Ex Parte Gilfix et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 27, 201411833790 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 27, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MICHAEL A. GILFIX, VICTOR S. MOORE, MARK POZEFSKY, and SUSAN RENEE WALLENBORN ____________ Appeal 2012-003307 Application 11/833,790 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 1–20 which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). SUMMARY OF THE DECISION We AFFIRM. Appeal 2012-003307 Application 11/833,790 2 THE INVENTION The Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to using a group list server as syndication feed server (Spec., para. 1). Claims 1 and 10, reproduced below, are representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A group list server comprising: list management software stored in a machine readable medium configured to cause a machine executing the list management software to manage network-based group definitions and lists of members for defined groups; and syndication feed software stored in a machine readable medium configured to cause a machine executing the syndication feed software to serve syndication feeds to remotely located clients. 10. A method for handling syndication feeds comprising: [1] identifying at least one syndication feed item associated with a syndication channel; [2] representing the syndication channel as a list management server group managed by a list management server; [3] storing the at least one syndication feed item in a group table managed by the list management server; [4] and the list management server serving the stored syndication feed item to at least one syndication feed client responsive to receiving a syndication feed request. THE REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us for review: 1. Claims 10, 12–14, 16–18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Weber (US 2008/0052372 A1, pub. Feb. 28, 2008). Appeal 2012-003307 Application 11/833,790 3 2. Claims 1–7, 9, 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Weber and Delany (US 7,363,339 B2, iss. Apr. 22, 2008). 3. Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Weber, Delany, and Sung (US 2007/0026883 A1, pub. Feb. 1, 2007). 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 evidence1. ANALYSIS Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 10 is improper because the prior art fails to disclose claim limitations [2] and [3] (Br. 6–9). In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the cited claim limitations are found in Weber at paragraphs 32, 33, 40, and 41 (Ans. 4–5, 18–24). We agree with the Appellants. Claim limitations [2] and [3] require: [2] representing the syndication channel as a list management server group managed by a list management server; [3] storing the at least one syndication feed item in a group table managed by the list management server. 1 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 2012-003307 Application 11/833,790 4 Here, the cited claim limitations require that the syndication channel is represented as a list management server group managed by the list management server and also storing at least one syndication feed in a group table managed by the list management server. Weber, at the portions cited above, fails to disclose both these claim limitations together. For example, Weber at paragraph 32 references Figures 2A–2C which show a web page 204 which can be a syndication channel. However, a syndication channel is not shown stored on the portal 210 as a list management server group as claim limitation [2] requires. While Weber, at paragraph 32, does disclose that in an embodiment a group mailing list or group website may be a destination for the portal, this is not the claimed syndication channel required by claim limitation [2]. Weber at paragraph 33 discloses that a map on a web page may be dragged to a portal but this is an object and not a syndication channel. In Weber at paragraph 40 it is also disclosed that an object may be saved to a portal but the object is not a syndication channel that is represented as a list management server group by the list management server as the claim requires. Weber at paragraph 40 also discloses the use of an RSS feed but it not specifically disclosed as being represented as a list management server group managed by the list management server. The other cited portions of Weber fail to disclose the cited claim limitation as well and the rejection of claim 10 and its dependent claims is not sustained. Claim 18 requires a similar limitation for placing “extracted content in a syndication format, which is stored in at least one group list table, each group table corresponding to a syndication channel” and “wherein the served Web feeds are obtained from said at least one group list table,” and the Appellants argue that these limitations are not shown in the prior art. We Appeal 2012-003307 Application 11/833,790 5 agree with the Appellants for similar reasons to those addressed above as the citations to Weber at paragraphs 29, 32, 35, 36, and 39 fail to disclose this as well. For these reasons, the rejection of claim 18 and its dependent claims is not sustained. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) The Appellants also argue that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because the prior art fails to disclose the claim limitation for “list management software…configured to cause a machine…to manage network-based group definitions and lists of members for defined groups” (Br. 10). In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the cited claim limitation is found in Delany at column 8, lines 31–51 (Ans. 10, 27–28). We agree with the Appellants. Delany, at the cited portions, fails to show list management software configured to manage network-based group definitions as the claim requires and the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims is not sustained. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We conclude that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejection section above. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20 is reversed. Appeal 2012-003307 Application 11/833,790 6 REVERSED mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation