Ex Parte Loven et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 17, 2012

10529243 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 17, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte LAURI LOVEN, JORKKI HYVONEN, HENRI TYKKA, JUKKA
LAURILA, HANNU KAUPPINEN, PASI SALENTO,
and TIMO HEIKKINEN
____________

Appeal 2010-004900
Application 10/529,243
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JEFFREY S. SMITH,
and BRUCE R. WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judges.

WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 8-17, which constitute all the claims pending in this application.
Claims 1-7 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Appeal 2010-004900
Application 10/529,243

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ “invention relates to error correction of service requests
transmitted in an information system.” (Spec. 1:4-5). Claim 8, which is
illustrative of the invention, reads as follows (some paragraphing added):
8. A method of processing service requests in an
information system including a common access point and at
least two service sources offering services, said method
comprising:
receiving a service request at said access point,
analyzing said service request at said access point in
order to identify a predetermined keyword indicating a service
source offering the requested service,
forwarding said service request to a service source
identified in said analysis,
analyzing said service request at said service source in
order to identify the requested service,
providing said identified service,
storing, in a memory containing only service requests
whose contents are correct, said service request if the service
request has led to successful identification of the requested
service,
initiating an error correction process to correct the
received service request by utilizing service requests stored in
said memory containing only service requests whose contents
are correct, if said analyzing at said access point or said
analyzing at said service source fails for the received service
request, as no service source or no service can be identified, and
repeating said analyzing at the access point and/or
service source for the corrected service request, and providing
an identified service to the source of the service request if a
service can be identified.

Appeal 2010-004900
Application 10/529,243

3
Claims 8-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Sugikawa (US 5,949,772; Sept. 7, 1999) and Amano (US
2002/0120647 A1; Aug. 29, 2002; filed Sept. 27, 2001). (Ans. 3-12).
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Briefs (App.
Br.1; Reply Br.) and the Answer (Ans.) for the respective positions of
Appellants and the Examiner.

ISSUE
The dispositive issue raised by Appellants contentions2 is as follows:
Does Sugikawa combined with Amano teach or suggest “storing, in a
memory containing only service requests whose contents are correct, said
service request if the service request has led to successful identification of
the requested service” (hereinafter “the disputed limitation”) as recited in
claim 8?

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Sugikawa teaches the disputed limitation at
column 11, lines 25-37. (Ans. 3-4). The Examiner explains that “the
[S]pec[.] does not provide [a] definition of the term correct, there [sic;
therefore] [E]xaminer interprets since its [sic; it’s] in the memory that it's
correct . . .” (Ans. 4). Appellants contend that the Specification defines

1 The Appeal Brief was filed without page numbers. For ease in referring to
the Appeal Brief we have assigned sequential page numbers, with the page
bearing the title “APPEAL BRIEF” designated as page 1, and the page
bearing the signature of Appellants’ counsel designated as page 19.
2 Appellants’ contentions raise additional issues. We are persuaded of error
with regard to the identified issue, which is dispositive of the appeal.
Accordingly, we do not reach Appellants’ additional contentions.
Appeal 2010-004900
Application 10/529,243

4
“correct” at page 2, lines 16-25 (see App. Br. 13-14) and that Sugikawa
discloses storing every request, not just those whose contents are “correct”
(see App. Br. 17-18) as recited in the disputed limitation.
During examination the USPTO gives the terms in claims their
broadest reasonable interpretation as they would have been understood at the
time of the invention in light of the Specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d
1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We conclude the Examiner’s claim
construction (Ans. 4) is unreasonably broad. The ordinary meaning of
“correct” is “adj. 6. . . . free from error, accurate.” WEBSTER’S
ENCYCLOPEDIC UNABRIDGED DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 327
(1989). The Specification states that “service requests which have led to a
successful identification of the requested service are stored in a memory.
This memory will thus include only those service requests whose contents
are correct, as they have all previously led to successful identification of the
requested service.” (Spec. 2:21-25) (emphasis added). Similarly, the
disputed limitation itself recites “storing, in a memory containing only
service requests whose contents are correct, said service request if the
service request has led to successful identification of the requested service”
(emphases added). We conclude that, as used in the disputed limitation, a
“correct” service request is a service request that is free of errors that would
prevent accurately identifying the requested service, as demonstrated by
having previously led to successfully identifying the requested service. This
construction is consistent with the ordinary meaning of the term, the use of
the term in the Specification, and the context of the term in the disputed
limitation.
Appeal 2010-004900
Application 10/529,243

5
Sugikawa teaches “[a] data recorder unit 404, comprised of a memory
or a hard disk, [that] records data about service request programs and
providable services and information on the users or clients.” (Sugikawa, col.
11, ll. 25-27). We agree with the Appellant (App. Br. 17-18) that the
passage of Sugikawa (Sugikawa, col. 11, ll. 25-37) cited as teaching the
disputed limitation (Ans. 3-4) at most teaches saving all requests, and is
silent as to distinguishing requests that are “correct” from other requests and
storing only the “correct” requests.
We conclude that the rejection of claim 8 is based on an erroneous
claim construction. Therefore, Appellants have persuaded us of error and
we will not sustain the rejection of (1) claim 8; (2) claims 10 and 15, the
rejection of which was based on the same erroneous claim construction; (3)
claims 9, 16, and 17, which depend from claim 8; and (4) claims11-14,
which depend from claim 10

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 8-17 is reversed.

REVERSED

rwk