Ex Parte Olof-Ors et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 30, 2018

11408804 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
11/408,804 04/21/2006
29053 7590 11/01/2018
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
2200 ROSS A VENUE
SUITE 3600
DALLAS, TX 75201-7932
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mans Olof-Ors
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.
TRCP.P0025US/l 1605382 8584
EXAMINER
GREGG, MARY M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3697
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2018 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):
doipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MANS OLOF-ORS and DAVID LEHR
Appeal2017-002108
Application 11/408,804
Technology Center 3600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, SHARON PENICK,
and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1, 6, 8-11, 13, 16, 20-23, and 43-50, which
constitute all claims pending in this application. 1 Final Act. 2. Claims 2-5,
7, 12, 14, 15, 17-19, and 24--42 have been canceled. Id. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Thompson Reuters. App.
Br. 2.
Appeal2018-002108
Application 11/408,804
Introduction
According to Appellants, the claimed subject matter relates to a
method and system (100) for delivering on a regular basis ( e.g. hourly) to a
user's Java enabled mobile phone (104) information, such as, e.g., for a user
who is a farmer, current market prices, weather forecasts, and any news that
may affect crops previously designated by the user. Spec. ,r,r 4, 18, 23, and
Fig. 1. This may be useful if the user's mobile phone (104) does not have a
data subscription to facilitate a web based solution or a wireless application
protocol ("WAP") solution for obtaining such data. Id. ,r 23. In particular, a
content server ( 101) communicates with the user phone ( 104) via a cellular
wireless network (e.g., telecom tower, satellite) by text messages (up to 160
characters) condensing a large amount of information encoded and selected
based on priority information associated with the user. Id. ,r,r 18-22, and 25.
More particularly, and in the example where the user is a farmer, upon
receiving data feeds corresponding to current market data, a processor at the
content server (101) executes instructions a from a storage medium (108) at
the content server ( 101) to determine the farmer's geographic location by
analyzing the farmer's subscription data including weather forecasts,
selected produce, and current market prices. Id. ,r,r 24, 28, 30, 31, 49, and
59. The content server processor then accesses from a profile database (107)
preference information ( e.g. commodity, exchange, location, market price)
previously set by the farmer so as to select corresponding portions of the
data feeds (201, 201A), which it encodes in textual characters of a short
message service (SMS) using encoding tables (202, 202A) containing short
form information values consisting of a single textual character (203, 203A).
Id. ,r,r 32, 38, 39, 43, 59, Figs. 2, and 2A. Subsequently, the content server
2
Appeal2018-002108
Application 11/408,804
processor sends the short SMS messages to the mobile device (104) via the
cellular wireless network. Id. Upon receiving the SMS text including a first
data item concatenated with a second data item without delimiters, a second
processor at the farmer's mobile device (104) executes instructions retrieved
from a second medium at the storage server to decode the received SMS
text. Id. ,r,r 26, 41, 46, 52, 53-56, and Figs. 5A-B. Then, the mobile device
( 104) displays the decoded text on its graphical user interface ( 106) as user
readable information. Id.
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1 below is representative, and reads as follows:
Claim 1. A system comprising:
a processor at a content server, wherein the content
server receives a plurality of data feeds containing data;
and
a medium at the content server storing instructions
adapted to be executed by the processor to:
determine a current geographic location of a user
based in part on an analysis of a subscription pattern of
the user for at least one of weather and market content;
access preference information associated with the
user, wherein the preference information of the user is
stored in a profile database at the content server that is
remote from a mobile device associated with the user,
and further wherein the preference information of the
user includes commodity trading preferences of the user
including an indication of a commodity, an indication of
an exchange, a location of the user, and a market price
for the commodity, wherein the market price is
determined by the exchange;
select, by the processor, a portion of the data from
the received plurality of data feeds for the user based on
(1) the preference information associated with the user
and (2) the location of the user, wherein the selected data
comprises a first data item including a first plurality of
3
Appeal2018-002108
Application 11/408,804
textual characters and a second data item including a
second plurality of textual characters;
encode the selected data in textual characters of a
short message service (SMS) text message using one or
more encoding tables containing unique short form
information values associated with at least one data item
of the selected data, wherein each of the unique short
form information values consists of a single textual
character; and
send the encoded SMS text message solely via a
cellular wireless network to the mobile device of the
user, wherein the encoded SMS text message comprises
the unique short form
information values associated with the selected data and
wherein the encoded SMS text message comprises the
first data item concatenated with the second data item
without any delimiter between the first data item and the
second data item, wherein the SMS text message can be
received by the mobile device via the cellular network,
and the textual characters of the received SMS text
message can be parsed and decoded by the mobile device
to display the selected data as user-readable information,
the user-readable information being in at least one of a
graphical and textual form.
App. Br. 23, Claims App.
Prior Art Relied Upon
Russo US 2004/0068458 Al Apr. 8, 2004
Boone US 2005/0132016 Al June 16, 2005
Bal US 2005/0169240 Al Aug. 4, 2005
Anderson et al. US 2005/0180370 Al Aug. 18, 2005
("Anderson")
Bonar et al. US 2006/0126620 Al June 15, 2006
("Bonar")
Alperin et al. US 2007/0130155 Al June 7, 2007
("Alperin")
Talozi et al. US 2007 /0207798 Al Sept. 6, 2007
4
Appeal2018-002108
Application 11/408,804
("Talozi")
Donald et al.
("Donald")
US 7,620,407 B 1 Nov. 17, 2009
Rest, Farming The Web, Farm Industry News, Vol. 29, Iss. 4, 1-6, (2006),
http://proquest.mni.com/pqdweb?index=5&did=1014601531&SrchMode=2
&sid=3&Fmt=4, last visited Sept. 2018.
Horvitz, et al. EP 1326189 A3 August 17, 2005
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 6, 8-11, 13, 16, 20-23, 43, 44, 46-48, and 50 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 8-10. 2
Claim 43 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112
(pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly
point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint
inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Id. at 11.
Claims 1, 6, 8-11, 13, 16, 20-23, and 43-50 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent ineligible material. Id. at 12-14.
Claims 1, 6, and 9-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Alperin, Russo, Boone, Bonar,
Horvitz and Donald. Id. at 14--32.3
2 The Examiner withdrew the written description rejection of claims 45 and
49. Ans. 1-2.
3 Donald is omitted from the Examiner's statement of the rejection, but it is
discussed in the body of the rejection. Consequently, we treat the rejection
as being made in further view of Donald.
5
Appeal2018-002108
Application 11/408,804
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Alperin, Donald, Russo, Bonar,
Horvitz, Boone, and Rest. Id. at 32-34.
Claims 43--46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Alperin, Russo, Boone, Bonar, Horvitz
and Anderson. Id. at 34--43.
Claims 13, 21-23, and 47-50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Alperin, Donald, Russo,
Boone, and Horvitz. Id. at 43---65.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Alperin, Donald, Russo, Boone,
Horvitz, and Talozi. Id. at 65---66.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Alperin, Russo, Donald, Boone,
Horvitz, and Bal. Id. at 67-68.
ANALYSIS 4
Written Description Rejections
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in concluding the originally-
filed written description does not support the recitation "send[ing] the
encoded SMS text message solely via a cellular wireless network" to the
mobile device of the user, as recited currently in independent claim 1. App.
4 Rather than reiterate all the arguments of Appellants and all the
Examiner's findings and conclusions, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed
June 1, 2016) ("App. Br."); the Reply Brief (filed November 22, 2016)
("Reply Br."); and the Answer (mailed September 22, 2016) ("Ans."); and
the Final Office Action (mailed October 2, 2015) ("Final Act.") for the
respective details.
6
Appeal2018-002108
Application 11/408,804
Br. 8. In particular, Appellants argue although the Specification does not
recite the disputed limitations, verbatim, an ordinarily skilled artisan would
recognize that paragraph 23 of the Specification shows that Appellants had
possession of the disputed subject matter at the time of the invention. Id. In
particular, Appellants argue that the ordinarily-skilled artisan would
appreciate that the disclosure of "a farmer, using a mobile phone, wishes to
receive information, but 'does not have a data subscription"' implies that the
farmer must therefore communicate solely via cellular wireless network. Id.
at 11 ( emphasis omitted) ( citing Spec. ,r 23).
This argument is persuasive. As correctly noted by Appellants, to
satisfy the written description requirement, a patent Specification must
describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art
can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed
invention. Reply Br. 5 (citing Moba, B. V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325
F.3d 1306, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). An applicant may show possession of
the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its
limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures,
diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood
v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997). However,
our reviewing court guides that "[a] description which renders obvious the
invention for which an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient."
Lockwood 107 F.3d at 1572 (quoting Jepson v. Coleman, 314 F.2d 533, 536
(CCPA 1963)). "[I]t is 'not a question of whether one skilled in the art
might be able to construct the patentee's device from the teachings of the
disclosure .... Rather, it is a question whether the application necessarily
discloses that particular device."' Id. ( emphasis added).
7
Appeal2018-002108
Application 11/408,804
At the outset, we note Appellants' originally-filed Specification
discloses the following:
Many people do not use the Internet or computers and, instead,
rely on mobile devices as their primary form of communication.
