10945829 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 2014)

Ex Parte Gilbert et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 20, 2014

10945829 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 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. 10/945,829 09/21/2004 Yuval S. Gilbert LOT920030102US1_010 6315 51835 7590 11/20/2014 IBM Lotus & Rational SW c/o Schmeiser, Olsen & Watts LLP 5 Mount Royal Avenue Mount Royal Office Park Marlborough, MA 01752 EXAMINER PULLIAM, CHRISTYANN R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2164 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/20/2014 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 YUVAL S. GILBERT, HUNTER R. MEDNEY, SALVATORE G. MAZZOTTA, CINDY WU, and WILLIAM DRAKE ____________ Appeal 2012-006941 Application 10/945,829 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–3, 5–10, and 32–40. Claims 4 and 11–31 have been cancelled (App Br. 3–4). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. INVENTION The invention relates to computer software for collaborative computing. (See Spec. ¶ 1.) Appeal 2012-006941 Application 10/945,829 2 Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below: 1. A computer-implemented method for facilitating collaboration on a project by multiple team members, comprising: storing objects including a plurality of projects and a plurality of project-related objects in persistent storage; launching, by a user, an application program that places the objects into a multi-level hierarchy structure and that displays an expandable and collapsible view showing each project of the plurality of projects for which the user is a team member and each object linked to each of the projects; associating metadata with each object at each level of the hierarchy structure, the metadata associated with each object at each level of the hierarchy structure describing content associated with that object; propagating the metadata associated with an object at a given level in the hierarchy structure to one or more objects at a level below that given level to give each object both its own individual level metadata and metadata inherited from the level from which that object depends, the inherited metadata describing content associated with the object at the given level in the hierarchy structure; and searching for an object that satisfies specified search criteria by comparing a search term supplied by the user with both the individual level metadata and the inherited metadata associated with objects in the hierarchy structure. REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1–3, 5, 6, 9, and 32–38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Estrada et al. (US 2004/0230793 A1, Nov. 18, 2004) (“Estrada”), Brown et al. (US 2003/0046548 A1, Mar. 6, 2003) (“Brown”), and Wong (US 2005/0102534 A1, May 12, 2005) (Ans. 6–14). Appeal 2012-006941 Application 10/945,829 3 The Examiner rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Estrada, Wong, Brown, and Worthen (US 2003/0149725 A1, Aug. 7, 2003) (Ans. 14–16). The Examiner rejected claims 8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Estrada, Wong, Brown, and Moetteli (US 2002/0091836 A1, July 11, 2002) (Ans. 16–18). The Examiner rejected claims 39 and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Estrada, Wong, Brown, and Lui et al. (US 6,487,569 B1, Nov. 26, 2002) (“Lui”) (Ans. 18–21). ISSUE Appellants present multiple arguments as to why the Examiner has erred. We focus our discussion below on the following dispositive issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Estrada, Wong, and Brown, teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of “propagating the metadata associated with an object at a given level in the hierarchy structure to one or more objects at a level below that given level to give each object both its own individual level metadata and metadata inherited from the level from which that object depends, the inherited metadata describing content associated with the object at the given level in the hierarchy structure,” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We refer to, rely on, and adopt as Appeal 2012-006941 Application 10/945,829 4 our own the Examiner’s findings and conclusions set forth in the Final Rejection and Answer. Our discussions here will be limited to the following points of emphasis. We disagree with Appellants’ contentions the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Estrada, Wong, and Brown, teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. The Examiner cites Wong’s ¶ 149 to teach the disputed limitation of “propagating the metadata associated with an object at a given level in the hierarchy structure to one or more objects at a level below that given level to give each object both its own individual level metadata and metadata inherited from the level from which that object depends” (Ans. 8, 22). In particular, the Examiner finds Wong describes “all files created and modified within a home directory inherit the same permission levels assigned to the home directory itself” and “[a]t step 510, another search is made for specific files, including standardized configuration and control files, whose assigned file access permissions are less restrictive (against access) than the permissions that are assigned (by enterprise management) to the ‘home’ directories of the users who own these same files.” (Ans. 22 citing Wong ¶ 149.) Appellants argue the permissions assigned to the files described in ¶ 149 of Wong can be changed so that the files have different permissions than the permissions assigned to the home directory (App. Br. 8). Therefore, Appellants contend, at no time do any of the files under the home directory have both the original set of permissions and the less restrictive permissions (App. Br. 9). Appeal 2012-006941 Application 10/945,829 5 While Appellants may be correct that the cited portion of Wong describes that permissions of files may be changed, nonetheless, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Wong also describes files that have both “assigned file access permissions” and permissions that are assigned to the home directories. (Ans. 8, 22, citing Wong ¶ 149.) Even if the files are later actively modified as Appellants point out, this does not negate Wong’s description of files that have both their own assigned file access permissions and inherited permission levels assigned to the home directory itself. (Wong, ¶ 149.) We are also not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the metadata of Brown does not include access level information, and therefore does not teach or suggest metadata associated with each object describing the content associated with that object (see App. Br. 10). As the Examiner finds, Brown describes “metadata 1240 includes the access rights information of the present invention.” (Ans. 24, citing Brown ¶ 128.) Accordingly, absent persuasive rebuttal, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that the combination of Estrada, Wong, and Brown renders independent claim 1 obvious. Because Appellants have not presented separate patentability arguments or have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for patentability of claim 1 above, claims 2, 3, 5–10, and 32–40 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). DECISION We affirm the rejection of claims 1–3, 5–10, and 32–40. Appeal 2012-006941 Application 10/945,829 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). AFFIRMED msc