Ex Parte Issa

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 29, 2013

11189141 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2013)

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.
11/189,141 07/25/2005 Alfredo C. Issa 1104-050 2271
74548 7590 04/29/2013
FlashPoint Technology and Withrow & Terranova
100 Regency Forest Drive
Suite 160
Cary, NC 27518
EXAMINER
SURVILLO, OLEG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2442
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/29/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ALFREDO C. ISSA
____________________

Appeal 2010-012380
Application 11/189,141
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-3, 5-19, 21-26, and 34. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.

Appeal 2010-012380
Application 11/189,141

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to syndication feeds used
with peer computer devices and in peer networks (Spec. ¶[001]).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative.
1. A method for providing syndicated feeds from peers of a
peer-to-peer network, the method comprising:

receiving a request at a server from a requestor for a
syndicated feed from a peer on the peer-to-peer network;

determining whether the peer is currently online or
offline;

pulling the requested feed from the peer and serving the
requested feed to the requestor if the peer is currently online;

retrieving the requested feed from a cache of the server
and serving the requested feed to the requestor only if the peer
is currently offline; and

inserting an indicator in the requested feed before serving
the requested feed to the requestor, the indicator indicating the
online or offline status of the peer serving the requested feed.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 13-15, 17, 18, 21, 22, and
34 under 35 U.S.C §103(a) based upon the teachings of Teodosiu (US Pat.
Pub. 2005/0147044 A1), O'Neil (US Pat. Pub. 2003/0069968 A1), and
Raymond (“Broadcatching with BitTorrent” scottraymond.net (Dec 16,
2003) pp. 1-3).
Appeal 2010-012380
Application 11/189,141

3
The Examiner rejected claims 3, 7, 8, 11, 12, 16, 19, 23, 25, and 26
under 35 U.S.C §103(a) based upon the teachings of Teodosiu, O'Neil,
Raymond, and Svendsen (US 2003/0063770 A1).
The Examiner rejected claim 10 under 35 U.S.C §103(a) based upon
the teachings of Teodosiu, O'Neil, Raymond, and Applicants Admitted Prior
Art (hereinafter “AAPA”) (Spec. ¶[004]).
The Examiner rejected claim 24 under 35 U.S.C §103(a) based upon
the teachings of Teodosiu, O'Neil, Raymond, AAPA, and Sahota (US
2005/0114757 A1).

ANALYSIS
The dispositive issue in this case is whether the Examiner is incorrect
in finding Teodosiu “discloses or suggests inserting an indicator in a feed
before serving the feed to a requestor” as claimed (Br. 17).
The Examiner finds Teodosiu discloses this feature by providing
“status information including whether a master publisher is online or
offline” (Ans. 5, 17; Teodosiu ¶[0052]).
Appellant contends paragraph [0052], along with paragraphs [0038]
and [0047] cited by the Examiner, do not disclose the claimed step “inserting
an indicator in the requested feed before serving the requested feed to the
requestor, the indicator indicating the online or offline status of the peer
serving the requested feed” (Br. 17). In light of Appellant’s contentions (Br.
16-18), we find Teodosiu does not disclose this limitation. Teodosiu
discloses status information (¶[0052]) and receiving or accessing resource
requests (¶¶[0038], [0047]; however Teodosiu does not disclose inserting an
indicator in the requested feed, as claimed. We therefore conclude the
Appeal 2010-012380
Application 11/189,141

4
weight of the evidence does not support the Examiner’s findings and legal
conclusion of obviousness. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 13-15, 17, 18, 21, 22, and 34.
With respect to claims 3, 7, 8, 11, 12, 16, 19, 23, 25, and 26, these
clams depend from independent claims 1 and 17. Thus, for the reasons set
forth above and because the additional cited references do not cure the
deficiencies of Teodosiu, we also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 3, 7, 8, 11, 12, 16, 19, 23, 25, and 26.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejection of claims 1-3, 5-19, 21-26, and 34
under 35 U.S.C. §103 is reversed.

REVERSED

tkl