Ex Parte Appleyard et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 8, 2016

12366326 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/366,326 0210512009
68501 7590 03/10/2016
PA TENTS ON DEMAND, P.A. - IBM CHA
4581 WESTON ROAD
SUITE 345
WESTON, FL 33331
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
JAMES P. APPLEYARD
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
CHA920080020US 1 7628
EXAMINER
MOONEYHAM, JANICE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/10/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
docketing 1@patentsondemand.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte JAMES P. APPLEYARD, EDWIN J. BRUCE,
ROMELIA H. FLORES, and JOSHUA L. PURCELL
Appeal2013-009432
Application 12/366,326
Technology Center 3600
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
STATEMENT OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.
1 Our decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed Jan. 14,
2013), the Specification ("Spec.," filed Feb. 5, 2009), the Final Office
Action ("Final Act.," mailed Apr. 13, 2012), and the Examiner's Answer
("Ans.," mailed Apr. 24, 2013).
2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as International Business
Machines, Inc. (Br. 3).
Appeal2013-009432
Application 12/366,326
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' invention "relates to the field of Web portal technologies
and, more particularly, to role tailored dashboards and scorecards in a portal
solution that integrates retrieved metrics across an enterprise" (Spec. if 1 ).
Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A metrics driven method for presenting data within a portal
compnsmg:
[a] logging, via computing equipment executing program
instructions stored on at least one non-transitory medium,
a user into an organization portal;
[b] determining, via computing equipment executing
program instructions stored on at least one non-transitory
medium, an organization role for the user;
[ c] graphically presenting, via computing equipment
executing program instructions stored on at least one
non-transitory medium, within a plurality of metrics
driven portlets of the organization portal, indicators of
values obtained from metrics tailored for the determined
organization role, said plurality of metrics driven portlets
comprising at least one scorecard and at least one
dashboard, each tailored for the determined
organizational role;
[ d] dynamically updating, via computing equipment
executing program instructions stored on at least one
non-transitory medium, the scorecard and the dashboard
based upon metrics provided by a plurality of discrete
services,
[ e] wherein said discrete services obtain the metrics from a
plurality of geographically distributed data sources,
[ f] wherein the plurality of discrete services are functionally
independent of each other and are responsible for
federating data in a portlet and role specific manner,
[g] wherein the scorecard shows at least one strategic
business concern that is measured against at least one of
2
Appeal2013-009432
Application 12/366,326
the metrics from the plurality of geographically
distributed data sources,
[h] wherein the dashboard shows at least one tactical
business concern that is measured against at least one
metric from the plurality of geographically distributed
data sources; and
[i] providing, via computing equipment executing program
instructions stored on at least one non-transitory medium,
online collaboration capabilities through a collaboration
portlet of the organization portal, which are tailored for
the determined organization role.
Br. 22, Claims Appendix (with bracketed matter added).
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1-7, 10, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Fliess (US 2004/0002887 Al, pub. Jan. 1, 2004) and Evans (US
2005/0144022 Al, pub. Jun. 30, 2005).
II. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Fliess, Evans, and
Nesamoney (US 7,448,048 Bl, iss. Nov. 4, 2008).
III. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Fliess, Evans, and
Hughes (US 2009/0327429 Al, pub. Dec. 31, 2009).
IV. Claims 12-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Fliess, Evans, and Steiner (US 2008/0295164 Al, pub. Nov. 27,
2008).
V. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Fliess, Evans,
Steiner and Official Notice.
VI. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Fliess, Evans,
Steiner, and Nesamoney.
VII. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Fliess, Evans,
Steiner and Hughes.
3
Appeal2013-009432
Application 12/366,326
FACTUAL FINDINGS
We rely on the Examiner's factual findings stated in the Answer
(Ans. 3-20) and the Final Office Action (Final Act. 2--47). We have
reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Brief against the Final Rejection
and the Examiner's Answer, and we are not persuaded of reversible error.
We adopt the Examiner's findings and rationale provided in the Final
Rejection and the Answer as our own. We note the following with
regards to a number of Appellants' contentions for emphasis.
APPELLANTS' CONTENTIONS
1) The Examiner cited Fliess as teaching limitation [ d] of
claim 1, but the relied-upon citations do not teach this
claimed limitation (Br. 12).
2) "[T]he Examiner contends that Evans actually teaches the
dynamic updating, but does not particularly point out where
in Evans this is found. The Rejection points to paras. 0024
(although the Examiner quotes para. 0026), 0027, and
0028." These sections indicate what data the system tracks,
rather than dynamically updating a portlet" (id.).
3) Fliess does not teach limitations [ e] and [ f] of claim 1,
because Appellants "disagree that Fliess shows multiple
services that obtain metrics from geographically distributed
sources," wherein the plurality of discrete services are
functionally independent of each other and responsible for
federating data in a portlet and role specific manner (id.
at 13).
4
Appeal2013-009432
Application 12/366,326
4) "There is no teaching in Fliess of an equivalent to the
claimed collaboration portlet in the portal" and even if it
does show a collaboration portal, it is not "in the same portal
as the skill needs and skill resources portal" (id. at 14).
5) "Nothing in these cited excerpts [of Fliess and Evans] do the
Applicants find about dynamically updating the dashboard
and the scoreboard from a common one of distributed
sources," as recited in claim 5 (id. at 15). "The Examiner
appears to have based the rejection on a mere conclusory
statement, alleging that 'The motivation for combining
references is established in the rejection to claim l '" (id.).
6) "Fliess and Evens [sic] are completely silent about 'wherein
said previously established boundary condition is
established by a user of the organization portal via the
scorecard or the dashboard,;;; as recited in claim 7 (id.).
7) As per claim 9, Hughes is silent about assessing
relationships among the alert recipients for resolving an alert
(id. at 16).
8) Fliess is completely silent about SOA, as recited in claim 11
(id. at 17).
9) As per claim 19, Appellants argue against the Examiner's
rejection of the limitation "contact querying software
configured to search an organizational directory for a set of
personnel associated with responding to the out-of-bounds
event, wherein said contact querying software alters content
of a portlet served of the served Web portal to include
5
Appeal2013-009432
Application 12/366,326
results produced by the contact querying software" (id. at
19-21).
DISCUSSION
As to Appellants' above contention 1, we are not persuaded of error
because the Examiner does not rely solely on Fliess, but rather on the
combination of Fliess and Evans to teach limitation [d] (Final Act. 9-10;
Ans. 3--4). Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the
references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination
of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F .2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986).
As to Appellants' contention 2, we are not persuaded of error because
the Examiner rather relies on paragraph 30 of Evans for teaching "dynamic
updating" and provides an explanation of how this element is interpreted in
relation to the prior art (Final Act. 11; see also Ans. 4).
As to Appellants' contention 3, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred in rejecting limitations [ e] and [ f] of claim 1. In construing
this claim language, the Examiner provides a detailed explanation with
regards to the teachings ofFliess (Final Act. 8-9, 49-51; see also Ans. 5-7
(citing Fliess i-fi-140, 41, and 44)), but Appellants do not present any evidence
or point to the Specification to contest the Examiner's interpretation.
As to Appellants' contention 4, Fliess discloses a Web portal 410 that
can provide a role based user interface including a content management
component 418 that can include a collaboration component (Fliess i-fi-1 48-
49). Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's position "that one o[f]
ordinary skill in the art would readily and easily recognize that portals
6
Appeal2013-009432
Application 12/366,326
include portlets (which are simply interface applications displayed in a
portal)" or elements of a portal page (see Ans. 8). We are not persuaded by
Appellants' assertion that even if Fliess "does show a collaboration portlet, it
is not in the same portal as the skill needs and skill resources portal,"
because "limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for
patentability." See In re Self, 671F.2d1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982).
We disagree with Appellants' contention 5, because these allegations
are unfounded. We find that the Examiner's position and findings are
detailed in the rejection of record and the Examiner has articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning as to why the proposed combination is
appropriate to support the legal conclusion of obviousness with respect to
claim 5 (Final Act. 13-15; see also Ans. 9-10).
As to Appellants' contention 6, we are not persuaded of reversible
error because Appellants do not address the rejection of record. In rejecting
the "detecting'' limitation of claim 7, the Examiner relies upon the teachings
of Fliess in combination with Evans and provides an explanation of how the
disputed "wherein" clause is interpreted in view of the prior art and the
language of the claim (Final Act. 16-19; see also Ans. 11). The test for
obviousness does not require the claimed invention to be expressly
suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
As to Appellants' contention 7, we disagree. Hughes discloses that
"UAS processes unmanaged Alerts by only sending the initial Alert
notification to all relevant subscribers," thus assessing which recipients are
relevant for notification among the alert recipients (Hughes i-f 33; see also
7
Appeal2013-009432
Application 12/366,326
Ans. 13). Hughes also discloses that a processed list of recipients or a
collaboration list is passed to Alert State Manager as the current recipients
for an alert instance (id. i-f 36). "UAS allows collaboration lists of Alert
notification recipients to dynamically expand over time as Escalations occur,
and provides 'communities' of participants for resolving an alert" (id. i-f 37).
By determining which recipients from among the alert recipients to add to
the collaboration lists, Hughes teaches or suggests assessing relationships
among the users for resolving an alert.
As to Appellants' contention 8, we are not persuaded of reversible
error because the Examiner does not rely on Fliess as disclosing SOA (Ans.
12; see also Final Act. 19-21). We also note that Appellants acknowledge
that "software oriented architecture is a well understood architecture as of
the time of filing the present application" (Br. 17-18).
As to Appellants' contention 9, we agree with the Examiner that
Appellants arguments against the references individually are unpersuasive
because the Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Fliess, Evans,
Steiner, and Hughes to reject the contested limitation of claim 19 (Ans. 16-
20; see also Final Act. 43--47). For instance, Appellants do not explain why
Fliess' s search and assignment engine tool (Fliess i-f 4 7) fails to teach or
suggest the claimed search/ query tool.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner
reversibly erred in rejecting the claims as listed in the Rejections section
above. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of claims 1-20.
8
Appeal2013-009432
Application 12/366,326
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20 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).
AFFIRMED
9