Ex Parte DeGrande et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 30, 2012

11263316 (B.P.A.I. May. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ROSS DEGRANDE, NANCY L. FRIEDMAN, and
GARFIELD W. VAUGHN
____________

Appeal 2010-003464
Application 11/263,316
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-003464
Application 11/263,316

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The claims are directed to hierarchically storing and retrieving
business documents in an enterprise software application environment.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer-implemented method for storing a business
document in an enterprise software application environment,
comprising:

providing a hierarchical structure, the hierarchical
structure having a plurality of levels, wherein each level
represents a business entity level;

providing an interface for accessing the hierarchical
structure;

linking, using the interface, the business document with a
business entity in the level in the hierarchical structure
corresponding to the business document, every business
document being linked with only one business entity; and

allowing assignment of attributes that are not related to
the level to the business document.

REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Suzuki US 6,526,406 B1 Feb. 25, 2003

Appeal 2010-003464
Application 11/263,316

3
REJECTION
Claims 1-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Suzuki.

ANALYSIS
Appellants have elected to group independent claims 1, 8, 15, and 22
together as a group (App. Br. 6-7). We address independent claim 1 as the
representative claim. Regarding representative claim 1, Appellants contend
that Suzuki discloses linking documents with multiple groups in a
hierarchical structure and thus fails to disclose “every business document
being linked with only one business entity” (App. Br. 5). Further,
Appellants argue that “the Examiner’s attempt to artificially isolate the
owner’s group of Suzuki from every other group and say that it is equivalent
to the ‘only one business entity’ to which the business document of the
claimed invention is linked is flawed” (Reply Br. 2).
We disagree. Claim 1 does not define the term “linking” with any
specificity, but the Specification describes a linked business document as
follows: “a business document that is link[ed] [to] a business entity on a
particular level 110, 120, 130, 140, and 150 of hierarchical structure 42 has
a relationship with the business entity in the level 110, 120, 130, 140, and
150 to which it has been linked as well as any dependent business entities”
(Spec. ¶ 0031) (emphasis added). Accordingly, even though a document is
“linked” to a particular business entity, the document can still have some
relationship with other business entities. Appellants have not pointed to any
description in the Specification that describes or defines “linking” as
excluding relationships between a business document and other business
Appeal 2010-003464
Application 11/263,316

4
entities with which the document is not “linked.” Thus, claim 1 does not
preclude relationships between the claimed business document and business
entities with which it is not “linked,” despite the limitation that the document
only be linked to one business entity.
Suzuki discloses an “owner group” for a document (Suzuki, col. 28, l.
62-col. 29, l. 4), which the Examiner finds meets the limitation of the
“business document being linked with only one business entity” (Ans. 4, 10-
11). Suzuki also discloses that a document may have a relationship with
groups other than its owner group by virtue of the owner group distributing
the document to other groups and giving the right of access to those groups
(See Suzuki, col. 29, ll. 5-18). The Examiner’s finding that the “owner
group” is “linked” with the document while the other groups are not does not
rely on an arbitrary distinction, as Appellants argue (Reply Br. 1-2), because,
as the Examiner explains, the owner group has a specific ownership
relationship with the document (See Ans. 10-11). That is, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner’s finding that the owner group is
“linked” with the document, while the other groups with a mere right of
access to the document are not. We also note that Appellants have not
offered evidence suggesting Suzuki discloses more than one owner group
per document (See App. Br. 4-6; Reply Br. 1-2). Accordingly, Suzuki
discloses the claimed feature of “every business document being linked with
only one business entity.”
We therefore find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1 as
anticipated.
Appeal 2010-003464
Application 11/263,316

5
Although Appellants address the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-4,
10-121, and 16-18 (App. Br. 5), these claims are not argued under a separate
heading as stated in the rules. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2010) (“Any
claim argued separately should be placed under a subheading identifying the
claim by number. Claims argued as a group should be placed under a
subheading identifying the claims by number.”). Nevertheless, Appellants
traverse and submit that these limitations indicate, inter alia,
environment of, structure of, and distinct elements of the
claimed invention. To this extent, Applicants respectfully
submit that the Examiner’s summary rejection of the claims is
inappropriate because the Examiner has failed to give these
features the patentable weight that is due them.

(App. Br. 5-6). However, Appellants fail to provide separate and sufficient
argument as to why the Examiner failed to establish a prima facie case. The
Examiner specifically addresses the limitations of claims 2-4, 9-11, and 16-
18, and finds that the recited limitations are directed to non-functional
descriptive material (Ans. 4-8). Appellants have not explained why the
Examiner is incorrect in the claim interpretation, and why these claim
limitations are due patentable weight. We therefore find that the Examiner
did not err in rejecting claims 2-4, 9-11, and 16-18 as anticipated.

1 Appellants’ inclusion of claims 10-12 appears to be in error because
Appellants’ argument is directed to claims that the Examiner finds
“describ[e] features . . . as descriptive material” (App. Br. 5). The Examiner
actually finds that claims 9-11, not claims 10-12, recite non-functional
descriptive material (Ans. 4-7). We therefore assume that Appellants intend
to argue claims 9-11 here.
Appeal 2010-003464
Application 11/263,316

6
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).

DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the rejections of claims 1-22.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

tkl