Ex Parte Bodin et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 27, 2010

10105122 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 27, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte WILLIAM KRESS BODIN and DERRAL CHARLES THORSON
____________

Appeal 2009-005948
Application 10/105,122
Technology Center 2400
____________

Decided: April 27, 2010
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, LEE E. BARRETT, and JAY P. LUCAS,
Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
reverse.

Appeal 2009-005948
Application 10/105,122

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention pertains to email administration, particularly
routing and displaying digital objects in email with a tag language. See
generally Spec. 1, 4. Claim 1 is illustrative with the key limitation
emphasized:
1. A method of email administration comprising the steps of:

receiving an email in a transcoding gateway, the email
comprising:

at least one digital object, and

display attributes for the digital object, the display attributes
expressed in a tag language;

displaying the digital object in accordance with the display
attributes.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Jilk, Jr. US 2002/0010746 A1 Jan. 24, 2002
(filed Feb. 9, 2001)
Capiel US 6,449,634 B1 Sept. 10, 2002
(filed Jan. 29, 1999)

THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Capiel. Ans. 3-4.1
2. The Examiner rejected claims 2-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Capiel and Jilk. Ans. 5-9.

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed July 30, 2007
and the Examiner’s Answer mailed October 26, 2007.
Appeal 2009-005948
Application 10/105,122

3
THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION
The Examiner evidently finds that Capiel’s email server corresponds
to a “transcoding gateway” which receives HTML-based email messages
from email clients, where the email includes (1) a “digital object” in the
form of an HTML image tag statement, and (2) HTML-based display
attributes pertaining to the digital object. Ans. 3-4. The Examiner adds that
the digital objects are displayed according to these attributes by
incorporating digital files by reference. Ans. 4.
Appellants argue that Capiel’s email sensor server is not a transcoding
gateway as claimed, but rather a “middleman information collection point”
between vendors and email clients. Br. 11-12. Appellants add that the
image referred to in Capiel’s tag statement is not a digital object within an
email as claimed since this image is not part of the email document, but
rather located remotely on a drive or server. Br. 13-15. Lastly, Appellants
contend that Capiel does not display a digital object according to the recited
tag-based display attributes, but rather according to an email sensor message
and client information. Br. 16.
The issues before us, then, are as follows:

ISSUE
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Capiel:
(1) receives an email in a transcoding gateway, where the email
comprises (a) at least one digital object, and (b) display attributes for the
digital object expressed in a tag language, and
(2) displays the digital object according to the display attributes?
Appeal 2009-005948
Application 10/105,122

4
FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
1. Capiel’s system remotely detects and monitors file formats (e.g.,
hypertext markup language (HTML), dynamic HTML (DHTML), Java
applets, etc.) that email clients can process and display via email client
software. Capiel, Title; Abstract; col. 4, ll. 44-50; Figs. 1-2.
2. To this end, Capiel utilizes an “email sensor server” 130 connected
to vendor systems 112-116 and email clients 144-148 via the internet 110,
140. The email sensor server runs a sensor server program and
communicates with an email sensor database 132. In essence, the email
sensor server functions as a “middleman” information collection point
between the vendor systems and the email clients. Capiel, col. 2, l. 65 – col.
3, l. 21; Fig. 1.
3. Capiel’s email server 134 sends email to, and receives email from,
the email clients. The email server is also connected to the email sensor
database. Capiel, col. 3, ll. 7-10; Fig. 1.
4. The email server 134 and email sensor server 130 have similar
hardware and may run on one computer. Capiel, col. 4, ll. 30-32; col. 3, ll.
10-11; Figs. 1-2.
5. Vendors 112, 114, and 116 have their own web pages including
HTML documents with images. Vendor A, for example, can pass its HTML
document information and email client customer list to the email sensor
server 130 via internet 110 for storage in the email sensor database. The
email server 134 would then access this database and include Vendor A’s

Appeal 2009-005948
Application 10/105,122

5
HTML information in an email sensor message (“email sensor” 300) sent
from the email server 134 to email clients listed on Vendor A’s customer
list. Capiel, col. 3, ll. 22-34; col. 4, l. 64 – col. 5, l. 2; Figs. 1, 4 (steps 410-
412).
6. The email sensor 300 contains (1) a message header; (2) a plain
text portion 312; (3) an HTML text portion 314; and (4) an HTML image tag
316. Capiel, col. 4, ll. 51-58; col. 5, l. 39 – col. 6, l. 62; Fig. 3.
7. If the email client’s software determines that it can process and
display HTML, it displays the HTML portion 314 of the sensor message and
ignores the message’s corresponding textual part 312. In this circumstance,
the email client software also (1) executes the sensor message’s HTML
image tag (i.e., a call to the email sensor server), and (2) automatically sends
a response to the email sensor server 130 along with program information
(e.g., the type and version of the email client’s software). The email sensor
server then updates its database with this information. Capiel, col. 2, ll. 55-
62; col. 5, ll. 5-18; col. 7, ll. 59-60; col. 10, ll. 25-40; Fig. 4 (steps 416-420);
Fig. 7.
8. The HTML image tag 316 include a line (“