Ex Parte Dozier et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 20, 2014

11562287 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 20, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/562,287 11/21/2006 Linda T. Dozier 10587.0406-04000 8951
100692 7590 02/20/2014
AOL Inc./Finnegan
901 New York Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20001
EXAMINER
WINDER, PATRICE L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2452
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/20/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte LINDA T. DOZIER, GEORGE W. WILLIAMS (V),
DAVE LONG, DOUGLAS M. MCKEE,
JAMES G. DAVIDSON, and KAREN BRADY
____________________

Appeal 2011-011212
Application 11/562,287
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before: LYNNE H. BROWNE, PATRICK R. SCANLON, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-011212
Application 11/562,287
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
1-31. Claim 32 is canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method, apparatus and system for editing
electronic documents located remote from but accessible to a client
computer. Claims 1, 14, and 27 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced
below:
1. A method for editing electronic documents located
remote from but accessible to a client computer, the method
comprising:
browsing from a client computer to a document located
within a network accessible to both the client computer and at
least one other computer, the document located remote from but
accessible to the client computer;
using the client computer to edit the document, wherein
memory remote from but accessible to the client computer is
used to store a modified version of the document that is
displayed to enable a user of the client computer to interact with
the document; and
saving the document, as edited, to a location remote from
but accessible through the network to the at least one other
computer.

PRIOR ART
Bernard J. Haan et al., IRIS Hypermedia Services, Communications of
the ACM, Vol. 35, No.1, pp. 36-51 (1992) (hereinafter “Haan”).
Tim Berners-Lee, The World-Wide Web Initiative, In the Proceedings
of International Networking Conference (INET 1993) (hereinafter “Berners-
Lee”).
Appeal 2011-011212
Application 11/562,287
3
Michael A. Harrison, Defining Hypermedia: The Essential Elements,
University of California at Berkeley (1992).
Jerry Fowler et al., Experience with the virtual notebook system:
abstraction in hypertext, Proceedings of the 1994 ACM conference on
Computer supported Cooperative work, pp. 133-143 (1994).

GROUNDS OF REJECTION
1. Claims 1, 5-14, 18-27, and 29-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§102(b) as being anticipated by Haan.
2. Claims 2, 15, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Haan and Berners-Lee.
3. Claims 3, 4, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Haan and Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art.

OPINION
Anticipation
Appellants argue claims 1, 5-14, 18-27, and 29-31 as a group. See
App. Br. 11-13. We select independent claim 1 as the illustrative claim and
claims 5-14, 18-27, and 29-31 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
Appellants note that in Haan “edits must be made to a retrieved
document locally and can then subsequently be saved on Intermedia for
multiple users to be able to access.” App. Br. 12. Based on this fact,
Appellants conclude that “Haan does not disclose ‘using the client computer
to edit the document, wherein memory remote from but accessible to the
client computer is used to store a modified version of the document,’ as
recited in claim 1.” Id.
Appeal 2011-011212
Application 11/562,287
4
In response to this argument, the Examiner determines that “[t]he
scope of [A]ppellant’s claim language includes Haan’s invention where after
the document is edited, the document is stored to a remote storage.” Ans.
10. We agree. Appellants’ argument is not persuasive because claim 1 does
not preclude a method wherein the modified version of the document is
saved locally before it is stored on a memory remote from but accessible to
the client computer.
After conceding that “[w]hile the document disclosed by Haan is
stored remotely at some subsequent point,” Appellants then contend that the
“remotely stored document is at no point displayed and, further still, the
‘modified version’ is not stored remotely and displayed and, further still, the
‘modified version’ is not displayed ‘to enable a user of the client computer
to interact’ with it.” App. Br. 12.
Haan describes the editing of documents as follows:
Intermedia supports multiple users reading and
annotating a single document, and only one user writing to a
document at a time . . . The first user to edit the document
content locks out all other users from editing the content until
the document is closed . . . Because Intermedia stores anchor
and link data in a separate database, we are able to support
simultaneous annotation, allowing many users to make links to
the same documents at the same time. Intermedia supports
separate access rights for read, write, and annotate privileges on
a per-document basis.
This world of multiuser hypermedia running across local-
area networks requires a policy establishing when changes to
data by one user become available to all users. In Intermedia,
all newly created anchors and links are local to the user’s
workstation until they are saved to disk. Changes made to open
documents are not broadcast to other users. Intermedia does
not update the view of anchors and links in any open document
based on the actions of another user. Each user must close and
Appeal 2011-011212
Application 11/562,287
5
reopen a document and associated web to see changes made by
another user.
Haan, p. 44. We agree with the Examiner’s determination that one of
ordinary skill would understand from reading this portion of Haan, that once
the first user edits the document and saves it to the disk, the edited
(modified) document is displayed to the next user of the client computer
who can then interact with it in accordance with their access privileges. See
Ans. 10-11. Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiners rejection of claim 1 and
claims 5-14, 18-27 and 29-31, which fall therewith.
Obviousness
Appellants argue that “[Berners-]Lee does not cure the above-noted
deficiencies of Haan, and ‘applicant’s admitted prior art,’ to the extent
Examiner’s rejection is proper, does not address the above-noted
deficiencies of Haan.” App. Br. 14. As discussed supra, we find no
deficiencies in Haan. Thus, Appellant’s argument is unconvincing.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants further contend that “the Examiner has
improperly mailed a Second Examiner’s Answer and presented new prior
art.” Reply Br. 2. The Examiner’s failure to comply with a procedural rule
is a petitionable, not appealable, matter in accordance with 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.181. To the extent that Appellants are contending that the Examiner has
made a new ground of rejection, that is also a petitionable matter, which was
rendered moot by Appellants filing the instant Reply Brief. MPEP
§ 1207.03.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-31 is AFFIRMED.
Appeal 2011-011212
Application 11/562,287
6

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) (2009).

AFFIRMED

mls