Ex Parte Young

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 16, 2016

13298055 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/298,055 11/16/2011
108982 7590
Wolfe-SBMC
116 W. Pacific A venue
Suite 300
Spokane, WA 99201
11/18/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Stacy Young
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.
2080US01 8257
EXAMINER
XIAO,DI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2141
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/18/2016 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):
docket@sbmc-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STACY YOUNG
Appeal2015-008234
Application 13/298,055 1
Technology Center 2100
Before LARRY J. HUME, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOW ARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1---6, 8-12, 22-24, and 26-32, which constitute all of the claims
pending in this application. Claims 7, 13-21, and 25 have been cancelled.
App. Br. 44, 45, 47. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Adobe Systems Incorporated as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2015-008234
Application 13/298,055
THE INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a "visual editor that
defines a workflow." Spec. i-f 2. "In addition, a portion of a map is selected
with the visual editor by marking a geo fence with boundaries." Abstract.
"The workflow authoring program also establishes a geo decision point in
the workflow at which a determination is made if a condition is met within
the geo fence." Id.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. One or more computer-readable storage devices,
comprising instructions executable by one or more processors of
a computing device to implement a workflow authoring system
configured to generate a location-aware workflow, the
generation comprising:
invoking a visual editor, the visual editor configured to:
receive inputs specifying a sequence of tasks of an
initial workflow;
insert a node in the initial \~1orkflo\~1, the node
defining a decision point in the initial workflow, the
decision point making a decision based upon a geographic
location;
display a map in the visual editor; and
responsive to receiving an input to select one or
more regions of the map, mark the one or more selected
regions with boundaries that indicate the selected regions
of the map, the decision point comparing the geographic
location with the one or more selected regions to
determine a branch to follow in the sequence of tasks after
the decision point, the determination being based on the
geographic location being within one of the one or more
selected regions, and the branch being associated with the
one of the one or more selected regions.
2
Appeal2015-008234
Application 13/298,055
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Budinger
Florance
Karlsson
Tan
Sheridan
Binsztok
US 7,242,991 B2
US 2009/0132316 Al
US 7,565,156 B2
US 2011/0010005 Al
US 2011/0178811 Al
US 2012/0185793 Al
REJECTIONS
July 10, 2007
May 21, 2009
July 21, 2009
Jan. 13, 2011
July 21, 2011
July 19, 2012
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 22, 24, 26, 27, and 28 stand rejected under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sheridan in view of
Binsztok. Final Act. 2-8.
Claims 2, 9, 23, and 29 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sheridan in view of Binsztok and
Florance. Final Act. 8-9.
Claim 30 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sheridan in view of Binsztok, Florance, and Karlsson.
Final Act. 9-10.
Claims 31 and 32 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Sheridan in view of Binsztok and Budinger. Final
Act. 10-11.
Claims 4, 11, and 25 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Sheridan in view of Binsztok and Tan. Final
Act. 11.
3
Appeal2015-008234
Application 13/298,055
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellant's
arguments the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellant. We
are persuaded by Appellant's arguments regarding the pending claims.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding Sheridan teaches
"invoking a visual editor, the visual editor configured to: receive inputs
specifying a sequence of tasks of an initial workflow," as recited in claim 1.
App. Br. 12-14; Reply Br. 2--4. Specifically, Appellant contends "Sheridan
generally describes a navigation system that indicates when a geo-fence
specified around the location of the navigation system intersects a geo-fence
specified relative to a point of interest." App. Br. 13. Appellant argues that
although "[ t ]he user in Sheridan enters parameters for a search for the point
of interest (paragraph 52)[, that is] ... not a sequence of steps of an initial
workflow." Id.
Regarding the Examiner's finding regarding Sheridan's OK Diner
feature, Appellant argues that also does not invoke a workflow:
The selection of the first business, based on the display of
the businesses that are within range, is not specifying a sequence
of tasks, as the user is merely selecting a single destination (i.e.,
the user is not specifying a sequence of multiple tasks). The
selection of the first business and the resulting display of the
message from the selected business in Sheridan are not,
"invoking a visual editor, the visual editor configured to: receive
inputs specifying a sequence of tasks of an initial workflow," as
recited by claim 1.
Reply Br. 4.
The Examiner finds Sheridan teaches that "the user can define[] what
she or he is looking for ... [and the] user can select to search a sequence of
4
Appeal2015-008234
Application 13/298,055
task to search, [the] first task is to search best diner, and alternative task to
search OK Diner." Final Act. 3 (citing Sheridan i-fi-143--45, 47, 50, 54, 134).
The Examiner maps those features to "the visual editor configured to:
receive inputs specifying a sequence of tasks of an initial workflow," recited
in claim 1. Id. The Examiner expands on how the OK Diner feature is a
claimed workflow and finds:
With regard to the aspect of user input specifying a sequence of
tasks of an initial workflow. In Sheridan, after a user defines a
shape, the user would then defines the search criteria which is the
sequence of task. See paragraph 53 to 54 for, for example user
first define search for best diner and then defines an alternate
search for "Ok Diner". The system would then search based on
the defined sequence tasks for the best diner and then OK diner.
There the claim limitation is clearly taught in Sheridan and
applicant's argument is unpersuasive.
Ans. 4.
During examination of a patent application, a claim is given its
broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification, as it \vould be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (internal citations and quotations
omitted). There is a presumption that a claim term carries its ordinary and
customary meaning. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed.
Cir. 2007). An applicant may rebut this presumption, however, by acting as
his own lexicographer, providing a definition of the term in the specification
with "reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision." See In re Paulsen,
30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Claim 1 recites that the visual editor "receive inputs specifying a
sequence of tasks of an initial workjlow." App. Br. 42 (Claims App'x)
(emphasis added). Consistent with the requirements of a workflow recited
5
Appeal2015-008234
Application I3/298,055
in claim 1, the Specification states that a "worktlow may be utilized to
provide a sequence of events in which tasks are to be per/ ormed." Spec.
i-f 4 (emphasis added). The Specification further identifies Figure IA, which
identifies a sequence of events in which tasks are performed, as an
illustrative workflow. Spec. i-f IO, Fig. IA. Based on the language of the
claim, the use of workflow in the specification and its ordinary meaning, 2 we
are persuaded by Appellant's argument that the Examiner erred. There is
nothing in the cited paragraphs of Sheridan that teaches or suggests
receiving "inputs specifying a sequence of tasks" to be performed.
Accordingly, the Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence or provided
sufficient explanation as to how Sheridan teaches the disputed limitation.
On this record, the Examiner has not shown how the additionally cited
secondary references - Binsztok, Florance, Karlsson, Budinger, and Tan -
overcome the aforementioned deficiencies with Sheridan, as discussed above
regarding claim I.
Therefore, we are constrained on this record to reverse the Examiner's
rejection of claim I, along with the rejections of claims 8 and 22, which
recite limitations commensurate in scope to the disputed limitations
discussed above, and dependent claims 2--6, 9-I2, 23, 24, and 26-32.
2 W orkflow is defined as "[ t ]he sequence of industrial, administrative, or
other processes through which a piece of work passes from initiation to
completion." Worliflow, Oxford Living Dictionary,
https:// en.oxforddictionaries.com/ definition/us/workflow (last visited Nov.
2, 20I6).
6
Appeal2015-008234
Application 13/298,055
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's rejections of
claims 1-6, 8-12, 22-24, and 26-32.
REVERSED
7