Ex Parte Ortwein et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJun 12, 201210837980 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 12, 2012) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation