Ex Parte Bialek et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 28, 2007

09627535 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 28, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte MICHAEL J. BIALEK and LI FENG
__________

Appeal 2007-0232
Application 09/627,535
Technology Center 2100
___________

Decided: February 28, 2007
___________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and ALLEN
R. MACDONALD, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1 to 15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

Appeal No. 2007-0232
Application No. 09/627,535

2
Appellants have invented a method and apparatus for creating a
provider resource locator that is used to locate content on a network. The
provider resource locator is created by recalling stored parameter values, and
inserting such values into a plurality of parameter slots in a locator template
(Specification 11 to 13).
Claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal, and it reads as
follows:
1. A method of assembling content from content providers, the
content providers having the content available on a network, for
delivery from a document server to a subscriber’s terminal,
comprising the steps of:

obtaining a subscriber’s content definition;

defining a locator template having a plurality of parameter slots
and being compatible with a resource locator of a content provider
having content meeting said content definition;

recalling stored parameter values and inserting said parameter
values in said parameter slots to create a provider resource locator;

transmitting said provider resource locator on the network;

receiving content from said content provider in response to said
transmission of said provider resource locator; and

assembling at least said received content for delivery from the
document server to the subscriber’s terminal.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
Appeal No. 2007-0232
Application No. 09/627,535

3
appeal is:
Walker US 6,377,963 B1 Apr. 23, 2002
(filed May 23, 1997)
Herz US 6,460,036 B1 Oct. 1, 2002
(filed Dec. 5, 1997)
Peterson US 6,594,682 B2 July 15, 2003
(filed Oct. 28, 1997)
Isaac US 6,632,248 B1 Oct. 14, 2003
(filed Dec. 6, 1996)
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 7 to 10, 12, and 13 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) based upon the teachings of Peterson. The Examiner
rejected claims 3 to 6 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the
teachings of Peterson and Walker, the Examiner rejected claim 11 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Peterson and Herz, and the
Examiner rejected claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the
teachings of Peterson and Isaac.
Appellants contend that Peterson does not create a content provider
resource locator by inserting parameter values into parameter slots in a
locator template (Br. 8 and 9).
We reverse.
ISSUE
Does Peterson describe the creation of a content provider resource
locator by inserting parameter values into parameter slots in a locator
template?
FINDINGS OF FACT
Appeal No. 2007-0232
Application No. 09/627,535

4
As indicated supra, Appellants create a content provider resource
locator by recalling stored parameter values and inserting those values into
parameter slots of the locator template.

Peterson creates a customized channel of desired Web content by
aggregating content from multiple channels into a single customized
channel. Peterson creates the customized channel by filtering out unwanted
content downloaded to the user’s computer (col. 11, l. 47 to col. 12, l. 15).
PRINCIPLE OF LAW
Anticipation is established when a single prior art reference discloses
expressly or under the principles of inherency each and every limitation of
the claimed invention. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342,
1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1946 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475,
1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
ANALYSIS
The customized content in Peterson is created by filtering downloaded
content, whereas the customized content disclosed and claimed by
Appellants is located by inserting parameter values into parameter slots of a
locator template to create a content provider resource locator.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Anticipation has not been established by the Examiner because
Peterson does not create a content provider resource locator as claimed by
Appeal No. 2007-0232
Application No. 09/627,535

5
Appellants.
The obviousness of the claimed subject matter has not been
established by the Examiner because the teachings of the secondary
references to Walker, Herz and Isaac fail to cure the noted shortcoming in
the teachings of Peterson.
DECISION
The anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, 7 to 10, 12, and 13 is
reversed. The obviousness rejections of claims 3 to 6, 11, 14, and 15 are
reversed.
REVERSED

tdl/gw

HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY
P.O. BOX 272400, 3404 E. HARMONY ROAD
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION
FORT COLLINS, CO 80527-2400