Ex Parte Hill et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 24, 2016

11618162 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111618,162 12/29/2006
46321 7590 08/26/2016
CRGOLAW
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, FL 33434
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Charles R. Hill
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
CAM920060142US1 (166) 5372
EXAMINER
OBISESAN, AUGUSTINE KUNLE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2156
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/26/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
docketing@crgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHARLES R. HILL, SANDRA L. KOGAN, SHI XIA LIU, and
MARTINM. WATTENBERG
Appeal2014-007865
Application 11/618, 162
Technology Center 2100
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, HUNG H. BUI, and BARBARA A.
PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-17. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM. 2
1 According to Appellants, the Real Party in Interest is International
Business Machines Corporation. App. Br. 2.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief filed April 4, 2014 ("App.
Br."); Reply Brief filed July 9, 2014 ("Reply Br."); Examiner's Answer
mailed May 21, 2014 ("Ans."); Final Office Action mailed November 4,
2013 ("Final Act."); and original Specification filed December 29, 2006
("Spec.").
Appeal2014-007865
Application 11/618, 162
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 'Invention
Appellants' invention relates to context-browser-based navigation of
pivotally related information for a document. Spec. i-f 8, Abstract.
According to Appellants, the context browser, shown in Figure 2, can query
a relationship model with a pivot activity object to identify a set of related
activity objects for the pivot activity object. Spec. i-fi-19, 15. Browser 200,
shown in Figure 2, can be configured to concurrently display the content of
the pivot activity object and a listing of the set of related activity objects.
Spec. i-fi-1 9, 21.
Appellants' Figure 2 is reproduced below:
210
CD :R~:: .. t.;: ·1 230
!~ .i~~::$'ifi:;. 2.
25(l
e> p,,,x;,x;:,,,.,~ 1 2f3{}
l\''.J ''"wM:aj,,~,:::r· ,,., ,,.,,::..._ __ -2ao
27fl
Appellants' Figure 2 shows context browser 200 depicting an activity object
210 and a listing of related activity objects 220-280.
2
Appeal2014-007865
Application 11/618, 162
Claims 1, 8, and 13 are independent. Claim 8 is illustrative of
Appellants' invention and is reproduced with the disputed limitations
emphasized below:
8. A method for context browser based navigation of
pivotally related information for a document, the method
compnsmg:
pivoting a query on a relationship model of related
activity objects for a specified activity object of an activity in
an activity-centric collaboration tool executing in a host
computing platform to identify a set of related activity objects
of the activity for the specified activity object, the activity
representing multiple different stages in a workflow, the
activity objects individually representing a task, message or
document created for the activity; and,
concurrently displaying in a context browser coupled to
the host computing platform over a computer communications
network and providing an interface to the activity-centric
collaboration tool, content for the specified activity object
adjacent to a listing of the set of related activity objects.
App. Br. 15 (Claims App.).
Mansfield
Ghoneimy et al.
Beringer et al.
Evidence Considered
US 2007 /0250762 Al
WO 00/14618
EP 1,619,618 Al
Examiner's Rejections
Oct. 25, 2007
Mar. 16,2000
Jan.25,2006
(1) Claims 13-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to non-statutory subject matter. Final Act. 4.
3
Appeal2014-007865
Application 11/618, 162
(2) Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-15, and 17 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Beringer and Ghoneimy. Final
Act. 5.
(3) Claims 6, 11and16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Beringer, Ghoneimy, and Mansfield. Final Act. 12.
Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellants' arguments, the dispositive issue is whether the
cited prior art teaches ( 1) "pivoting a query" and (2) "concurrently
displaying in a context browser ... content for the specified activity object
adjacent to a listing of a set of related activity objects," as recited in
independent claim 8, and similarly recited in independent claims 1 and 13.
App. Br. 5-8; Reply Br. 3-5.
ANALYSIS
35 US.C. § 101 Rejection of Claims 13-17
Appellants' independent claim 13 recites in its preamble, "a computer
usable storage medium." The Examiner finds the term "computer usable
storage medium" as recited in Appellants' claim 13, when accorded its
broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses non-statutory media such as
carrier waves and, as such, is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Final
Act. 4--5. The Examiner suggests replacing the phrase "computer usable
medium" with "non-transitory computer usable medium" to exclude data
signals and to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection. Id. at 5 (emphasis
omitted).