The farmer has a JAVA enabled mobile phone and wants to
receive this information on his mobile phone. However, this farmer
does not have a data subscription so a web based solution or wireless
application protocol ("W AP") solution may not possible.
The server 101 may communicate with one or more mobile
devices 104 through a variety of means such as, but not limited to, a
wireless network, a telecom tower, and a satellite.
Id. Spec. ,r,r 20, 23 and 25.
Although the written description requirement does not impose an "in
haec verba" recitation of the disputed claim language in the original
Specification, it nonetheless requires a sufficient description of the claim
subject matter so as to enable one of ordinary skills in the art to make and
use the invention. In re Wright, 866 F.2d 422 (Fed. Cir 1989); see also
Agilent Techs., Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc., 567 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009). As
noted in the cited portions above, the Specification indicates that the
farmer's mobile device can generally communicate with a wireless
network, telecom tower, and satellite. Spec. ,r 25. Further, the Specification
indicates that the farmer's mobile device does not have a data subscription,
and thus cannot communicate via a data wireless network. Id. ,r 23.
Therefore, we agree with Appellants that the ordinarily-skilled artisan,
having read the Specification, would readily understand that Appellants had
possession of the recitation that the farmer's device communicates with the
8
Appeal2018-002108
Application 11/408,804
server solely via the cellular wireless network ( e.g. telecom tower, satellite).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the written description rejection of claim 1.
With respect to claim 43, Appellants argue the Examiner erred in
concluding that the originally-filed Specification does not support the
recitation "a second processor at the mobile device that is unconnected for
data transmission." App. Br. 9. In particular, Appellants argue that the
ordinarily-skilled artisan would appreciate that paragraph 23 of the
Specification supports the cited recitation for the same reasons set forth in
the discussion of claim 1. Id.
We agree with Appellants that the ordinarily-skilled artisan would
readily appreciate that a farmer's mobile device without data subscription,
as disclosed in paragraph 23 of the Specification, supports the recitation that
the mobile device is unconnected for data transmission. Reply Br. 6-7.
Further, Appellants argue the Examiner similarly erred in concluding
that the Specification does not support the recitation "a second medium at
the mobile device server storing instruction adapted to be executed by the
second processor to display the user-readable information," as recited in
claim 43. Id. Specifically, Appellants argue the ordinarily-skilled artisan
would readily appreciate that paragraphs 25 and 26 of the Specification
disclosing a mobile phone containing a graphical user interface for
displaying "textual descriptions as well as graphical icons" supports a
processor to display user-readable information in a first display system.
App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 7. Furthermore, Appellants argue that the term
"second medium" was used in claim 43 to distinguish the storage medium at
the mobile device from the storage medium at the content server. Id.
9
Appeal2018-002108
Application 11/408,804
This argument is persuasive. Paragraph 52 of the Specification
discloses "a client application stored on the mobile device." Hence, the
ordinarily skilled artisan would appreciate that the cited disclosure supports
a second storage medium at the mobile device distinguishable from the first
storage medium at the content server.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the written description rejection of
claim 43.
As per claim 46, Appellants argue the Examiner erred in concluding
that the originally-filed Specification does not support the recitation
"adapted to be executed by second processor of the mobile device to send to
the content server an SMS text message that includes at least a portion of the
preference information." App. Br. 10. In particular, Appellants argue that
the disclosure of a mobile device sending an update to the content server via
SMS text message in paragraph 36 of the Specification supports the disputed
limitation. Id.
We agree with Appellants the ordinarily-skilled artisan would
appreciate that the disclosure of the mobile device sending a text to the
server and decoding the encoded text message supports the claim limitation
that the mobile device includes a [ second] processor distinguishable from
the [first] processor at the content server. Id.; Reply Br. 8; Spec. ,r,r 36, and
52.
Because we are persuaded the Examiner erred in concluding that the
disputed claim limitations discussed above are supported by Appellants'
originally-filed Specification, we do not sustain the Examiner's written
description rejection of claims 1, 6, 8-11, 13, 16, 20-23, 43, 44, 46-48, and
50.
10
Appeal2018-002108
Application 11/408,804
Indefiniteness Rejection
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in concluding that claim 43
is indefinite. App. Br. 10-11. In particular, Appellants argue the ordinarily-
skilled artisan would not construe "a second processor at the mobile device
that is unconnected for data transmission" as conflicting with the recitation
"and is connected for exchange of SMS text messages." Id., Reply Br. 8-9.
Instead, Appellants submit the ordinarily skilled artisan would be apprised
that because the mobile device does not have a data subscription to facilitate
the exchange of data with the content server, the mobile device can only
communicate with the content server via SMS text messages. Id. ( citing
Spec. ,r 23).
This argument is persuasive. "The legal standard for definiteness is
whether a claim reasonably apprises those of skill in the art of its scope."
In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing Amgen Inc. v.
Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., 927 F.2d 1200, 1217, (Fed. Cir.1991)).
The "inquiry therefore is merely to determine whether the claims do, in fact,
set out and circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree of
precision and particularity." In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235 (CCPA
1971 ). In particular, a claim is indefinite "where the language 'said lever'
appears in a dependent claim where no such 'lever' has been previously
recited." Ex parte Moelands, 3 USPQ2d 1474, 1476 (BPAI 1987).
As discussed above, we do not agree with the Examiner that the
recitation "a second processor at the mobile device that is unconnected for
data transmission" conflicts with the recitation "and is connected for
exchange of SMS text messages," as recited in claim 43. Instead, we agree
with Appellants, in light of paragraph 23 of the Specification, the ordinarily
11
Appeal2018-002108
Application 11/408,804
skilled artisan would be apprised that the scope of the disputed limitations
requires the mobile device communicating with the content sever via SMS
text message when the mobile device does not subscribe for a data plan.
That is, in light of the Specification, the recited "SMS" message is
distinguishable from "data."
Because the Examiner has failed to show that the ordinarily-skilled
artisan, having read Appellants' Specification, would not be apprised of the
scope of claim 43, we do not sustain this rejection.
Patent Ineligibility Rejection
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in concluding that claims 1, 6,
8-11, 13, 16, 20-23, and 43-50 are directed to the mere abstract idea of
"selecting economic data based on user preference rules which determine the
selection based on location, subscriber data, analyzing economic data
associated with the user." App. Br. 12. According to Appellants, the claims
are directed to implementing a specific solution to a problem arising in
computer technology, as opposed to a tool for implementing a fundamental
concept of selecting economic based on user preference rules. Id. at 13-14
(citing Enfzsh LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 118 USPQ.2d 1684, No. 2015-1244,
(Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Appellants emphasize the following claim limitations:
( 1) select a portion of data feeds for the user based preference
information and location of the user, the selected data
comprises a first and a second plurality of textual characters
(2) encode the textual characters using an encoding table
containing unique short form information values associated
with at least one data item of the selected data,
12
Appeal2018-002108
Application 11/408,804
(3) send SMS text message solely via a cellular wireless
network to the mobile device, the SMS text message
comprises the first data item concatenated with the second
data item without any delimiter between them,
(4) parse and decode at the mobile device the received and
encoded SMS text message to display the selected data as
user readable information.
Reply Br. 13.
Appellants then submit that the claims solve the problem of
exchanging large amount of data between a content server and a
mobile device, even when no data subscription is present, by using
encoded SMS texts, which allows the devices to exchange
significantly more information within a 160 character limit. App. Br.
14; Reply Br. 12. In other words, Appellants allege that the elements
of claim 1 amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because
those elements disclose specific limitations other than what is well-
understood, routine and conventional in the field. Id.
The USPTO Memorandum titled "Changes to Examination
Procedures Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility," April 19, 2018
("Memorandum"), 5 pursuant to Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed.
Cir. 2018) ("Berkheimer"), instructs that the question of whether certain
claim limitations represent a well-understood, routine, and conventional
activity is an issue of fact that the Examiner must find, and expressly support
in writing with evidence to satisfy the substantial evidence standard under
5 Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter
Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP,
Inc.) 1-5 (2018), https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
memo-berkheimer-20180419 .PDF.
13
Appeal2018-002108
Application 11/408,804
the Administrative Procedure Act (AP A). Memorandum 2-3. That is, upon
Appellants challenging an Examiner's finding in a step 2B Mayo analysis
alleging that a claimed feature is well-understood, routine, and conventional
in the relevant industry, the Examiner must establish such fact by more than
mere knowledge or mere disclosure of the disputed fact in the prior art. Id.
at 3. In other words, upon receiving Appellants' challenge, the Examiner
must establish such element(s) is/are well-understood, routine and
conventional activity by producing evidence that the element(s) is/are widely
prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry. Id. (citing MPEP
2106.0S(d)(I)). The Examiner must therefore support the rejection in
writing with one or more of the following:
( 1) A citation to an express statement in the Specification or to a
statement made by an applicant during prosecution that
demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of
the element( s ).
(2) A citation to one or more of court decisions discussed in MPEP
2106.0S(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional
nature of the element(s).
(3) A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood,
routine, conventional nature of the element(s) (e.g., a book,
manual, review article or other source that describes the state of the
art and discusses what is well-known and in common use in the
relevant industry).
( 4) A statement that the Examiner is taking official notice of the well-
understood, routine, conventional nature of the element( s ).
Id. at 3--4.
14
Appeal2018-002108
Application 11/408,804
In the present case, the Examiner states: "[T]he claimed limitations are
directed toward the use of conventional or generic technology in an
established well understood/known environment without any claim that the
invention reflects an inventive solution to any problem presented by
combining the two." Ans. 14.
We do not agree with the Examiner's characterization of the claimed
elements. Although the claims encompass a generic computer performing
the functions of selecting a portion of data feeds, encoding the selected data
into short form SMS text message, and sending the encoded SMS text
message to mobile device, the claims are not limited to just those functions.
As persuasively argued by Appellants, the claims recite additional functions,
particularly the specific encoding that uses encoding tables containing short
form values to produce an encoded text message concatenating a first data
item with a second data item without delimiter so as to transfer a large
amount of data to a wireless device, which does not have data subscription.
Such functionality necessarily provides a technical improvement to the
operation of the communications. On the record before us, we do not find
the Examiner has provided sufficient evidence to establish such functions
performed by the computer are well-understood, routine or conventional
activities. Cf BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827
F.3d 1341, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Finding filtering steps in claims satisfy
Alice step 2 because they were "claiming a technology-based solution (not
an abstract-idea-based solution implemented with generic technical
components in a conventional way) to filter content on the Internet that
overcomes existing problems with other Internet filtering systems.").
15
Appeal2018-002108
Application 11/408,804
Thus, after reviewing the 35 U.S.C. § 101 arguments articulated by
Appellants in the Briefs, we find Appellants' arguments persuasive.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection that claims 1, 6, 8-
11, 13, 16, 20-23, and 43-50 are directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
Obviousness Rejections
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in concluding that the
combination of Alperin, Russo, Boone, Bonar, Horvitz and Donald renders
claims 1, 6, and 9-11 unpatentable. App. Br. 15-17. In particular,
Appellants argue the cited references are not properly combined to teach or
suggest encoding selected data in textual characters of a short message using
encoding tables containing short form information values, as recited in
independent claim 1. Id. at 15. According to Appellants, Alperin's
disclosure of merely retrieving from a database user preference information,
in response to the user's request, so as to update settings in user end devices
does not teach the disputed limitations. Id.; Reply Br. 15 ( citing Alperin ,r,r
41, 42, 58, and 59). Further, Appellants argue the Examiner has not
sufficiently explained how Russo's disclosure of selecting data feeds from
market exchanges to be displayed on a user device could be combined with
Alperin's system for retrieving profile information for updating settings in
an end device to teach the disputed limitations. Id.
Appellants' arguments are persuasive. Alperin discloses a system for
retrieving user preference information from a profile database in response to
a user's request, and for propagating the retrieved profile information to
update the settings of a plurality user devices. Alperin ,r,r 53, 54, and 58.
Russo discloses electronically transmitting to a user device selected portions
of market data feeds. Russo ,r,r 177, 178, 180, 181, 184, 185, and 208.
16
Appeal2018-002108
Application 11/408,804
Although we agree with the Examiner that Russo teaches transmitting to the
user device selected market data feeds, Russo's teaching does not cure the
noted deficiencies of Alperin. The user preference information retrieved by
Alperin relates to information for updating the device settings, as opposed to
selecting which portions of the data feed for subsequent display on the user
device. In other words, because Alperin's retrieved preference information
does not play any role in the data feed selection, we agree with Appellants
that the combination of Alperin and Russo would fall short of teaching the
disputed limitations. At best, the proposed combination would result in
updating the settings of user devices such that the devices are an operating
(e.g., on mode) when receiving data feeds, and not operating (e.g., sleep
mode) when it is not in service or receiving data feeds.
Because Appellants have shown at least one reversible error in the
Examiner's rejection, we need not reach Appellants' remaining arguments.
Accordingly, we are persuaded or error in the Examiner's anticipation
rejection of claim 1.
Because claims 6, 8-11, 13, 16, 20-23, and 43-50 recite the disputed
limitations of claim 1 discussed above, and the secondary references relied
upon by the Examiner do not cure the noted deficiencies in Alperin and
Russo, we do not sustain the Examiner's anticipation of the cited claims for
the same reason set forth above.
17
Appeal2018-002108
Application 11/408,804
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's written description
rejections, the indefiniteness rejection, the patent ineligibility rejection, and
the obviousness rejections of claims 1, 6, 8-11, 13, 16, 20-23, and 43-50 as
set forth above.
REVERSED
18