because there is no clear teaching to
assemble “collateral items identifying operating conditions in the document
creation environment” as required by claim 19.
We also agree with Appellants that simply because McElhannon
generally teaches error detection and recovery does not provide a reason to
modify Stiegemeier’s process to assemble “collateral items identifying
operating conditions in the document creation environment” as required by
claim 19, and in particular, to assemble log documents, template, data,
configuration file, driver file and instructions as further recited in claim 19.
That is, even if general “error detection” is obvious over McElhannon, the
rejection provides no reason why the specific information recited would
have been selected.
Conclusion of Law
The evidence of record does not support the Examiner’s conclusion
that Stiegemeier and McElhannon render the claims obvious.
8
Appeal 2016-001053
Application 11/398,575
SUMMARY
In summary, we reverse the obviousness rejections.
REVERSED
9