Ex Parte Gorzela et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 14, 201814595202 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 14, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/595,202 01/12/2015 Richard Gorzela 46321 7590 09/18/2018 Shutts & Bowen LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG 525 Okeechobee Blvd # 1100 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 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. LOT920040098US2 (071CON) CONFIRMATION NO. 4144 EXAMINER STRANGE, AARON N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2448 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/18/2018 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): docketing@crgolaw.com sgreenberg@shutts.com aschneider@shutts.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RICHARD GORZELA, and STEPHEN J. FOLEY Appeal 2017-006112 Application 14/595,202 Technology Center 2400 Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. PETTING, 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 1-14 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 2017-006112 Application 14/595,202 THE INVENTION The Appellants' claimed invention is directed to an integrated blog in a collaborative environment (Spec., para. 7). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A computer program product having stored thereon a computer program for integrating a blogging application in a collaborative environment, the computer program comprising a set of instructions which when executed by a machine causes the machine to perform the steps of: processing a single sign-on for a member of the collaborative environment; associating a role with the member so as to place the member into a collaborative space in the collaborative environment and to regulate the member in interacting with the collaborative space; retrieving a list of collaborative applications for the role assigned to the member; and, loading the collaborative applications in the list into the collaborative space for use by the member from within the collaborative space, the collaborative applications including at least a blogging application. THE REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us for review: 1. Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S 8,935,323 B2, issued Jan. 13, 2015). 2. Claims 1, 4---6, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Schneider (US 2006/0053194 Al; published Mar. 9, 2006). 2 Appeal 2017-006112 Application 14/595,202 3. Claims 2, 3, 7-9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Schneider and Watson (US 2006/0095507 Al; published May 4, 2006). 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 1. ANALYSIS Rejection under Nonstatutory Double Patenting The Appellants have not provided any arguments for the rejection made on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting. Accordingly, this rejection is therefore sustained. for Rejection under 35 USC§ 102(e) and§ 103(a) The Appellants argue the prior art fails to disclose the claim limitation loading the collaborative applications in the list into the collaborative space for use by the member from within the collaborative space (App. Br. 4--8, Reply Br. 1---6). The Appellants argue that the cited prior art fails to disclose the claimed "list" required by the cited claim limitation (App. Br. 7, Reply Br. 4, 5). 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). 3 Appeal 2017-006112 Application 14/595,202 In contrast the Examiner has determined that the cited claim limitation is shown by Schneider at paras. 22, 24, 172, 173, 182,304, 308, 319 and Figure 4 (Final Act. 5, Ans. 4, 5). We agree with the Appellants. Here, Schneider at the cited paras. 22, 24, 172, 173, 182,304, 308, 319 and Figure 4 fails to disclose the argued claim limitation above. Specifically, these portions fail to disclose "loading the collaborative applications in the list into the collaborative space". For example, Schneider at para. 173 does disclose using "a plurality of different collaboration tools" but these are in the claimed list. Schneider at para. 304 for example disclose a "list" of places displayed but these are not the claimed "collaborative applications" and rather another list. As Schneider at the above cited portions has not disclosed the argued claim limitation this rejection of record of claim 1 is not sustained. The remaining claims contain a similar limitation and the rejection of these claims is not sustained as well. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting Claims 1-14 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 8,935,323. We conclude that Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as listed in the Rejections section above. 4 Appeal 2017-006112 Application 14/595,202 DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-14 is sustained. AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation