Ex Parte Ortwein et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 12, 2012

10837980 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 12, 2012)

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.
10/837,980 05/03/2004 Andrew Ortwein LOT920040005US1_018 4056
51835 7590 06/13/2012
IBM LOTUS & RATIONAL SW
c/o GUERIN & RODRIGUEZ
5 MOUNT ROYAL AVENUE
MOUNT ROYAL OFFICE PARK
MARLBOROUGH, MA 01752
EXAMINER
JOHNSON, JOHNESE T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2166
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/13/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ANDREW ORTWEIN, JAMES STUART JOHNSTON,
WILLIAM MICHAEL QUINN, KEVIN JOEL SOLIE and
RAYMOND RICE HORNBACK
____________

Appeal 2010-000324
Application 10/837,980
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, ST. JOHN COURTENAY, III, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-000324
Application 10/837,980

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to a method for synchronously
sharing a dynamically updated image in a sharing display of a sharing
computer with a viewer device. See Abstract of the Disclosure.

Claim 1 is illustrative, with key disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A method to synchronously share a sharing display of a
sharing computer, the method comprising:

sending an automated HTTP request for an updated
image in the sharing display to a server, the sharing display
having a plurality of images to be shared with a plurality of
viewer devices, the server storing a set of images, each image
having a uniform resource locator (URL) associated with a
unique location in the sharing display, the automated HTTP
request having a URL for the updated image and a timestamp
for an image displayed on the viewer device;

comparing at the server the timestamp of the image
displayed on the viewer device with a timestamp of an image
stored on the server; and

when the timestamp of the image displayed on the viewer
device is different from the timestamp of the image stored on
the server, sending the updated image to the viewer device.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Zhang US 2003/0101235 A1 May 29, 2003

Appeal 2010-000324
Application 10/837,980

3
THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Zhang. Ans. 3-5.1

ISSUE
Based upon our review of the record and the Appellants’ arguments,
we find the following issue to be dispositive of the claims on appeal:
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-6 by
finding that Zhang disclosed a method for synchronously sharing a sharing
display of a sharing computer having a plurality of images to be shared with
a plurality of viewer devices where a request for an updated image includes
a URL for the updated image and a timestamp of the image displayed on the
viewer device and where the updated image is sent in response to a
comparison of the timestamp of the image stored on the server with the
timestamp of the image displayed on the viewer device?

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue, with respect to representative claim 1, that their
invention relates to sharing a display of a sharing computer “without the
need to replicate the image rendering application from the sharing computer
on each viewing device.” Br. 6.
We find that argument unpersuasive, as it is not commensurate with
the scope of claim 1, which is silent on the use of image rendering
applications.

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed April 1, 2009
and the Examiner’s Answer mailed July 8, 2009.
Appeal 2010-000324
Application 10/837,980

4
Appellants also argue that Zhang fails show or suggest that a peer’s
image is directly shared or updated, but rather teaches the sharing of objects.
Id.
The Examiner finds that Zhang recites, at ¶0149, that “the audio and
movies from one browser will become shareable and controllable from
another browser.” Ans. 5. We find the Examiner’s argument persuasive.
Appellants argue that Zhang fails to disclose the use of URLs to
identify the location of an image in a shared display. Br. 7.
The Examiner responds, noting that Zhang expressly recites, at ¶0175,
the retrieval of data utilizing the URL argument. Ans. 6. Consequently we
find the Appellants’ argument unavailing.
Finally, Appellants argue, with respect to claim 6, that Zhang does not
disclose the embedding of a “refresh mechanism” in an HTML page prior to
sending an HTML page from a server to the viewing device.
The Examiner finds that Zhang, at ¶0046, recites a refresh mechanism
utilizing a message broker which translates a message into browser-
understandable events and updates and pushes those updates and events to
the other browsers. Ans. 6.
We find the Examiner’s position with regard to a refresh mechanism
persuasive and we are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1-6.
Consequently, for the reasons set forth above, we affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6 as anticipated under §102 by Zhang.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-6 under § 102.
Appeal 2010-000324
Application 10/837,980

5
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-6 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Vsh