Ex Parte Hausman et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 16, 2012

10218375 (B.P.A.I. May. 16, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/218,375 08/14/2002 Andrew Hausman 336001-2019.2 3062
20999 7590 05/17/2012
FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG
745 FIFTH AVENUE- 10TH FL.
NEW YORK, NY 10151
EXAMINER
ROSEN, ELIZABETH H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3694
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/17/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ANDREW HAUSMAN, VYACHESLAV T. RUBINFINE,
PHILIP ENNY and NICHOLAS D. FIELD
____________

Appeal 2011-006014
Application 10/218,375
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and BIBHU
R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-006014
Application 10/218,375

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) of the
final rejection of claims 60-95 which are all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). Oral
arguments were presented on May 9, 2012.

SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.

THE INVENTION
The Appellants’ claimed invention is directed the customized
distribution of financial and other data (Spec. 2:2-4). Claim 1, reproduced
below with the numbering in brackets added, is representative of the subject
matter on appeal.

60. A computer system for distributing data in one or more data
records to users of the computer system, each record comprising a
data type and at least one field that is distinct from the data type, each
field comprising a value, and the computer system comprising:

at least one programmable processor;

at least one interface that is operatively coupled to at least one
of the processors; and

a computer readable medium storing instructions that, when
executed by at least one of the processors, causes the computer
system at least to:

receive through at least one of the interfaces, from a first
application operating on a user terminal, a filter for data
records to be transmitted to the first application, the filter
Appeal 2011-006014
Application 10/218,375

3
comprising a specification of a data type and one or more
criteria that apply to at least one field;

receive through at least one of the interfaces, from at
least one data source, a plurality of financial data records,
each record comprising a data type and at least one field;

identify, from the received financial data records, data
records having the specified data type and having one or
more fields that satisfy the one or more criteria, for
electronic transfer through at least one of the interfaces to
the user terminal; and

for each of the data records identified for electronic
transfer to the user terminal, [1] map each record in
accordance with respective mapping data, stored in the
computer-readable medium, that is specific to a
respective application program that is operable on the
user terminal;

[2] the mapping comprising at least one of (1) reordering
fields within the record, (2) deleting at least one of the
fields from the record, (3) adding one or more fields to
the record, and (4) specifying a display format for use in
displaying at least one of the fields of the record.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:
Vora US 5,623,652 Apr. 22, 1997
Smith US 2002/0046043 A1 Apr. 18, 2002

The following rejections are before us for review:
Appeal 2011-006014
Application 10/218,375

4
1. Claims 60-62, 65, 66, 68, 69, 71-74, 77, 78, 80, 81, 83-86, 89,
90, 92, 93, and 95 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being
anticipated by Smith.
2. Claims 67, 70, 79, 82, 91, and 94 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
103(a) as being unpatentable over Smith.
3. Claims 63, 64, 75, 76, 87, and 88 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
103(a) as being unpatentable over Smith and Vora.

FINDINGS OF FACT
We find the following enumerated findings of fact (FF) are supported
at least by a preponderance of the evidence:1
FF1. Smith at [0037] discloses that the formatting of raw data can include
many actions, such as removing fields which are unimportant to downstream
applications, adding additional data fields, such as the identified object type,
and adjusting the manner in which data fields are represented, etc.
FF2. Smith at [0090] has disclosed that when a client “opens” a folder 192
the client software acts on the subscriptions. The client can further define
a set of constraints which specify, for example, that an object should be
displayed in a first folder when its trading volume is above a specified
amount and only appear in a second folder when its price has changed by
more than a specified amount in a given time period.

1 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
Appeal 2011-006014
Application 10/218,375

5
ANALYSIS
Claim 60
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 60 is improper
because Smith fails to disclose claim limitation [1] (Br. 4-9, Reply Br. 1-2).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that Smith discloses the
cited claim limitation at [0037] (Ans. 5, 15).
We agree with the Examiner. Claim limitation [1] requires:
[1] map[ping] each record in accordance with respective mapping
data, stored in the computer-readable medium, that is specific to a
respective application program that is operable on the user terminal.
(Claim 60).

Thus, claim limitation [1] requires in part a map[ping] of the record in
accordance with respective mapping data that is specific to a respective
application program that is operable on the user terminal in some manner.
We find nothing in the cited claim limitation and the Appellants have cited
to no portion of the Specification which requires that each respective
application program have different maps. Further, the doctrine of claim
differention “is based on the common sense notion that different words or
phrases used in separate claims are presumed to indicate that the claims have
different meanings and scope.” Karlin Tech. Inc. v. Surgical Dynamics, Inc.
177 F.3d 968, 971-972 (Fed. Cir. 1999). “[W]here the limitation that is
sought to be ‘read into’ an independent claim already appears in a dependent
claim, the doctrine of claim differention is at its strongest” Leiebel-
Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 910 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here,
dependent claim 67 specifies an instance where the first and second
application are not the same, thus indicating that the scope of claim 60 is
broader and does not preclude them from being the same.
Appeal 2011-006014
Application 10/218,375

6
Here, Smith at [0037] has disclosed that the formatting of raw data
can include many actions, such as removing fields which are unimportant to
downstream applications (FF1), and thus meets the claim requirement for
mapping that is specific to a respective program as claimed. For these above
reasons, the rejection of claim 60, and claims 61-62, 65-66, 69, 72-74, 77-
78, 81, 84-86, 89-90, and 93 which were not argued separately, is sustained.

Claim 68
Claim 68 includes claim limitations including: a “first instance” and
“second instance” of a first application on a user terminal; “a first mapping
that specifies a first order”; and “a second mapping that specifies a second
order, different from the first order” and the Appellants argue that this is not
shown by Smith (Br. 9-10).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that Smith discloses this at
[0090] (Ans. 7).
We agree with the Examiner. Smith at [0090] has disclosed that when
a client “opens” a folder 192 the client software acts on the subscriptions and
that the client can further define a set of constraints which specify, for
example, that an object should be displayed in a first folder when its trading
volume is above a specified amount and only appear in a second folder when
its price has changed by more than a specified amount in a given time period
(FF2). Since each folder has a separate set of constraints it is considered to
have separate mappings and orders and each be a separate instance of the
application running each folder meeting the argued claim limitations. For
this reason the rejection of claim 68, and claims 71, 80, 83, 92, and 95,
which were not argued separately, is sustained.
Appeal 2011-006014
Application 10/218,375

7
Claim 67
Claim 67 requires “a second application, which is not the first
application” and “a second mapping that specifies a second order, different
from the first mapping” which has a “first order”. The Appellants have
argued that the rejection put forth by the Examiner would not have been
obvious (Br. 10).
In contrast, the Examiner has acknowledged that Smith does not
disclose this but determined that it would have been an obvious modification
to use several applications because it is common for computers to operate
more than one application (Ans. 10-11).
We agree with the Examiner. The modification of Smith to allow
different formatting for multiple applications would have been an obvious
for the advantage of letting several different applications run on the
computer system at the same time. In KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398 (2007) the Court stated that when considering obviousness that “the
analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject
matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences
and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”
KSR at 418. For these the above reasons the rejection of claim 67, and
claims 63-64, 70, 75-76, 79, 82, 87-88, 91, and 94 which were not argued
separately, is sustained.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims the claims listed in the Rejection section above.

Appeal 2011-006014
Application 10/218,375

8
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 60-95 is sustained.

AFFIRMED

MP