10811314 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 10, 2012)

Ex Parte Pohja et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJan 10, 2012

10811314 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 10, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________ Ex parte SEPPO POHJA, ARI POTKONEN, and JARI MONONEN ____________ Appeal 2010-009635 Application 10/811,314 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-009635 Application 10/811,314 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) of the final rejection of claims 1-26 which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). SUMMARY OF THE DECISION We AFFIRM. THE INVENTION The Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a system and method for marketing a commercial activity using distributed computing (Spec. [0006]). Claim 1, reproduced below with the numbering in brackets added, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method comprising: sending processor-executable code to a plurality of users; requesting that the users run the processor-executable code on network-coupled computing arrangements accessible by the users; running the processor-executable code on each of the computing arrangements to perform distributed computing tasks on the computing arrangement, the distributed computing tasks working in concert to solve a computational problem; tracking the distributed computing tasks performed by each contributing user; and providing, as a result of reward for performing the distributed computing task, a user-perceivable experience via the computing arrangements, wherein the user-perceivable is configured for purposes of marketing the a commercial activity, and [1] wherein access to the user-perceivable experience is governed based on a quantity of the distributed computing tasks performed by each contributing user. Appeal 2010-009635 Application 10/811,314 3 THE REJECTIONS The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the rejections: Hubbard US 2001/0039497 A1 Nov. 8, 2001 Scefchik, Rick. “Every day, more PC users join the hunt for alien life,” Houston Chronicle, Oct. 15, 1999, page 6. Obtained from: http://proquest.umi.comlpqdweb?index=7&sid=2&srchmode=2&vinst =PROD&fmt=3&s ... 11/20/2008. The following rejections are before us for review: 1. Claims 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Scefchik and Hubbard. THE ISSUES With regards to claim 1 the issue turns on whether the prior art discloses claim limitation [1]. The remaining claims turn on a similar issue. FINDINGS OF FACT We find the following enumerated findings of fact (FF) are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence:1 FF1. The Specification at [0050] states in part: The software also provides a user-perceivable experience that promotes a marketing activity while the software is running 410. The user- perceivable experience provided by the software may involve the use of graphics, video, sound, text, control of 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 2010-009635 Application 10/811,314 4 devices, or any other manner of input/output known in the art. The experience may promote the marketing activity by showing a logo, showing an ad, displaying text, playing a sound, or activating any other media that may be associated with marketing a product or service. FF2. Hubbard at [0075]-[0077] discloses in part that the distributed processing system may have an incentive system for client systems that are signed-up to participate. A sweepstakes may be used with the number of entries tied to the performance of a benchmark workload, thus the faster and better the client system performs the benchmark workload, the more entries they would receive. FF3. Hubbard at [0123] discloses that the more idle any client system, the more processing it is arguably able to accomplish, and the more incentives it is likely to receive. ANALYSIS The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because the prior art does not disclose claim limitation [1] (Br. 9-13). In contrast, the Examiner has determined that claim limitation [1] is shown by Hubbard at [0075-0077], and [0123] (Ans. 5-6, 31). We agree with the Examiner. Claim limitation [1] requires: [1] wherein access to the user-perceivable experience is governed based on a quantity of the distributed computing tasks performed by each contributing user. (Claim 1). The Appellants have cited in part to paragraph [0050] of the Specification as providing support for claim limitation [1] (Br. 4). This cited portion of the Specification states that the “user-perceivable experience….may Appeal 2010-009635 Application 10/811,314 5 involve….graphics, video, sound, text, control devices…showing a logo….displaying text…or activating any other media” (Spec. [0050], emphasis added). Thus, there is no requirement that the “user-perceivable experience” is required to display graphics or video under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the term. Hubbard has disclosed a distributed processing system with an incentive system for client systems (FF2). In Hubbard, a sweepstakes may be used with the number of entries tied to the performance of a benchmark workload, with the faster and better the client the system performs the benchmark, the more entries they would receive (FF2). Hubbard also discloses that the more idle any client system, the more processing it is arguably able to accomplish, and the more incentives it is likely to receive (FF3). Here given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the “sweepstakes” in Hubbard serves as a “user-perceivable experience” governed by the processing accomplished by each user and the requirements of claim limitation [1] are met. For these reasons the rejection of claim 1 is sustained. The Appellant’s have provided the same arguments for the remaining claims and the rejection of these claims is sustained for these same reasons. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Scefchik and Hubbard. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-26 is sustained. Appeal 2010-009635 Application 10/811,314 6 AFFIRMED MP