Ex Parte Ieperen

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 30, 2012

09966733 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 30, 2012)

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.
09/966,733 10/01/2001 Taco Van Ieperen 204694-00075 3598
27160 7590 07/30/2012
KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
(C/O PATENT ADMINISTRATOR)
2900 K STREET NW, SUITE 200
WASHINGTON, DC 20007-5118
EXAMINER
NEURAUTER, GEORGE C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2447
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/30/2012 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 TACO VAN IEPEREN
____________________

Appeal 2011-005572
Application 09/966,733
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, LARRY J. HUME, and RAMA ELLURU,
Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-005572
Application 09/966,733

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-14, 21-26, 28-31, 34-49, and 51-56. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Introduction
According to Appellant, the invention relates to a system and method
for creating and managing a network environment that includes creating a
shared workspace accessible to participants of a scheduled meeting and
categorizing data stored in the shared workspace (Abstract).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Exemplary Claim
Claim 1 is an exemplary claim and is reproduced below:
1. A method for creating and managing a shared workspace
in a network environment comprising the steps of:
creating a shared workspace associated with a scheduled
meeting prior to said scheduled meeting and making said
created shared workspace accessible to participants of said
scheduled meeting immediately after said shared workspace is
created;
categorizing data stored in said shared workspace at the
time the data is input into said shared workspace using a set of
defined categories associated with said shared workspace;
exposing said categorized data stored in said shared
workspace to each participant of said scheduled meeting
accessing said shared workspace through a graphical user
interface and sending said categorized data to a local workspace
of each participant;
Appeal 2011-005572
Application 09/966,733

3
editing the categorized data on any local workspace; and
sending edits made to said categorized data at each local
workspace to said shared workspace, said shared workspace
processing received edits to said categorized data sequentially
to update said shared workspace thereby enabling multiple
participants to simultaneously input data into appropriate
categories of said shared workspace and simultaneously edit
categorized data exposed through said graphical user interface.

Reference
Microsoft Corporation, Exchange 2000 Conferencing Server Concepts
and Planning (Aug. 2000) (“Exchange”).

Rejections
(1) Claims 1, 2, 5-14, 21-26, 28-31, 34-49, 51, and 52 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Exchange.
(2) Claims 53-56 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Exchange and “the context of computer networks in
general.”

GROUPING OF CLAIMS
Based upon Appellant’s arguments, we select representative claim 1
to decide this appeal for the group consisting of claims 1, 2, 5-14, 21-26, 28-
31, 34-49, 51 and 52. 1 (See Br.18-24).

1 Claim 52 is missing from both the Grounds of Rejection (Br. 17) and the
heading of claims discussed (Br. 18). As Appellant included claim 52 in the
list of claims being appealed (Br. 6) and Conclusion (Br. 26), we presume
the omission was inadvertent. Thus, we will address claim 52 in conjunction
with the rejection of claim 1 under § 102.
Appeal 2011-005572
Application 09/966,733

4
Based upon Appellant’s arguments, we select representative claim 53
to decide this appeal for the group consisting of claims 53-56. (See Br. 24-
25).
We accept Appellant’s grouping of the claims. We have only
considered those arguments that Appellant actually raised in the Briefs.
Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs
have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2009).

ISSUE 1
35 U.S.C. § 102(b): claims 1, 2, 5 -14, 21-26, 28-31, 34-49, and 51
Issue 1A
Appellant argues the invention is not anticipated by Exchange (Br. 18-
24). Specifically, Appellant argues Exchange does not teach creating a
shared workspace associated with a scheduled meeting prior to the
scheduled meeting (Br. 18-20). Appellant asserts the “conference access
pages” have been incorrectly interpreted as the “shared workspace” despite
these conference access pages being described as HTML pages that provide
access to online conferences through a hosted Web site (Br. 19). Thus,
Appellant contends the creation of a URL for access conference webpages is
not creating a shared workspace (Br. 20).

