GRAVIC, INC.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 16, 20202020001684 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 13/727,055 12/26/2012 Steven P. JOSLIN 9203-77US 7223 570 7590 10/16/2020 PANITCH SCHWARZE BELISARIO & NADEL LLP TWO COMMERCE SQUARE 2001 MARKET STREET, SUITE 2800 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 EXAMINER FRUNZI, VICTORIA E. ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3688 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/16/2020 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): usptomail@panitchlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte STEVEN P. JOSLIN, OWEN C. DAVIDSON, VICTOR F. BERUTTI, and BRUCE D. HOLENSTEIN ____________ Appeal 2020-001684 Application 13/727,055 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, and Administrative Patent Judges. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2–4, 7–20, 22–24, and 27–57. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 1, 5, 6, 21, 25, and 26 have been cancelled. Oral arguments were presented on October 6, 2020 by telephone. SUMMARY OF THE DECISION We REVERSE. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as GRAVIC, INC. Appeal Br. 4. Appeal 2020-001684 Application 13/727,055 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The Appellant’s claimed invention relates to a method and article for detecting message impressions from a document (Spec., page 2, lines 9, 10). Claim 11, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 11. A method of analyzing a document and selectively further processing any input made in a data collection area of the document using a document processing system that includes a document processing engine and a message representation library, the document including one or more data collection areas which are located in and are part of the document, and which are capable of receiving input, the method comprising: (a) storing in a memory of the message representation library representations of static human identifiable and human understandable messages; (b) receiving the document at the document processing engine, wherein the document processing engine accesses the memory to obtain the representations of static human identifiable and human understandable messages; (c) analyzing the document in the document processing engine to determine whether: (i) there is relevant input in the one or more data collection areas which are located in and are part of the document, and (ii) the document includes one or more message areas, each message area having a static human identifiable and human understandable message, wherein the message area does not receive input, and wherein the analyzing in step (c)(ii) determines if the library of representations of static human identifiable and human understandable messages includes the static human identifiable and human understandable message in each of the one or more message areas; (d) detecting message impressions from the document in the document processing engine when: Appeal 2020-001684 Application 13/727,055 3 (i) there is relevant input in the one or more data collection areas which are located in and are part of the document, and (ii) the document includes one or more of the static human identifiable and human understandable messages; and (e) accepting the document for further processing of any input in the one or more data collection areas by the document processing engine when the document includes one or more of the static human identifiable and human understandable messages, and rejecting the document for further processing of any input in the one or more data collection areas by the document processing engine when the document does not include one or more of the static human identifiable and human understandable messages. THE REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us for review: 1. Claims 2, 3, 8, 10–14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 23, 28, 30–34, 36, 38, 40– 43, 46, 48–51, 53, 55, and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lin (US 2012/0072280 A1, Mar. 22, 2012), Maggio (US 2003/0195807 A1, Oct. 16, 2003), and Norman (US 8,121,944 B2, Feb. 21, 2012). 2. Claims 4, 9, 15, 24, 29, 35, 44, 47, and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lin, Maggio, Norman, and Schena (US 6,448,979 B1, Sept. 10, 2002). 3. Claims 7, 27, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lin, Maggio, Norman, Schena, All In Learning (Bubble Sheet for Scan It-All in Learning: http://www.allinlearning.com/assist- app/bubble-sheet-for-scan-it/, Jul. 7, 2011, obtained web.archive.org 4/17/2015), and Radtke (US 2008/0264701 A1, Oct. 30, 2008). Appeal 2020-001684 Application 13/727,055 4 4. Claims 17, 37, and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lin, Maggio, Norman, and Porter (US 8,336,779 B1, Dec. 25, 2012). 