4
Appeal2014-007865
Application 11/618, 162
Appellants respond that paragraph 32 of the Specification has been
amended to exclude transitory media. Reply Br. 2. A review of the
Amendment filed January 3, 2014 shows that paragraph 32 was amended to
state that "[ w ]ith [respect] to a computer usable (readable) storage medium,
it is to be understood that a storage medium excludes transitory media such
as transitory signals and other propagation media." The Advisory Action
dated on February 19, 2014 indicates that Amendment was never entered
because "the proposed amendments raised new issues that would require
further consideration and/or search." However, the record also shows that
on January 18, 2014, the Examiner entered the amendment to Appellants'
Specification by stamping the Amendments to the Specification "OK TO
ENTER: /A.O./ (01/18/2014)" and the cover page of the amendment
"ENTER IN PART: /A.O./ (01/18/2014)." Accordingly, we determine only
the proposed amendments to the claims were denied entry (see also
Advisory Action, specifically indicating the proposed amendment to the
claims filed will not be entered because the amendment "changed the scope
of subject matter claimed"). Thus, we determine the indication in Public
Pair, "Specification -Amendment Not Entered" is an inadvertent error.
Because we determine the amendment to Appellants' Specification
has been entered, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 13 and
its dependent claims 14--17 as directed to non-statutory subject matter under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
5
Appeal2014-007865
Application 11/618, 162
35 USC§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-15, and 17
based on Beringer and Ghoneimy
In support of the rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 13, the
Examiner finds Beringer teaches a context browser-based information
management data processing system having substantially all the limitations
(including "pivoting a query"), except for the limitation requiring a
concurrent display of the content of the pivot activity object and a listing of
the set of related activity objects. Final Act. 5-7 (citing Beringer i-fi-14, 16,
18, 24, 25, 2 7, 34 ). The Examiner finds Ghoneimy teaches the concurrent
display of the content of the pivot activity object and a listing of the set of
related activity objects. Id. at 7 (citing Ghoneimy 4:5, 14:30-32, 43:29-30,
Fig. 12).
Appellants dispute the Examiner's factual findings regarding Beringer
and Ghoneimy. In particular, Appellants argue "nothing in Beringer[]
teaches or suggests Appellants' very specific claim language of pivoting a
query." App. Br. 11. In addition, Appellants also argue neither Beringer nor
Ghoneimy teaches or suggests "the concurrent display of the content of a
pivot activity object and a listing of the set of related activity objects." Id. at
8-11. According to Appellants, Ghoneimy only teaches a graphical
representation of activities and "an activity is used to model a task which
requires human action or decision-making." Id. at 10 (citing Ghoneimy
14:30-32, 43:29-30, Fig. 12). "[T]here is nothing in Ghoneimy (or in
Beringer) that specifically requires that content of the pivot activity object be
adjacent to the listing of the set of related activity objects in a content
browser." Id.
6
Appeal2014-007865
Application 11/618, 162
We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive. Instead, we find
the Examiner has provided a complete response to Appellants' arguments,
setting forth with specificity why the cited reference teaches, or at least
suggests, the disputed limitations. Ans. 3--4. As such, we adopt the
Examiner's findings and explanations provided therein. Id. For additional
emphasis, we note that claim terms, during prosecution, are given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re
Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under
the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim terms are given their ordinary
and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Trans logic Tech., Inc.,
504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The term "pivoting a query" is not
defined explicitly in Appellants' Specification. Instead, Appellants'
Specification describes "pivoting a query" as the selection of one object that
is related to a set of other objects and to the taking of an action based on that
selection. Spec. i-fi-19-11. For example, Appellants' Specification refers to
"pivoting a query on a relationship model of related activity objects for a
specified activity object to identify a set of related activity objects for the
specified activity object." Spec. i-f 11. In addition, Appellants' Figure 2
shows an activity object 210 selected from among "pivotally related objects"
210, 220, 230, 240, 250, and 260 for concurrent display and a "pivot
selection" of one of these objects 210, 220, 230, 240, 250, and 260. Spec. i-fi-1
21-22. Based on Appellants' Specification, we interpret the term "pivoting
a query" as taking of action based on selection of one of a set of objects that
possess an association or relation.
7
Appeal2014-007865
Application 11/618, 162
Having construed the term "pivoting a query", we now tum to the
question of whether Beringer teaches "pivoting a query." As correctly
recognized by the Examiner, Beringer's context browser, shown in Figure 3,
is configured to allow a user to brow "ongoing activities and inspect them
from different perspectives" and then select "context data" based on a
certain selection criterion. Ans. 3 (citing Beringer i-fi-f 13, 18). According to
the Examiner, the "context data" represents a set of associated or related
objects in the form of identifiers 420. Ans. 3--4 (citing Beringer i-fi-135-36).
Figure 3 of Beringer is reproduced below with additional markings for
illustration:
441
Beringer's Figure 3 shows a user interface 40, i.e., a context browser
providing a relationship model with a pivot activity object 420 to identify a
set of related objects.
8
Appeal2014-007865
Application 11/618, 162
As shown in Beringer's Figure 3, the context browser allows the user
to inspect a set of associated or related objects in the form of identifiers 420.
Ans. 3--4 (citing Beringer i-fi-f 13, 18, 35-36). These objects 420 are
displayed by the selection of the control 411, labeled "Activities." Beringer
i-fi-134--35. In addition, one of the objects 420 labeled "Duplicate Invoice
XYZ" is shown in Figure 3 as having been selected, and is shown as
displayed in a window overlapping information panel 43, alongside the list
of the objects 420. Based on our construction of the term "pivoting a
query," we agree with the Examiner that Beringer teaches "pivoting a query"
because Beringer teaches the selection of one of a set of associated or related
objects (one of the 420s) and the taking of an action based on that selection
(the display of the selected object 420). Ans. 3 (citing Beringer i-fi-f 13, 18,
35-36).
We tum next to the question of whether Ghoneimy or Beringer
teaches or suggests that the content of the pivot activity object be adjacent to
the listing of the set of related activity objects in a content browser. App. Br.
10. As recognized by the Examiner, Ghoneimy teaches a context browser to
allow a user to select activities or items based on specified criteria and
provide "multiple simultaneously presentations of activities." Ans. 4 (citing
Ghoneimy 28:10-34, 43:29-30, 48:25-30). According to the Examiner,
these activities or items represent a pivot activity object and a listing of the
set of associated or related objects. Final Act. 7 (citing Ghoneimy 4:5,
14:30-32, 43:29-30, Fig. 12). Thus, contrary to Appellants' arguments, we
agree with the Examiner that Ghoneimy teaches "concurrently displaying in
a context browser ... content for the specified activity object adjacent to a
9
Appeal2014-007865
Application 11/618, 162
listing of a set of related activity objects" as recited in independent claim 8,
and similarly recited in independent claims 1 and 13. Ans. 4.
Lastly, we note that Figure 3 of Beringer also shows the content of the
object 420 labeled "Duplicate Invoice XYZ" in the window overlapping
information panel 43 along with the listing of objects 420. See Beringer i-fi-1
35-36. Thus, Beringer also teaches the content of a pivot activity object
being concurrently adjacent to the listing of the set of related activity objects
in a content browser. The addition of Ghoneimy' s disclosure of the
concurrent display of multiple presentations to Beringer would only serve to
emphasize to a person of ordinary skill the obvious nature of the concurrent
display shown in Figure 3 of Beringer.
For the reasons set forth above, Appellants have not persuaded us of
Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 8, and similarly independent claims 1 and 13, as well as
their respective dependent claims 2-5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 17, which
Appellants do not argue separately.
35 USC§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 6, 11, and 16 based on
Beringer, Ghoneimy, and Mansfield
With respect to dependent claims 6, 11, and 16, Appellants present no
separate patentability arguments. App. Br. 11-12. For the same reasons
discussed, we also sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 6,
11, and 16.
10
Appeal2014-007865
Application 11/618, 162
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have demonstrated
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 13-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to non-statutory subject matter. However, we conclude Appellants
have not demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting ( 1) claims 1-5, 7-10,
12-15, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Beringer
and Ghoneimy; and (2) claims 6, 11 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Beringer, Ghoneimy, and Mansfield.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's final rejection of claims 13-17 under
35 U.S.C. § 101. However, we AFFIRM the Examiner's final rejection of
claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Because we have affirmed at least
one ground of rejection with respect to each claim on appeal, the Examiner's
final decision to reject claims 1-17 is affirmed. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(l ).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
11