Ex Parte Aaron

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 25, 2013

10955161 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 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.
10/955,161 09/30/2004 Jeffrey A. Aaron 9400-112 3782
39072 7590 07/25/2013
AT&T Legal Department - MB
Attn: Patent Docketing
Room 2A-207
One AT&T Way
Bedminster, NJ 07921
EXAMINER
GEBREMICHAEL, BRUK A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3715
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/25/2013 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 JEFFREY A. AARON
____________________

Appeal 2010-011916
Application 10/955,161
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: JOHN C. KERINS, JILL D. HILL, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.

PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-011916
Application 10/955,161

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 2, 3, 5-16, and 23-25. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 6 is the sole independent claim and is reproduced below:
6. A computer-implemented method for
providing an electronic education service to a user,
comprising:
identifying a target education topic for the
user;
obtaining user profile information associated
with the user from a database communicatively
coupled to the electronic education service;
identifying a plurality of tasks to provide the
target education topic based on the identified target
education topic and the obtained user profile
information, said identifying
comprising:
identifying tasks to generate an
education plan for the target education topic;
identifying at least one resource for
educational materials specified by the education
plan; and
identifying tasks to provide the target
education topic to the user based on the education
plan;
requesting execution of actions by
application service providing modules executed by
a computer processor, other than the electronic
education service, to carry out the identified tasks
to provide the target education topic to the user;
Appeal 2010-011916
Application 10/955,161

3
receiving status information from the
application service providing modules based on the
execution of actions by the application service
providing modules; and
updating the education plan based on the
received status information.

REJECTIONS
1. Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9-14, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Knutson (US 7,050,753 B2; iss. May
23, 2006) and Hall (US 2002/0049743 A1; pub. Apr. 25, 2002);
2. Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Knutson, Hall, and Riconda (US 2004/0110119 A1; pub.
Jun. 10, 2004);
3. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Knutson, Hall, and Roper (US 6,270,351 B1; iss. Aug. 7, 2001);
4. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Knutson, Hall, and Atkinson (US 6,507,726 B1; iss. Jan. 14, 2003); and
5. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Knutson, Hall, and Cunningham (US 2005/0019740 A1; pub. Jan. 27,
2005).

OPINION
The Examiner finds that that Knutson discloses the majority of the
features of claim 6, but does not explicitly disclose the claimed updating of
the education plan. Ans. 4. The Examiner finds that Hall explicitly
discloses updating an education plan. Ans. 5 (citing Hall, para. [0029], ll.
23-33). Further, while the Examiner acknowledges that Knutson fails to
Appeal 2010-011916
Application 10/955,161

4
explicitly disclose updating the education plan, the Examiner finds that
Knutson implicitly discloses updating the education plan. Id. (citing
Knutson, col. 4, ll. 64-67 and col. 5, ll. 1-5). Appellant challenges the
Examiner’s findings regarding the claimed updating of the education plan.
App. Br. 6-8; Reply Br. 2-3.
The portion of Hall relied on by the Examiner as disclosing the
claimed updating discusses creating a degree plan. See Hall, para. [0029].
Appellant argues that creating a degree plan (education plan) as discussed in
Hall is not the same as the claimed updating. App. Br. 7-8. Appellant
explains that “updating” means bringing up to date by adding new
information or making corrections, while “creating” means causing
something to come into being. App. Br. 7. The Examiner explains that the
broadest reasonable interpretation of “updating” is similar to the broadest
reasonable interpretation of “creating” in the context of revising or replacing
old data with new data because the updating process involves the creation of
a new entry. Ans. 20-21. We agree with Appellant that while updating may
include revising or replacing old data by creating a new entry, creating does
not necessarily include updating because creating may simply be the initial
instance of the data. See Reply Br. 3. Paragraph [0029] of Hall (cited by the
Examiner as disclosing the claimed updating) appears to disclose creating an
initial instance of an education plan and does not further discuss revising or
replacing information in the education plan. The Examiner has failed to
establish that Hall discloses revising or replacing information in an existing
education plan (i.e., updating an education plan).
The portion of Knutson cited by the Examiner as disclosing the
claimed updating discusses developing and updating a learning template.
Appeal 2010-011916
Application 10/955,161

5
See Knutson, col. 4, ll. 64-67 and col. 5, ll. 1-5. Knutson describes the
learning template as consisting of a user’s proclivities and/or preferences
(i.e., how a user prefers to learn). Knutson, col. 4, ll. 64-66. The Examiner
explains that the learning template in Knutson corresponds to the claimed
education plan. Ans. 19-20. Appellant argues that Knutson does not
disclose updating the education plan as claimed because the claimed
education plan is focused on what a user wants to learn, not how a user
prefers to learn. App. Br. 7.
During examination of a patent application, pending claims are given
their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. In
re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re
Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05 (CCPA 1969). Appellant explains that the
meaning of “education plan” is a plan for providing a target education topic
to a user including the area or topic, the materials or services available, and
the sources for the materials or services. Id. (citing Spec., paras. [0050],
[0068]). Indeed, throughout Appellant’s Specification, “education plan” is
described relative to a target education topic (i.e., what a user wants to
learn). We agree with Appellant that the claimed “education plan” cannot be
construed so broadly as to encompass a user’s learning proclivities and/or
preferences independent of a course of study for providing a target education
topic to the user. See App. Br. 7-8. Even Knutson describes the “education
plan” and the “learning template” as distinct elements, with the learning
template providing the manner in which the educational content will be
presented to the user. See Knutson, col. 4, ll. 51-56. The Examiner has
failed to establish that the learning template in Knutson is an education plan
focused on what the user wants to learn. Therefore, the Examiner has also
Appeal 2010-011916
Application 10/955,161

6
failed to establish that updating the learning template in Knutson implicitly
discloses updating an education plan.
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 6 or claims 2, 3, 5, 9-14, 24,
and 25 which depend from claim 6. Claims 7, 8, 15, 16, and 23 also depend
from claim 6 and the stated bases for the rejections of these claims do not
cure the deficiencies in the rejection of claim 6. We also do not sustain the
rejections of claims 7, 8, 15, 16, and 23.

DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2, 3, 5-16,
and 23-25.

REVERSED

Klh