Ex Parte Chakraborty et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 13, 201511215913 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte AMIT CHAKRABORTY, LIANG H. HSU, ZHIJING LIU, and JAN EGGEBRECHT _____________ Appeal 2012-005980 Application 11/215,913 Technology Center 3600 ______________ Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JAMES A. WORTH, and SCOTT C. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1–26. We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Adegan (US 2005/0125261 A1; pub. June 9, 2005) in view of Calloway (US 5,146,404; iss. Sept. 8, 1992) and claims 15–26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Adegan in view of Calloway and further in view of Rosenfeld (US Appeal 2012-005980 Application 11/215,913 2 6,901,377 B1; iss. May 31, 2005) in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We concur with Appellants’ contention that the Examiner erred in finding that Calloway discloses receiving a filter condition, because: Calloway merely teaches storing and presenting text information and graphics concerning the process of assembling a product. This is explained in more detail in col. 8, lines 36-47 of Calloway, which discloses a training and job aid subsystem that uses video, audio and text to provide step-by-step instructions for assembling, disassembling, replacing or testing a part/subassembly. Using text information and graphics to provide a user with step-by-step instructions for assembling a part is clearly not analogous to "receiving . . . a filter condition corresponding to a maintenance procedure from a client device" as claimed in Claim 1; the use of text information and graphics does not teach or suggest how a filter condition may be implemented. For example, the text information and graphics in claim 5 of Calloway are simply data that is stored in a system. This data is presented to the user in the form of step-by-step instructions when the user requests such instructions. The mere act of presenting data to a user upon request is unrelated to implementing a filter condition. (Br. 10–11). Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and claims 2–14 dependent therefrom as being unpatentable over Adegan and Calloway. We will also not sustain this rejection as it is directed to claim 15 and claims 16–26 dependent therefrom because claim 15 requires similar subject matter to claim 1, i.e., receiving a global filter condition corresponding to a maintenance procedure. Appeal 2012-005980 Application 11/215,913 3 We will also not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 15–26 as being unpatentable over Adegan, Calloway, and Rosenfeld because the Examiner again relies on Calloway for teaching receiving a global filter condition. DECISION The decision of the Examiner is reversed. REVERSED hh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation