Ex Parte Charters et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 5, 2014

10907034 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 5, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte GRAHM C. CHARTERS, AMANDA E. CHESSELL, MICHAEL
FRIESS, VERNON M. GREEN, and KEITH B. MANTELL
_____________

Appeal 2011-009392
Application 10/907,034
Technology Center 2100
______________

Before, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and JOHNNY A.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges.

Per Curiam.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1, 11, and 23 through 43.
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method that provides real world
contexts to computer applications for outputting data describing one or more
Appeal 2011-009392
Application 10/907,034

2

real world contexts. See Abstract of Appellants’ Specification. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A computer-implemented method for providing real world
contexts to computer applications for outputting data describing
one or more real world contexts, the method comprising:
identifying components in a computer application which
implement instances of real world contexts; and
updating application components so that a real world
context instance is active during the execution by the
application of a function for the real world context instance;
wherein
each real world context instance has an instance identifier
and is referenced by type of real world context.

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 11, 23 through 30, 32 through 35,
42 and 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Racca (US
2008/0307392 A1). Answer 4-81.
The Examiner has rejected claims 36 through 38 and 41 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Racca and Felt (US 7,213,049 B2).
Answer 8-9.
The Examiner has rejected claims 31, 39, and 40 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Racca and Monson-Hafel (Enterprise
Javabeans, O’Reilly & Associates, March 2000). Answer 9-10.

1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated November 22,
2010, and the Examiner’s Answer mailed on February 15, 2010.
Appeal 2011-009392
Application 10/907,034

3

ISSUE
Appellants’ arguments on pages 7 through 11 of the Appeal Brief,
directed to the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 present us with
the issues:
1) Did the Examiner err in finding Racca teaches updating
application components so that real world context instance is
active during the execution of the application of a function of the
real world context instance?
2) Did the Examiner err in finding Racca teaches each real
world context instance has an instance identifier and is referenced
by type of real world context?

Appellants’ arguments on pages 11 and 12 of the Brief directed to the
remaining claims present us with the same issue.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection and the Examiner’s response to the Appellants’
arguments. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner
erred in finding that Racca teaches: updating application components so that
real world context instance is active during the execution of the application
of a function of the real world context instance; and each real world context
instance has an instance identifier and is referenced by type of real world
context. The Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to each of
the points raised in Appellants’ arguments on pages 10 and 13 of the
Answer. The Examiner has found Racca teaching of updating a sales order
Appeal 2011-009392
Application 10/907,034

4

with an order amount meets the claimed updating application component.
Answer 11. Further, the Examiner has found that Racca teaches several
identifiers that meet the claimed instance identifier. Answer 11-12. In
making these findings the Examiner has shown that the interpretation of the
claim limitations is consistent with the Appellants’ Specification. We have
performed a de novo review of the relevant findings by the Examiner and
concur with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions. Ex parte Frye, 94
USPQ2d 1072, 1074 (BPAI 2010) (“[T]he Board reviews the particular
finding(s) contested by an appellant anew in light of all the evidence and
argument on that issue.”). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of independent claim 1. As Appellants have asserted the rejection of the
remainder of the claims is in error for the same reason (Brief 5, 11 and 12),
we similarly sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 11, and 23 through
43.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 11, and 23 through 43
is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

msc