5. Claims 19, 39, and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lin, Maggio, Norman, Porter, and Wallace (US 2002/0046095 A1, Apr. 18, 2002). FINDINGS OF FACT We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence.2 ANALYSIS The Appellant argues first that the rejection of claim 11 is improper because the cited references fail to disclose several specific claim limitations (App. Br. 10–16, Reply Br. 2–4). The Appellant also argues that there is no proper motivation to modify the references to meet the limitations of claim 11 (App. Br. 17–21, Reply Br. 4–8). In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the cited rejection is proper (Final Act. 2–11, 32, Ans. 10, 11). We agree with the Appellant. Even taking the cited references to disclose the argued claim limitations in claim 11, here we determine that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Lin, Maggio, and Norman as being improper in lacking articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings to 2 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Patent Office). Appeal 2020-001684 Application 13/727,055 5 sustain the rejection. In KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) the Supreme Court noted that in an obviousness analysis that “rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” Id. at 418. In context with the other elements of claim 11, the claim also requires the steps of: (d) detecting message impressions from the document in the document processing engine when: (i) there is relevant input in the one or more data collection areas which are located in and are part of the document, and (ii) the document includes one or more of the static human identifiable and human understandable messages; and (e) accepting the document for further processing of any input in the one or more data collection areas by the document processing engine when the document includes one or more of the static human identifiable and human understandable messages, and rejecting the document for further processing of any input in the one or more data collection areas by the document processing engine when the document does not include one or more of the static human identifiable and human understandable messages. (Claim 11, emphasis added). Lin discloses optical character recognition of receipt templates and determining if the receipt content is associated with an ad presentation (paras. 68, 74, 88, 92). Maggio discloses an offer reward presented to recipients to review advertisements and submit the response to a query (Abstract). Norman discloses a method for facilitating network transaction processing (Title). Norman, at column 8, lines 60–67, discloses that the system includes a “Reject Image Capture 324” in the system. Appeal 2020-001684 Application 13/727,055 6 Although Lin, Maggio, and Norman do individually each disclose steps that are used in the claimed method, there is no articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings to combine them in the specific manner required to meet the claimed limitations and sequence of steps “(d)” and “(e)” above without impermissible hindsight. For example, although Norman does generically disclose that images may be rejected at step 324, here steps “(d)” and “(e)” in the claim specifically require “detecting message impressions . . . when . . . there is relevant input in the one or more data collection areas which are located in and part of the document” and the specific acceptance or rejection of further processing of “any input in the one or more data collection areas” based on whether the document includes “one or more of the static human identifiable and human understandable messages.” Here, the cited rejection over Lin, Maggio, and Norman simply lacks articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings to be combined in the specific manner required to meet the limitations of claim 11 without impermissible hindsight. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 11 and its dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Lin, Maggio, and Norman is not sustained. Independent claims 31 and 41 contain similar limitations to claim 11 discussed above; the rejection of these claims and their dependent claims under this rejection is not sustained as well for the same reasons given above. With regard to the remaining rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the cited combinations using the references of Schena, All In Learning, Radtke, Porter, and Wallace, each fails to remedy the deficiency in the base rejection and these rejections are not sustained as well. Appeal 2020-001684 Application 13/727,055 7 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We conclude that Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejection section above. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 2, 3, 8, 10– 14, 16, 18 20, 22, 23, 28, 30–34, 36, 38, 40– 43, 46, 48– 51, 53, 55, 57 103 Lin, Maggio, Norman 2, 3, 8, 10– 14, 16, 18 20, 22, 23, 28, 30–34, 36, 38, 40– 43, 46, 48– 51, 53, 55, 57 4, 9, 15, 24, 29, 35, 44, 47, 52 103 Lin, Maggio, Norman, Schena 4, 9, 15, 24, 29, 35, 44, 47, 52 7, 27, 45 103 Lin, Maggio, Norman, Schena, All In Learning, Radtke 7, 27, 45 17, 37, 54 103 Lin, Maggio, Norman, Porter 17, 37, 54 19, 39, 56 103 Lin, Maggio, Norman, Porter, Wallace 19, 39, 56 Overall Outcome 2–4, 7–20, 22–24, 27– 57 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation