Ex Parte Wiesehuegel et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 6, 2009

09773197 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 6, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte LELAND JAMES WIESEHUEGEL,
REBECCA LYNN ROBERTS, CHARLES H. LOAR,
and CARLOS JOEL FORMIGA XAVIER
____________

Appeal 2007-3402
Application 09/773,197
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided:1 February 6, 2009
____________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. FETTING, and DAVID B.
WALKER, Administrative Patent Judges.

WALKER, Administrative Patent Judge.

1The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2007-3402
Application 09/773,197

2
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants seek our review of the Examiner’s final rejection of
claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002). We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). We affirm.
Appellants claim technology for providing dynamic catalogs
containing available product descriptive information for conducting an
interactive offer and bid collection process over a computer network
(Specification 3:5-7). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A method for providing electronic catalogs of
information sets regarding available products for
bid or purchase through an online auction or
bidding system collectively referred to as an
Interactive Offer System, said method comprising
the steps of:
providing at least two repositories of
information sets and data items, at least one of said
repositories being indexed to part numbers and
manufacturer identifiers;
dynamically linking said information sets
and data items to said part numbers and said
manufacturer identifiers for available products by
executing a synchronization script or program, said
execution being triggered at a predetermined time
or responsive to a predetermined event;
upon request by a trader, synchronizing
contents of a Sales Preparation System with said
Appeal 2007-3402
Application 09/773,197

3
repositories such that said information sets and
said data items within said repositories represent
full information sets of most recently created data
items, including the contents of said Sales
Preparation System;
promoting said synchronized Sales
Preparation System contents to an online auction
system responsive to authorization of said trader;
and
presenting said promoted contents to one or
more online bidders via said online auction system.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejection:
Perkowski US 2003/0009392 A1 Jan. 9, 2003
1. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the written description requirement.
2. Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
as indefinite.
3. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Perkowski.

ISSUES
The first issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with
Appeal 2007-3402
Application 09/773,197

4
the written description requirement. The correctness of the written
description rejection turns on whether the Specification conveys with
reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought,
Appellants were in possession of (1) “dynamically linking said information
sets and data items to said numbers and said manufacturer identifiers;” and
(2) “dynamic links between the descriptive data items, said part numbers and
said manufacturer identifiers.”
The second issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite. The
indefiniteness rejection turns on whether those skilled in the art would
understand the following claim terms when the claim is read in light of the
specification: (1) how “executing a synchronization script or program”
“dynamically links the information sets and data items to the part numbers
and the manufacturer identifiers;” (2) what are the “contents of a Sales
Preparation System;” (3) how does saving a copy of an information set
statically link the copy to the most recently created data items; (4) “a user
interface to an Interactive Offer System user interface;” and (5) how does
further adapting the repository synchronizer to replace and add links on a
timed basis further limit the system.
The third issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Perkowski. The
correctness of the anticipation rejection turns on whether Perkowski teaches
“dynamically linking . . . by executing a synchronization script or program
Appeal 2007-3402
Application 09/773,197

5
triggered at predetermined time or responsive to a predetermined event” and
whether certain arguments advanced by the Appellants are commensurate
with the scope of the claims.

FINDINGS OF FACT
We find the following enumerated findings to be supported by at least
a preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422,
1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for
proceedings before the Office).
1. The Specification discloses that
Initially, one or more databases are loaded with
current descriptive information about items which
may be made available for bidding or purchase,
such as item part numbers, descriptions,
specifications, photographs or illustrations, pieces
and quantities. This descriptive information is
dynamically linked to the manufacturer identifier
and the part number. In the second phase of the
process, each time a trader requests current
descriptive information about an available part
number, the databases containing descriptive
information are dynamically synchronized so as to
link to the most recently available information,
thereby providing the trader with the most current
descriptive information automatically.
(Specification 8:6-15).
2. The Specification also teaches that
Initially, if no descriptive information is contained
Appeal 2007-3402
Application 09/773,197

6
in SPS for a particular part number, the cataloger
(604) may be tasked to photograph the item, find
current specifications for the item, etc. These
descriptive information items (605, 606 and 607)
are then loaded into SPS to form an initial set of
descriptive information 10 which is dynamically
linked to the part number and manufacturer
identifier.
Whenever new information is available,
such as a new photograph showing a change in the
product model, this can be entered by the cataloger
and dynamically linked to the part number so as to
replace the previously linked photograph in all
instances, lots, and offers.
(Specification 12:6-14).
3. An object of the invention disclosed in Perkowski
is to provide a novel consumer product
information catalog subsystem (RDBMS) for use
within an Internet-based consumer product
information management, distribution and serving
system, wherein one or more computer programs
(e.g. scripts) are provided in the RDBMS for the
purpose of (i) analyzing the information fields of
the RDBMS, (ii) automatically generate a set of
UPN/Trademark/Product-Descriptor/URL data
links for each UPN-indexed product with the
RDBMS, (iii) locally store each set of
UPN/TM/PD/URL data links within the RDBMS,
and (iv) ultimately electronically data transport
each such set of data links to a UPN/TM/PD/URL
RDBMS employed within a consumer product
information management, distribution and serving
system realized over the Internet.
Appeal 2007-3402
Application 09/773,197

7
(Perkowski [0080]).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The factual inquiry for determining whether a specification provides
sufficient written description for the claimed invention is whether the
specification conveys with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that,
as of the filing date sought, applicant was in possession of the invention as
now claimed. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64 (Fed.
Cir. 1991). An applicant shows possession of the claimed invention by
describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such
descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that
fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc.,
107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The test for definiteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is
whether “those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when the
claim is read in light of the specification.” Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety
Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citations
omitted).
We determine the scope of the claims in patent applications “not
solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their
broadest reasonable construction ‘in light of the specification as it would be
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting In re Am. Acad. of Sci.
Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). We must be careful not
Appeal 2007-3402
Application 09/773,197

8
to read a particular embodiment appearing in the written description into the
claim if the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See Superguide
Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the
explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to
import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a
particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read
into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.”).
The challenge is to interpret claims in view of the specification without
unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims.
See E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir.
2003).
We remind Appellants that it is their burden to precisely define the
invention, not that of the Examiner. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056 (Fed.
Cir. 1997). Appellants always have the opportunity to amend the claims
during prosecution, and broad interpretation by the examiner reduces the
possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than
is justified. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05 (CCPA 1969).
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d
628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987). The prior art
may anticipate a claimed invention, and thereby render it non-novel, either
Appeal 2007-3402
Application 09/773,197

9
expressly or inherently. In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343,
1349 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Express anticipation occurs when the prior art
expressly discloses each limitation (i.e., each element) of a claim. Id. In
addition, “[i]t is well settled that a prior art reference may anticipate when
the claim limitations not expressly found in that reference are nonetheless
inherent in it.” Id.
To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence must
make clear that the missing descriptive matter is
necessarily present in the thing described in the
reference, and that it would be so recognized by
persons of ordinary skill. Inherency, however,
may not be established by probabilities or
possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing
may result from a given set of circumstances is not
sufficient.

In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citations omitted)
(internal quotation marks omitted).

ANALYSIS
As a preliminary matter, the Appellants’ brief presents arguments
relating to the Examiner’s:
a) objection to the disclosure and Figures 3 and 4 with respect to the
terminology and naming convention of a Parts Catalog, including a database;
Appeal 2007-3402
Application 09/773,197

10
b) objection to the disclosure and Figures 3 and 4 with respect to the
terminology and naming convention of a Sale Preparation System (SPS),
including a database;
c) objection to the disclosure and Figure 3 with respect to the
terminology and naming convention of an Interactive Offer Server (IOS),
including a database;
d) objections to the drawings for failing to show every feature of the
invention specified in the claims, specifically “two-computer readable
repositories”, an “offer description creator,” and an “offer list creator”; and,
e) objections to the Specification for failing to provide proper
antecedent basis for the claimed elements, steps, or limitation of
“repositories of information sets,” “computer-readable repositories of
descriptive data items,” “offer description creator,” and “offer list creator.”
The Examiner found that these issues relate to petitionable subject
matter under 37 C.F.R. § 1.181 and not to appealable subject matter.
(Answer 2-3, citing MPEP § 1002 and § 1201). We agree with the
Examiner that these matters are not directly connected with the merits of
issues involving a rejection of claims, and therefore are reviewable by
petition to the Commissioner rather than by appeal to this Board. See In re
Hengehold, 440 F.2d 1395, 1403-04 (CCPA 1971). Accordingly we shall
not decide or further discuss the Appellants' arguments regarding the
Examiner’s objections.

Appeal 2007-3402
Application 09/773,197

11
Rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The Examiner found that the original specification does not have
support for the steps of “dynamically linking said information sets and data
items to said numbers and said manufacturer identifiers” as required by
claims 1 and 6 and “dynamic links between the descriptive data items, said
part numbers and said manufacturer identifiers” as required by claim 11.
The Appellants argue that the Examiner is incorrect because:
According to the preferred embodiment, the
invention integrates to the current IOS via the SPS.
A cataloger (604) collects or receives current
product descriptive information and places it into
the SPS database as it is available, as is it may
need to be updated. Initially, if no descriptive
information is contained in SPS for a particular
part number, the cataloger (604) may be tasked to
photograph the item, find current specifications for
the item, etc. These descriptive information
items (605, 606 and 607) are then loaded into SPS
to form an initial set of descriptive information
which is dynamically linked to the part number
and manufacturer identifier. (Pg. 12, lines 3 -
14).
(Br. 13-14) (emphasis in original).
According to the Appellants, “information sets” as recited in the
claims are directly referring to the “set of descriptive information,” as
disclosed. The Appellants argue that further support is provided by the
language which describes the “set of descriptive information” as being
Appeal 2007-3402
Application 09/773,197

12
dynamically linked to the part number or the manufacturer identifier (Br.
14). The passage cited above conveys with reasonable clarity to those
skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, Appellants were in
possession of “dynamically linking said information sets and data items to
said numbers and said manufacturer identifiers” as required by claims 1 and
6.
With respect to claim 11, the Appellants argue that written description
support for “dynamic links between the descriptive data items, said part
numbers and said manufacturer identifiers” as required by claim 11 is
provided by the following passage of the Specification:
. . . This descriptive information is dynamically
linked to the manufacturer identifier and the part
number. (Pg. 8, lines 9 - 10)
. . .
These descriptive information items (605, 606
and 607) are then loaded into SPS to form an
initial set of descriptive information which is
dynamically linked to the part number and
manufacturer identifier. (Pg. 12, lines 8 - 10).
(Br. 14).
According to the Appellants, “set of descriptive information” is
referring to descriptive information items, and as shown from these
additional excerpts, links are dynamically made to “manufacturer
identifiers” (Br. 14). The passages cited above convey with reasonable
clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, Appellants
Appeal 2007-3402
Application 09/773,197

13
were in possession of “dynamic links between the descriptive data items,
said part numbers and said manufacturer identifiers” as required by claim
11.
The Appellants thus have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1, 6, and 11, and claims 2-5, 7-10, and 12-15 which depend
therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with
the written description requirement.

Rejection of claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
indefinite.
The Examiner found that the metes and bounds of claims 1 and 6 are
unclear. In particular, the Examiner found that it is unclear how “executing
a synchronization script or program” “dynamically links the information sets
and data items to the part numbers and the manufacturer identifiers”
(Answer 5). According to the Examiner, one skilled in the art will consider
a synchronization step occurring by mere execution of the synchronization
script or program; thus, it is unclear how copying information from one
database to another database, which is synchronization, results in dynamic
linking when synchronizing information constitutes placing information of a
newer database to an older database; as a result, both databases will have the
same information (Answer 5). The Examiner found that it is still unclear
how executing the synchronization script or program causes dynamic linking
as in a hyperlink (Answer 11).
Appeal 2007-3402
Application 09/773,197

14
Appellants argue that they have claimed an enhanced synchronization
process which ensures that where data sets include links to other sources.
Those links are dynamically updated in all data sets to point to the same
sources (e.g., the links are synchronized) (Br. 19). We agree that those
skilled in the art would understand the claim language that requires
“dynamically linking said information sets and data items to said part
numbers and said manufacturer identifiers for available products by
executing a synchronization script or program” when the claim is read in
light of the Specification. The Appellants’ interpretation is consistent with
the Specification, which discloses that descriptive information is
dynamically linked to the manufacturer identifier and the part number; those
dynamic links are synchronized or updated when a trader requests current
descriptive information about an available part number; and the databases
containing descriptive information are dynamically synchronized so as to
link to the most recently available information (Finding of Fact 1).
The Examiner also found that it is unclear what are the “contents of a
Sales Preparation System” (Answer 5). The Appellants argue that they
have clearly disclosed that the SPS database (60)
may automatically synchronize (76) its contents
with the contents of other databases, such as the
parts database (609), on a periodic basis, such as
daily (pg. 14, lines 7-9, for example), and that
these contents typically include descriptive
information such as photographs, text descriptions,
specifications, quantities, etc. (pg. 14, lines 3 – 4,
for example).
Appeal 2007-3402
Application 09/773,197

15
(Br. 19). The Examiner challenges the Appellants’ reliance on the SPS
database (60), finding that a database and a system are two different
concepts, thus how can a system be a database (Answer 11). The Examiner
also found that if the SP system is the database as applicants allege, then the
contents, i.e., which includes photographs 605, specifications 606, and
quantities 607, results in double inclusion of the same thing because these
contents are the same data items. The Examiner alleges that the contents are
included twice since the Specification indicates on page 12, lines 8-10 that
the data items 605, 606, and 607, in claim 1, line 4, also are the same
features of the contents of the SPS. The Examiner further questions how can
the contents of the SPS and the data items synchronize (Answer 12).
The Appellants argue that the SPS may be one of at least two
databases in the system, and if there are only two, then it would be
nonsensical to try to synchronize the SPS to the second database and also to
itself. However, the phrase “at least two repositories of information sets and
data items” also allows for 3, 4, or even more total databases, only one of
which may be an SPS. According to the Appellants, in this embodiment
covered by the claims, the step recited to synchronize to the other databases
(plural) is accurate and clear (Br. 20). We agree that those skilled in the art
would understand the meaning of contents of a Sales Preparation System.
The Specification provides sufficient clarity regarding the contents of a
Sales Preparation System, and the Appellants proposed claim interpretation
Appeal 2007-3402
Application 09/773,197

16
is consistent with a broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
Specification (Findings of Fact 1 and 2).
Regarding claims 5 and 10, the Examiner further inquires how does
saving a copy of an information set statically link the copy to the most
recently created data items (Answer 5). The Appellants argue that they do
not understand from the wording of this rejection whether the Examiner
means “most recently created” or “most often created” (Br. 20). The
Examiner noted that it is clear that the Examiner is referring to the “most
recently created data items,” and found that the Appellants have not resolved
the issue which is how does saving a copy of a set statically link the copy to
the items for someone skilled in the art to particularly understand (Answer
12). The Appellants make no substantive argument regarding this rejection
in the Reply Brief. The Appellants thus have not shown error in the
Examiner’s rejection.
The Examiner further found that the metes and bounds of claim 11 are
unclear, because that claim is directed to a system yet it is unclear whether
the repositories, the dynamic links, the repository synchronizer, the offer
promoter, and the user interface are physical components as in electronic
components. According to the Examiner, if these are mere electronic
databases, databases need to be residing in a computer medium as in
memory, or a record medium to exist. The Examiner also found that the
limitation “a user interface to an Interactive Offer System user interface” is
either grammatically incorrect or the limitation is incomplete (Answer 5-6).
Appeal 2007-3402
Application 09/773,197

17
The Appellants argue that the Examiner implied that “databases” must
be residing in memory in order to exist, and presumably in order to be
patentable. According to the Appellants, this confuses “data” with
“databases,” the former being an abstract set of values, and the latter being
systems and products well known in the art to be computer applications,
programs, and data structures which can hold, retrieve, and manipulate data.
The Appellants argue that the Examiner has not offered in the rationale any
evidence to support a holding of “databases” being abstract “data” devoid or
separate from computer hardware, programs, or the like (Br. 21).
The Examiner found that the claims are directed to a physical or
tangible system, but claim 11 merely recites databases without mentioning
where they are resided, thus rendering it questionable whether the system is
structural, or is just mentally construed ideas since it is unclear where the
databases are residing (Answer 13). We find that the Examiner has not
made a persuasive showing that claim 11 is indefinite. The Appellants are
correct that the cited limitations are not restricted by the claim language to a
particular location.
With respect to claim 12, the Examiner questioned how does further
adapting the repository synchronizer to replace and add links on a timed
basis further limit the system? With respect to claim 13, the Examiner
questions how does further adapting the repository synchronizer to replace
and adds links responsive to a request for information from the repositories
further limit the system? (Answer 6). The Appellants argue that because
Appeal 2007-3402
Application 09/773,197

18
claim 12 depends from claim 11, the addition of further adapting the
synchronizer on a timed basis adds functionality included in the open claim
form, and thus by definition further limits the scope of claim 11. The
Appellants similarly argue that because claim 13 depends from claim 11,
likewise specifying that the synchronizer is also adapted to update links
responsive to any request for information from the repositories, in addition
to being adapted to perform link updates responsive to requests from traders
(Br. 21). The Examiner has not made a persuasive showing that claims 12
and 13 are indefinite.

Rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as anticipated by
Perkowski.
The Appellants argue that Perkowski teaches creating and updating
links manually, not automatically using synchronization scripts as claimed
by Appellants (Br. 22). The Examiner found that the rejected claims do not
recite “updating links automatically,” and thus the argument is not
commensurate with the scope of the claims (Answer 13). We agree.
The Appellants further argue that Perkowski discloses normal
database synchronization operations (e.g., copying data between databases),
but does not disclose updating links within those databases in the manner
disclosed and claimed (Br. 22). The Examiner found that the fact that
synchronization is conventional does not render the process unreadable on
Appeal 2007-3402
Application 09/773,197

19
the claims, which broadly recite synchronization and read on conventional
techniques (Answer 14). We agree.
The Appellants also argue that the claimed system is transactional in
nature, wherein the links between databases are updated in real time or on-
demand (Appellants’ definition of “dynamically”) either in response to a
specific event, such as a trader requesting sales preparation information, or
upon a certain update period. According to Appellants, the claimed system
is event driven and automated such that all catalog information is updated
on-demand without the need for human link creation or modification (Br. 23,
citing Specification 12:20-22, 13:4-6 & 16-18). The Examiner found that
“updating in real-time or on-demand” is nowhere recited in the rejected
claims, and therefore the Appellants’ argument is not commensurate with the
scope of the rejected claims. The Examiner also found that the argued
definition of “dynamically,” e.g., updating in real-time or on demand, is not
present in the recited pages and line numbers of the Specification (Answer
14). We agree with the Examiner that updating in real-time or on-demand is
not explicitly recited in the claims. Moreover, the cited passages teach that
this script can be set to run periodically, such as once per day, and/or upon
an event, such as receipt of a request for information regarding a particular
part number, but do not create a lexicographic definition of “dynamically”
that requires updating in real-time or on demand. The Appellants’ argument
thus is not persuasive because it is not commensurate with the scope of the
claims.
Appeal 2007-3402
Application 09/773,197

20
The Appellants further argue that claims 1, 6, and 11 recite
“dynamically linking . . . by executing a synchronization script or program
triggered at predetermined time or responsive to a predetermined event” and
Perkowski is silent as to such script triggering and execution to modify links
(Br. 23). The Examiner found that Perkowski discloses this limitation at
paragraph [0080] (Answer 16). The Appellants characterize paragraph
[0080] of Perkowski as describing automatic generation of sets of links
which are stored in the RBDMS, and ultimately transported also to another
system, but argue that the passage does not describe dynamically linking
between databases in the manner Appellants have claimed and instead
Perkowski’s links are exchanged by transporting the “set of data links” from
one system to another (Br. 23). The Examiner found that the argument is
out of scope since such manner of dynamically linking is not specifically
argued to distinguish differences between the prior art and “the manner
appellants have claimed.” (Answer 15). We do not find the Appellants’
argument persuasive as to why Perkowski does not teach the disputed claim
limitation (Finding of Fact 3).
The Appellants also argue that paragraph [0085] of Perkowski is silent
as to updating dynamic links (Br. 24). The Examiner correctly found that
“updating dynamic links” is not a limitation of the rejected claims (Answer
16).
Finally, the Appellants argue that paragraph [0988] of Perkowski
describes a clearly manually-performed process by an “author” in which the
Appeal 2007-3402
Application 09/773,197

21
author initiates a “datalinking mode,” and creates links by “drawing
graphical boundaries around the content . . . using a mouse-pointing device”
or “drawing a graphical link between” Web and print-media documents, etc.
According to the Appellants, these user actions of “drawing” with a mouse
result in creation of links, but the operation remains manually triggered and
manually specified (Br. 24). The Examiner found that “automatic” is
nowhere recited in the rejected claims and thus the argument is not
commensurate in scope with the rejected claims (Answer 16). We agree.

CONCLUSIONS
We conclude that the Specification conveys with reasonable clarity to
those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, Appellants were in
possession of (1) “dynamically linking said information sets and data items
to said numbers and said manufacturer identifiers;” and (2) “dynamic links
between the descriptive data items, said part numbers and said manufacturer
identifiers.”
We conclude that those skilled in the art would understand the
following claim terms when the claim is read in light of the Specification:
(1) how “executing a synchronization script or program” “dynamically links
the information sets and data items to the part numbers and the manufacturer
identifiers;” (2) what are the “contents of a Sales Preparation System;” (3) “a
user interface to an Interactive Offer System user interface;” and (4) how
Appeal 2007-3402
Application 09/773,197

22
does further adapting the repository synchronizer to replace and add links on
a timed basis further limit the system.
We conclude that the Appellants have not shown that the Examiner
erred in finding that claims 5 and 10 are indefinite as to how does saving a
copy of an information set statically link the copy to the most recently
created data items.
We conclude that the Appellants have failed to show that the
Examiner erred in finding that Perkowski teaches “by executing a
synchronization script or program triggered at predetermined time or
responsive to a predetermined event.” We conclude that the remaining
arguments advanced by the Appellants are not commensurate with the scope
of the claims or otherwise not persuasive.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. §
112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description
requirement is reversed. The decision of the Examiner to reject Claims 1-4,
6-9, and 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite is
reversed. The decision of the Examiner to reject Claims 5 and 10 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite is affirmed. The decision of
the Examiner to reject claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Perkowski is affirmed.
Appeal 2007-3402
Application 09/773,197

23
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2007).

AFFIRMED

hh

IBM CORPORATION (RHF)
C/O ROBERT H. FRANTZ
P. O. BOX 23324
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73123