Ex Parte Xiao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2016

12865853 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/865,853 12/02/2010
22879 7590 07/05/2016
HP Inc,
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jun Xiao
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.
82241405 6916
EXAMINER
CHEN, HUO LONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2676
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/05/2016 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JUN XIAO, CLAYTON ATKINS, TONG ZHANG, and
SAM LIU
Appeal2014-006981
Application 12/865,853
Technology Center 2600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final decision rejecting claims 1-20, which constitute all the
claims pending in this application. (See Final. Act. 1, 3.) 1 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 We refer to Appellants' Specification ("Spec.") filed Aug. 2, 2010
(claiming benefit of PCT/US08/01438, filed Jan. 31, 2008); Appeal Brief
("App. Br,") filed Feb. 11, 2014; and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed May
12, 2014. We also refer to the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed Apr. 17,
2014, and Final Office Action (Final Rejection) ("Final Act.") mailed Nov.
13, 2013.
Appeal2014-006981
Application 12/865,853
Appellants 'Invention
The invention at issue on appeal concerns apparatuses, computer-
readable media, and methods designating or capturing displayed objects to
be printed (print objects). Capturing the print objects comprises: receiving a
user input gesture (e.g., designating an object using a input device such as a
mouse) over a display area displaying a document, where the document is
displayed according to a structured object specification of the document
(e.g., html schema); identifying an element of the structured object
specification rendered within the designated area; interpreting the user input
gesture as a print command; and determining the print object from the
structured object specification dependent upon the identified element of the
structured object specification. (Spec. 2: 15-3 :3; Abstract.)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed
limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
capturing print objects, wherein for each of the print
objects the capturing respectively comprises
receiving a user input gesture over a region of a document
being rendered on a display in accordance with a structured
object specification of the document,
identifYing an element of the structured object
specification being rendered within an active area of the user
input gesture on the display,
interpreting the user input gesture as a print content
designation command,
deriving the print object from the structured object
specification in accordance with the identified element of the
2
Appeal2014-006981
Application 12/865,853
structured object specification and the print content designation
command;
determining a print layout of the print objects on one or
more pages; and
outputting the print layout.
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 12, 13, and 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Han et al. (US 2006/0285163 Al; pub.
Dec. 21, 2006) ("Han").
2. The Examiner rejects claims 3, 4, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Han and Ou et al. (Jiazhi Ou et al.,
Gestural Communication over Video Stream: Supporting Multimodal
Interaction for Remote Collaborative Physical Tasks, 5th Int'l Conf. on
Multimodal Interfaces (ICMI 2003) (November 5-7, 2003) ("Ou").
3. The Examiner rejects claims 5, 6, 11, 16, and 19 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Han and Cudd et al. (US
2004/0105127 Al; pub. June 3, 2004) ("Cudd").
4. The Examiner rejects claims 7 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Han, Cudd, and Lee (US 2007 /0064288 Al; pub.
Mar. 22, 2007) ("Lee").
5. The Examiner rejects claims 8, 9, and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Han and Kim (2004/0066531 Al; pub.
Apr. 8, 2004) ("Kim").
6. The Examiner rejects claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Han, Kim, and Hull et al. (2005/0024682 Al; pub.
Feb. 3, 2005) ("Hull").
3
Appeal2014-006981
Application 12/865,853
ISSUE
Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellants'
contentions, and the Examiner's findings and conclusions, the pivotal issue
before us follows:
Does the Examiner err in finding that Han discloses "identifying an
element of the structured object specification being rendered within an
active area of the user input gesture on the display" within the meaning of
Appellants' claim 1 and the commensurate limitations of claims 12 and 20?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner provides the same basis for rejecting independent
claims 1, 12, and 20 (Final Act. 3-7; Ans. 5-7), and rejects representative
claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Han. (Final Act.
4---6.) Claim 1 recites "identifying an element of the structured object
specification being rendered \'l1ithin an active area of the user input gesture
on the display" The Examiner finds this limitation is disclosed by Han -
"Han teaches identifying an element of the structure object specification
being rendering within an active area of the user input gesture on the display
[As shown in Fig.4B, the blocks data 1, data 2 and data 3 in a page are being
selected according to the user's input gesture 420 on the display and the
selected blocks data 1, data 2 and data 3 are being printed on a page 430
according to the user's selection." (Ans. 5)- in that Han describes
identifying an area of a display including portions of a document. (Ans. 5-7
(citing Han i-f 77; Fig. 4B).) The Examiner explains that "[t]he blocks data
1, data 2, and data 3 shown in Fig.4B are considered as the element of
4
Appeal2014-006981
Application 12/865,853
structure object specification which being rendering within an active area of
the user input gesture (Fig.4B, item 420) on the display ... " (Ans. 5.)
Appellants contend Han does not disclose a structured document
("structured object specification"), much less identifying a portion of a
structured document (an element of the structured object specification) (see
App. Br. 5-7; Reply Br. 1-3):
Contrary to the Examiner's position, the document
printout preview shown in FIGS. 4A-4C is not a "structured
object specification" as recited in claim 1. Instead, the document
printout preview is an image. Han's system searches for data
blocks (e.g., text, figures, and images) in the document printout
preview image, not in any structured object specification (see,
e.g., i-fi-141, 49, and 54). Indeed, Han does not disclose anything
about a structured object specification of the document and,
therefore, cannot possibly disclose anything about identifying an
element of such a structured object specification.
(App. Br. 7).
Appellants persuade us of error in the anticipation rejection of claim
1. We have reviewed the portions of Han cited by the Examiner. While Han
describes designating/selecting/identifying a portion of a displayed image
(see i-fi-1 42, 43, 48; Fig. 4B) (e.g., a document) (see i177; Fig. 7), Han fails to
describe the data in the print area (Fig. 4B) or the document (i-f 77; Fig. 7) a
structured document. The Examiner's determination that the data (Fig. 4B)
is structured data (a portion of a structured document) has no support in the
disclosure of Han. Accordingly, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner
does not establish that the cited portions of Han disclose identifying an
element of a structured object specification.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding Han anticipates the disputed limitations of
5
Appeal2014-006981
Application 12/865,853
Appellants' claim 1. Independent claims 12 and 20 include limitations of
commensurate scope. Claims 2 and 13 depend on claims 1 and 12,
respectively. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's anticipation rejection
of claims 1, 2, 12, 13, and 20.
With respect to the obviousness rejections of dependent claims 3-11
and 14--19, rejected as obvious over Han as well as Ou, Cudd, Lee, Kim, and
Hull, we reverse the Examiner's obviousness rejections for the same reasons
set forth with respect to claim 1 (supra). In particular, the Examiner has not
shown the additionally cited references overcome the aforementioned
deficiencies Han, as discussed above regarding claim 1. (See Final Act. 8-
20). Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's obviousness rejections of
claims 3-11 and 14--19.
CONCLUSION
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1,
2, 12, 13, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
3-11and14--19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20.
REVERSED
6