Ex Parte Beaver et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 4, 2016

13110652 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 4, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/110,652
58139 7590
IBM CORP. (WSM)
c/o WINSTEAD P.C.
P.O. BOX 131851
DALLAS, TX 75313
05/18/2011
08/08/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael B. Beaver
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.
RSW920110023US1 3922
EXAMINER
SHMATOV, ALEXEY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2157
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/08/2016 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):
patdocket@winstead.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL B. BEA VER,
JONATHAN D. COSTELLO, JASON R. GARY, and
RAVI SHAH 1
Appeal2015-000801
Application 13/110,652
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-18, which are all of the pending claims. We
have jurisdiction over these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Internal Business Machines Corporation as the real
party in interest. (App. Br. 1.)
Appeal2015-000801
Application 13/110,652
Introduction
According to Appellants, "[t]he present invention relates to
publish/subscribe systems, and more particularly to preserving event data
from publishers for lazily-loaded macro components." (Spec. 1 :4---6.)
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitations italicized, is
exemplary of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for preserving event data for lazily-loaded
macro components, the method comprising:
identifj;ing a macro component to be lazily-loaded;
storing an indication of said identified macro component
to be lazily-loaded along with one or more indications of one or
more logical channels said identified macro component is to be
a primary receiver in a first data structure;
detecting an event published by a publisher;
identifying a logical channel associated \vith said
published event; and
storing, by a processor, an indication of said logical
channel associated with said published event and data of said
published event as a key/value pair in a second data structure
in response to said identified macro component being said
primary receiver of said logical channel associated with said
published event.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Garcia-Martin et al. ("Garcia-Martin") US 2007/0143502 Al
Ozzie et al. ("Ozzie") US 2011/0179020 Al
2
June 21, 2007
July 21, 2011
Appeal2015-000801
Application 13/110,652
REJECTION2
Claims 1-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Garcia-Martin and Ozzie. (Final Act. 3-14.)
ISSUES
( 1) Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Garcia-Martin and Ozzie teaches or suggests the limitations recited in
independent claims 1, 7, and 13 .
(2) Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Garcia-Martin and Ozzie teaches or suggests the limitations recited in
dependent claims 2, 8, and 14.
(3) Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Garcia-Martin and Ozzie teaches or suggests the limitations recited in
dependent claims 3, 9, and 15.
( 4) Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Garcia-Martin and Ozzie teaches or suggests the limitations recited in
dependent claims 4, 10, and 16.
( 5) Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Garcia-Martin and Ozzie teaches or suggests the limitations recited in
dependent claims 5, 11, and 1 7.
2 In the Final Rejection, the Examiner also rejected claims 7-12 under 35
U.S.C. § 101 as directed to "non-statutory subject matter." The Examiner
withdrew the rejection, however, in response to Appellants' amendment
after final. (Ans. 2; see also Advisory Action dated Mar. 14, 2014 (stating
proposed amendments would be entered for purposes of appeal).)
3
Appeal2015-000801
Application 13/110,652
(6) Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Garcia-Martin and Ozzie teaches or suggests the limitations recited in
dependent claims 6, 12, and 18.
(7) Whether the Examiner erred in combining the teachings of
Garcia-Martin and Ozzie.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's pending rejection in light of
Appellants' arguments the Examiner has erred. We disagree with
Appellants' conclusions and we adopt as our own: (1) the findings and
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken (Final Act. 3-14) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. (Ans. 3-12.)
We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner, and we highlight
the following for emphasis. 3
A. Independent Claims 1, 7, and 134
1. "identifj;ing a macro component to be lazily loaded"
Appellants argue the Examiner's findings are in error because "[t]here
is no language in the cited passages of Garcia-Martin and Ozzie that
3 Only those arguments made by Appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments Appellants did not make in the briefs have not been
considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
4 Appellants argue the patentability of independent claims 7 and 13
collectively with claim 1. (See App. Br. 4--16.) Therefore, based on
Appellants' arguments, we decide the appeal of claims 1, 7, and 13 based on
claim 1 alone. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
4
Appeal2015-000801
Application 13/110,652
teaches" the claim limitation "identifying a macro component to be lazily
loaded." (App. Br. 6 (italicized emphasis added).) As an initial matter, we
note Appellants repeat this sort of semantic argument throughout their brief
in discussing other disputed limitations. (App. Br. 10, 13-15, 18-20, 22, 23,
25, and 2 7.) This argument, which relies on the absence of specific
"language" in the prior art, is not persuasive because, in comparing a prior
art reference to the claimed invention, the important comparison is the
substance of the claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light
of the Specification, and the substance of corresponding relied-upon
disclosure in the prior art reference. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054--
55 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zietz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989). To
show error in the Examiner's position, Appellants must explain why the
relied-upon disclosure does not teach or suggest the claimed feature under its
broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification, rather than
merely allege that the feature is different because it is described in different
terms. Cf In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (explaining that
the comparison of references to the claimed invention "is not an 'ipsissimis
verb is' test").
With regard to the substance of the disputed limitations, the Examiner
finds the "content/feed delivery mechanism" described in Garcia-Martin
falls within the scope of the "macro component" as recited in claim 1. (Final
Act. 7.) Appellants argue this finding is in error because "[t]he Examiner
has not provided any explanation" for this finding. (App. Br. 7.) We
disagree. Garcia-Martin discloses that "content is retrieved from several
destinations and sent to the user in a single SIP [Session Initiation Protocol]
event." (Garcia-Martin i-f 13; see Final Act. 7.) As the Examiner finds, and
5
Appeal2015-000801
Application 13/110,652
we agree, aggregated content to be sent to a user falls within the scope of a
"macro component," affording the term a reasonable interpretation in light
of the Specification, which describes a "macro component" broadly:
A macro component is a bundle of components in a self-
contained single object. Macro components in the context of a
publish/subscribe system may be used to express events of
interest to the message broker, provide the implementation to
act upon those events of interest as well as provide the user
interface components to convey the information of the event to
the end user.
(Spec. 2:7-13 (emphases added); Ans. 3 (finding the "news aggregator"
described in Garcia-Martin "may be regarded as an object that is made up of
various components").)
Appellants' conclusory arguments, which include rhetorical questions
(e.g., App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 1-2), amount to no more than unsupported
assertions that the cited reference fails to disclose the disputed limitation. In
making such assertions, Appellants do not address the Examiner's findings,
e.g., explain why Garcia-Martin's teachings, as cited by the Examiner, fail to
teach or suggest the claimed limitation. Appellants have, therefore, not
persuasively rebutted the Examiner's findings. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d
1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]e hold that the Board reasonably
interpreted Rule 41.3 7 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal
brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that
the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.").
Appellants' arguments regarding the "lazily-loaded" component of
this disputed limitation are no more availing. (See App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br.
4--7.) For that aspect of claim 1, the Examiner "relies on a secondary
6
Appeal2015-000801
Application 13/110,652
reference (Ozzie)." (Ans. 4.) In particular, the Examiner finds, and we
agree:
In i-f [0048] Ozzie recites - "An embodiment of these
techniques (such as the data item receiving component 68) may
therefore monitor the data feed 16, e.g., by polling the data
source 14 on a periodic basis or upon request of the user 12."[]
Polling upon request of the user reads on lazy-loading. Lazy
loading is a concept that is well known in the art. Lazy loading
is a design pattern commonly used in computer programming to
defer initialization of an object until the point at which it is
needed. In view of this definition, "polling upon request of the
user" clearly reads on lazy-loading, as the user only requests the
objects when they are needed by the user.
(Ans. 4 (emphases added).) We further agree the Examiner's stated
understanding of "lazy loading" (as encompassing "[p ]olling upon request of
the user") falls within the scope of "lazy loading" as described by the
Specification, which states: "In certain computing environments, such as a
mobile computing environment, it may be desirable to defer loading these
macro components until the object is needed (referred to as 'lazy loading;).;;
(Spec. i-f 7 (emphases added); see Ans. 4.)
Appellants' conclusory challenges (e.g., App. Br. 7-8) do not
persuade us to the contrary. In particular, we disagree with Appellants'
repeated assertions that the Examiner "must provide extrinsic evidence" that
the teaching of the cited reference "necessarily implies" the disputed
limitation. (See App. Br. 8.) The case law cited by Appellants addresses
inherency in the context of an anticipation finding. The Examiner does not,
however, base his obviousness findings on inherency.
We are, therefore, not persuaded of error in the Examiner finding the
combination of Garcia-Martin and Ozzie teaches or suggests "identifying a
macro component to be lazily-loaded," as recited in claim 1.