Issue 1A: Has the Examiner erred in finding Exchange discloses
“creating a shared workspace associated with a scheduled meeting prior to
said scheduled meeting and making said created shared workspace
Appeal 2011-005572
Application 09/966,733

5
accessible to participants of said scheduled meeting immediately after said
shared workspace is created” as recited in claim 1?

ANALYSIS
The Examiner relies on the “Shared Clipboard” and “Whiteboard”
used in a “data conference” or “virtual meeting room” as disclosing a shared
workspace (Ans. 4-5 and 17). We agree with the Examiner that both the
Shared Clipboard and Whiteboard of Exchange allow participants to share
data (id.). Indeed, Exchange discloses that the shared clipboard allows
participates to cut, copy, and paste operations – providing an easy way for
participants to exchange data between shared and local applications
(Exchange, Chpt. 2). Exchange further describes that Whiteboard allows a
participant to load or sketch diagrams and organizational charts, allowing
movement and manipulation of the contents or use of a highlighting tool to
point out specific content (id.).
Appellant has not presented sufficient evidence or argument to
persuade us Exchange’s disclosure of a shared clipboard and/or a whitespace
does not describe a shared workspace. Thus, we find no deficiencies in the
Examiner’s finding that Exchange discloses “creating a shared workspace
associated with a scheduled meeting prior to said scheduled meeting and
making said created shared workspace accessible to participants of said
scheduled meeting immediately after said shared workspace is created” as
recited in claim 1.

Appeal 2011-005572
Application 09/966,733

6
Issue 1B
Appellant argues the sharing afforded by Exchange cannot correspond
to the shared workspaces of the present invention (Br. 20). According to the
Appellant, Exchange allows one participant to edit the application or
document – have full control - while other participants are effectively
precluded from performing any “write” actions or edits, and are thus,
bystanders (Br. 20-21). Thus, Appellant contends Exchange is simply
incapable of permitting simultaneous editing and sending those edits to
shared workspace, such that those edits are processed sequentially by the
shared workspace to update the shared workspace (Br. 21).

Issue 1B: Has the Examiner erred in finding Exchange discloses
“sending edits made to said … data at each local workspace to said shared
workspace, said shared workspace processing received edits to said
categorized data sequentially to update said shared workspace thereby
enabling multiple participants to simultaneously input data into appropriate
categories of said shared workspace and simultaneously edit categorized
data exposed through said graphical user interface” as recited in claim 1?

ANALYSIS
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions and adopt
them as our own. The claim language recites the shared workspace
processes received edits sequentially to update the shared workspace (claim
1). We agree with the Examiner that Exchange discloses edits made to the
shared workspace are processed in sequential order (Ans. 19). We further
Appeal 2011-005572
Application 09/966,733

7
agree with the Examiner that the “thereby enabling” clause is the intended
result of a process step positively recited (id.).
Even if we were to consider this limitation, Appellant has not
persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding that Exchange describes the
processing thereby enables participants to “simultaneously” input data and
edit data (id.).
Accordingly, based on the record before us, Appellant has not
persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s finding that Exchange discloses
“sending edits made to said … data at each local workspace to said shared
workspace, said shared workspace processing received edits to said
categorized data sequentially to update said shared workspace thereby
enabling multiple participants to simultaneously input data into appropriate
categories of said shared workspace and simultaneously edit categorized
data exposed through said graphical user interface” as recited in claim 1.

Issue 1C
Appellant next argues Exchange does not disclose “categorizing data
stored in the shared workspace and exposing the categorized data stored in
the shared workspace to each participant of the scheduled meeting accessing
the shared workspace through a graphical user interface with the graphical
user interface enabling each participant exposed through the graphical user
interface” (Br. 23). Appellant further asserts Exchange lacks a graphical
interface that is associated with a particular category and labeled accordingly
(Br. 23).

Appeal 2011-005572
Application 09/966,733

8
Issue 1C: Has the Examiner erred in finding Exchange discloses
“categorizing data stored in said shared workspace” and “exposing said
categorized data stored in said shared workspace to each participant of said
scheduled meeting accessing shared workspace through a graphical user
interface” as recited in claim 1?

ANALYSIS
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions (Ans. 21).
We emphasize the Examiner relies on a user interacting with the shared
workspace and being able to categorize the data in any way the user sees fit,
such as by mentally or verbally agreeing on “sets” of “categories” (Ans. 21).
We agree with the Examiner one may categorize data mentally or based on
verbal agreement. We further agree the claim as recited could have this step
performed by a person (claims 1 and 30) or be data mentally categorized or
categorized based on verbal agreement at the time the data is input (claim
21) or in shared workspace (claim 44). Thus, it follows data cut, copied, or
pasted to the shared clipboard or loaded or sketched on the whiteboard may
be categorized.
Appellant has not presented sufficient evidence or argument to
persuade us of error in this finding. Thus, we find no deficiencies in the
Examiner’s findings that Exchange describes “categorizing data stored in
said shared workspace” and “exposing said categorized data stored in said
shared workspace to each participant of said scheduled meeting accessing
shared workspace through a graphical user interface” as recited in claim 1.

Appeal 2011-005572
Application 09/966,733

9
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred in finding Exchange discloses the invention as recited in claim 1;
commensurately recited in claims 21, 30, and 44; and dependent claims 2, 5-
14, 22-26, 28, 29, 31, 34-43, 45-49, and 51, not separately argued.
Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 5-14, 21-26, 28-
31, 34-49, 51, and 52 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for anticipation by
Exchange.

ISSUE 2
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): 53 - 56
Appellant asserts the claimed invention is not obvious over Exchange
and “the context of computer networks in general” because Exchange only
teaches real-time on-line conferencing (Br. 24). Thus, according to
Appellant, Exchange does not save any data from the Shared Clipboard or
Whiteboard application on the local computer in case of a severed network
connection (id.). Additionally, Appellant argues the Examiner has not
articulated rationale in support of why common sense should be applied to
the Exchange, especially since Exchange teaches away from off-line
collaboration (Br. 24-25).

Issue 2: Has the Examiner:
(i) erred in finding the combination of Exchange and the context of
computer networks in general would have taught or suggested “categorized
data is edited on an off-line workspace and the off-line workspace
Appeal 2011-005572
Application 09/966,733

10
subsequently goes back on-line, the edits made to the categorized data are
automatically sent to said shared workspace,” as recited in claims 53-56; and
(ii) erred in relying on Exchange since Exchange teaches away from
the present invention?
ANALYSIS
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions and adopt
them as our own (Ans. 15-16 and 21). We further emphasize we do not find
a person of ordinary skill, upon reading Exchange, would be discouraged
from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a
direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant. Thus, we
are not persuaded Exchange teaches away from the recited invention.
Additionally, the Examiner has articulated reasoning with a rationale
underpinning as to why a skilled artisan at the time of the invention would
have send data edited off-line to the shared workspace when the shared
workspace subsequently goes back on-line (id.). Appellant has not provided
sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us of error in the Examiner’s
rationale. Nor has Appellant provided sufficient evidence or argument to
convince us incorporating this feature was uniquely challenging or difficult
for one of ordinary skill in the art or represented an unobvious step over the
prior art.
Accordingly, the Examiner did not err in finding the combination of
Exchange and the context of computer networks would have taught or
suggested the invention as recited in claims 53-56. Therefore, the Examiner
did not err in rejecting claims 53-56 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
Appeal 2011-005572
Application 09/966,733

11
obviousness over Exchange and “the context of computer networks in
general.”

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-14, 21-26, 28-31, 34-49,
51, and 52 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Exchange is
affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 53-56 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Exchange and “the context of computer networks in
general” is affirmed.

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) (2010).

AFFIRMED

msc