7
Appeal2015-000801
Application 13/110,652
2. "storing an indication of said identified macro component to be
lazily-loaded ... "
With regard to the second limitation of claim 1, which recites "storing
an indication of said identified macro component to be lazily-loaded ... in a
first data structure," the Examiner finds, and we agree, Garcia-Martin
teaches storing "the rate at which the aggregator should poll" (Ans. 6 (citing
Garcia-Martin i-f 67) (emphasis added)), and Ozzie teaches polling on
demand (which we agree falls within the scope of lazily loading, as we have
discussed in the preceding section). (Ans. 6.) Therefore, as the Examiner
correctly finds, combining these references teaches or suggests storing an
indication of lazily-loading. (Id.)
The Examiner also finds, and we agree, Garcia-Martin teaches or
suggests "storing ... one or more indications of one or more logical
channels said identified macro component is to be a primary receiver ... in
a first data structure," as also recited in the second limitation of claim 1.
(Ans. 6-7 (emphasis added).) In particular, the Examiner correctly finds
Garcia-Martin teaches "a content aggregation service," including a "[l]ist of
addresses of the content network sources," which the Examiner finds, and
we agree, falls within the scope of the claimed "logical channels" because
"[t]he aggregator receives content from the list of addresses." (Ans. 6
(citing Garcia-Martin i-f 14).)
Appellants' arguments against the Examiner's findings are similar in
nature to those presented with regard to the first disputed limitation of claim
I-that is, they are based on semantics instead of substance, are entirely
conclusory, and rely on irrelevant case law. (App. Br. 10-13; Reply Br. 8-
9.) For reasons similar to those expressed in the previous section, these
8
Appeal2015-000801
Application 13/110,652
arguments do not rebut the Examiner's findings and are not persuasive of
error.
3. "identifj;ing a logical channel associated with said published
event" and "storing ... an indication of said logical channel
"
With regard to the final two limitations of claim 1, the Examiner
finds, and we agree, these limitations are taught or suggested by Garcia-
Martin, which teaches "published material on the web server," as well as
"feed addresses" and a list of URI that provide "where to fetch or subscribe
to, e.g., Atom/RSS news feeds." (Ans. 7 (citing Garcia-Martin i-fi-157, 65).)
The Examiner further finds, and we agree, "[ t ]his clearly demonstrates
association between a channel and a published even[t] as required by the
claim language. In Garcia-Martin, all published events come from some
address." (Id. (emphasis added) (citing Garcia-Martin i-fi-175, 78).) The
Examiner further finds, and \Ve agree:
[T]he claim language requires a pair type association between
the indication of said logical channel associated with said
published event and data of said published event. i1 [0056] of
Garcia-Martin teaches headlines, summaries, and pointers to the
actual news. i-f [0074] recites - "The received feed typically
contains a headline or summary of the whole content, along
with a URI where the whole content can be fetched." There is a
clear association between the channel, publishing event and the
data of the publishing event. Further, see i1 [0072], i1 [0078],
i1 [0038] of Garcia-Martin and specifically see origin-based
filtering. In other words, data of said published event is
aggregated based on the origin of the event that reads on the
logical channel that is associated with the data of said published
event.
(Ans. 7-8.)
9
Appeal2015-000801
Application 13/110,652
Appellants' conclusory challenges to the Examiner's findings suffer
from similar failings as Appellants' arguments regarding the first disputed
limitation, which we have addressed supra. (App. Br. 14--16; Reply Br. 9-
11.) These challenges do not rebut the Examiner's findings and are not
persuasive of error.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
finding the cited combination of references teaches or suggests the
limitations of claim 1, and we, therefore, sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable. For the same reasons, we also
sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 7 and 13, which
Appellants do not argue separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
B. Dependent Claims 2, 8, and 145
Claim 2 depends from claim 1, and recites "retrieving said data of said
published event from said second data structure in response to said identified
macro component being loaded." (App. Br. 32 (Claims App'x).) The
Examiner finds, and we agree, this limitation is taught or suggested by the
combination of Garcia-Martin and Ozzie: "i1[0013] of Garcia-Martin clearly
teaches - 'content is retrieved from several destinations and sent to the user
in a single SIP event[.'] Lazy-loading the aggregator is taught by Ozzie as
demonstrated above." (Ans. 8.)
Appellants challenge the Examiner's findings regarding claim 2 by
arguing "the Examiner appears to be focusing on the language directed to
content being retrieved from several destinations and sent to the user in a
5 Appellants argue the patentability of dependent claims 8 and 14
collectively with dependent claim 2. (See App. Br. 17-19.)
10
Appeal2015-000801
Application 13/110,652
single SIP event," and argue this does not teach "retrieving the data of the
published event from the second data source," as recited in claim 2. (App.
Br. 18 (italicized emphasis added).) The Examiner further finds, however,
Garcia-Martin also teaches:
a memory (MEM) for storing a resource list of addresses of the
content network sources, and a content aggregation processor
(CAP) operably connected with the first and second transceiver
and the memory, and configured to fetch content from the
addresses of the content network sources as well as to aggregate
the fetched content into a notification message to the mobile
terminal.
(Ans. 8 (citing Garcia-Martin i-f 78).)
Appellants then argue the data retrieved in Garcia-Martin is not
retrieved "from the second data structure ... in response to the identified
macro component being loaded." (Reply Br. 12.) We disagree. As the
Examiner previously found in connection with claim 1, Garcia-Martin
teaches fetching content according to the user-designated polling interval,
which corresponds to the macro component being loaded. (E.g., Final Act. 3
(citing Garcia-Martin i-f 72); Ans. 6.)
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
finding the cited combination of references teaches or suggests the
limitations of claim 2, and we, therefore, sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 2 as unpatentable. For the same reasons, we also
sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 8 and 14, which
Appellants do not argue separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
11
Appeal2015-000801
Application 13/110,652
C. Dependent Claims 3, 9, and 156
Claim 3 depends from claim 2, and recites "transmitting said retrieved
data of said published event to said identified macro component." (App. Br.
32 (Claims App'x).)
The Examiner finds with regard to Garcia-Martin, and we agree:
It has been established above that the aggregator read[ s] on the
macro component. i-f [0023] clearly teaches - "fetching
contents of the content network sources by the content
aggregation server according to the addresses contained in the
resource list; aggregating the fetched contents into a notification
message; and sending the notification message to the
terminal[."] Before content is sent to the user, it is first sent for
aggregation. i-f [0004] recites - "The aggregator subscribes to
RSS feed, and if new or updated content is available, retrieves
the content."
(Ans. 9.)
Appellants' arguments amount to no more than terse statements of
what Garcia-Martin purportedly discloses, followed by a conclusory
statement that Garcia-Martin has "no language" that teaches the claimed
limitation. (App. Br. 19-20; Reply Br. 12-13.) As noted supra, such
conclusory assertions have little or no value in identifying the Examiner's
alleged error, and, consequently, have little persuasive value. See In re
Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
finding the cited combination of references teaches or suggests the
limitations of claim 3, and we, therefore, sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 3 as unpatentable. For the same reasons, we also
6 Appellants argue the patentability of dependent claims 9 and 15
collectively with dependent claim 3. (See App. Br. 19-20.)
12
Appeal2015-000801
Application 13/110,652
sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 9 and 15, which
Appellants do not argue separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
D. Dependent Claims 4, 10, and 167
Claim 4 depends from claim 1, and recites "storing said indication of
said identified macro component to be lazily-loaded in a third data structure,
wherein said third data structure stores a collection of indications of macro
components to be lazily-loaded." (App. Br. 35 (Claims App'x).)
The Examiner finds, and we agree, "[t]he claim language recites
multiple macro components. Duplication of parts has no patentable
significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. No new or
unexpected result is produced in this instance." (Ans. 10.) In other words,
the Examiner finds the combination of Garcia-Martin and Ozzie teaches or
suggests "storing an indication of a macro component to be lazily-loaded ...
in a first data structure," as recited in claim 1 (see supra), and further finds
"storing a collection of indications of macro components to be lazily-
loaded" in a "third data structure," as recited in claim 4 (emphasis added) is
a mere duplication of parts. We agree. As the Examiner also correctly
notes, "mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new
and unexpected result is produced." In re Harza, 214 F.2d 669, 774 (CCPA
1960).
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of error. In particular,
Appellants do not argue new or unexpected results. Moreover, Appellants'
conclusory arguments-which are premised primarily on an alleged lack of
7 Appellants argue the patentability of dependent claims 10 and 16
collectively with dependent claim 4. (See App. Br. 20-22.)
13
Appeal2015-000801
Application 13/110,652
express teaching in the references themselves (Reply Br. 14--15)----are
contrary to the Supreme Court's holding in KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007), wherein the Court held that a finding of
obviousness may consider "the background knowledge possessed by a
person having ordinary skill in the art" and "the inferences and creative steps
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
finding the cited combination of references teaches or suggests the
limitations of claim 4, and we, therefore, sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 4 as unpatentable. For the same reasons, we also
sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 10 and 16, which
Appellants do not argue separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
E. Dependent Claims 5, 11, and 178
Claim 5 depends from claim 4, and adds the limitation "removing said
indication of said identified macro component to be lazily-loaded in said
third data structure in response to said identified macro component being
loaded." (App. Br. 32-33 (Claims App'x).)
The Examiner finds, and we agree:
This feature is at least obvious taken the teachings of Garcia-
Martin in view of Ozzie. As described in the response to the
first argument above, Garcia-Martin in view of Ozzie teaches
lazy-loaded macro components. It would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to remove the indication of lazy
loading as the component is being loaded because if the
component is already loaded and doing its job, there is no more
8 Appellants argue the patentability of dependent claims 11 and 1 7
collectively with dependent claim 5. (See App. Br. 22-24.)
14
Appeal2015-000801
Application 13/110,652
reason for lazy loading as lazy loading is a passive state that
only initiates as needed.
(Ans. 10.) Appellants' argument challenging the Examiner's finding is
entirely conclusory (App. Br. 23) and is unpersuasive of error. See In re
Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claim 5 as unpatentable. For the same reasons, we also sustain the
Examiner's rejection of independent claims 11 and 17, which Appellants do
not argue separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
F. Dependent Claims 6, 12, and 189
Claim 6 depends from claim 4 and recites "transmitting an indication
to a container that said identified macro component has been loaded in
response to said identified macro component being loaded." (App. Br. 33
(Claims App'x).)
The Examiner finds, and we agree:
If the component is loaded then it would have been obvious to
indicate that the component is in fact loaded. In a computer
system, if the component is loaded, it will not have an
indication as not loaded. This is an implicit feature of any
computing component that is designed to perform a function.
In Garcia-Martin, when the aggregator begins to aggregate, the
state of the system is clearly indicative that the aggregator is
indeed aggregating data.
(Ans. 11 (emphasis added).)
Appellants' conclusory arguments challenging the Examiner's
findings (App. Br. 24--26) are unpersuasive of error. See In re Lovin, 652
9 Appellants argue the patentability of dependent claims 12 and 18
collectively with dependent claim 6. (See App. Br. 24--26.)
15
Appeal2015-000801
Application 13/110,652
F.3d at 1357. Appellants also mischaracterize the Examiner's findings as
premised on inherency, and assert the Examiner failed to present objective
evidence demonstrating that the cited references "inherently" teach the
claimed limitation. (App. Br. 25-26.) The Examiner does not rely on
inherency, however, but instead relies on obviousness.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
finding the cited combination of references teaches or suggests the
limitations of claim 6, and we, therefore, sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 6 as unpatentable. For the same reasons, we also
sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 12 and 18, which
Appellants do not argue separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
G. Rational Basis for Combining Cited References
Appellants additionally argue "[t]he Examiner's reasoning is
insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness in rejecting claims
1-18." (App. Br. 26; see also id. at 26-30; Reply Br. 15-17.) We find
Appellants' argument unpersuasive. We recognize that the Examiner must
articulate "reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
However, the Examiner's reasoning need not appear in, or be suggested by,
one or more of the references on which the Examiner relies. Instead, a
reason to combine teachings from the prior art "may be found in explicit or
implicit teachings within the references themselves, from the ordinary
knowledge of those skilled in the art, or from the nature of the problem to be
solved." WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int'! Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1355 (Fed.
Cir. 1999) (citing In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
16
Appeal2015-000801
Application 13/110,652
"Under the correct [obviousness] analysis, any need or problem known in
the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can
provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed." KSR
Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007).
In the instant appeal, we agree the Examiner has provided a rationale
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
achieve the claimed subject matter, that is:
At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to combine content aggregation of
Garcia-Martin with aggregation of data feeds and specifically
lazy polling of Ozzie for a predictable result of improving data
throughput, increasing transaction speed and eliminating
redundant updates [.]
(Final Act. 4 (citing Garcia-Martin i-f 49).)
Appellants have not demonstrated why the Examiner's rationale is
erroneous or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have reached
the conclusions reached by the Examiner. See DyStar Textilfarben GmbH &
Co. Deutschland KG v. CH Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir.
2006) ("[T]he proper question is whether the ordinary artisan possesses
knowledge and skills rendering him capable of combining the prior art
references"). Consequently, we are not persuaded that the Examiner failed
to articulate a sufficient rationale for combining Garcia-Martin and Ozzie.
17
Appeal2015-000801
Application 13/110,652
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claims 1-18 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
18