Ex Parte Potter et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 5, 2012

11208041 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 5, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte LAURENCE POTTER III and STEPHEN A. SMITH
____________

Appeal 2010-002577
Application 11/208,041
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, Administrative Patent Judges.

BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Patent Examiner rejected claims 7-12, 25, 26, and 34. The
Appellants appeal therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

Appeal 2010-002577
Application 11/208,041
2
INVENTION
The following claim illustrates the invention on appeal:
34. A method of operating a user interactive
system (UIS), said method comprising:
accepting data from at least one of a plurality of UIS
applications;
storing said accepted data in one of a plurality of
databases;
allowing the plurality of UIS applications to share said
accepted data for processing without regard to which
application accepted said data;
wherein said accepted data is not collected a second time
when said data is already stored.

REJECTION
Claims 7-12, 25, 26 and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,014,502 ("Moraes").

DISCUSSION
Based on the dependencies of the claims, we will decide the appeal of
claims 7-12, 25, 26, and 34 on the basis of independent claims 7 and 34.
Therefore, the issue before us follows.
Did the Examiner err in finding that Moraes would have taught
"allowing the plurality of UIS applications to share . . . accepted data . . .
without regard to which application accepted said data," as required by
independent claims 7 and 34?
"It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found
only if the prior art reference discloses every element of the claim, and that
anticipation is a fact question . . . ." In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326 (Fed.
Appeal 2010-002577
Application 11/208,041
3
Cir. 1986) (citing Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist &
Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 1984)) (Emphasis added.).
Here, the Examiner finds that "Moraes teaches . . . allowing a plurality
of applications to share said accepted data without regard to which
application accepted said data; (see Moraes, col. 11, lines 45-55) . . . ."
(Ans. 5.) We agree with the Appellants, however, that this part of the
reference "does not disclose a system that includes 'a plurality of UIS
applications,' . . . because it only discloses one application . . . ." (App. Br.
10.) Moraes explains further that "a[t] the request of the client program, the
user inputs name, address, telephone number and other identification data.
This information is stored on storage device 206." (Col. 11, ll. 51-54.) We
agree with the Appellants this part of the reference "fails to disclose the
claimed 'allowing the plurality of UIS applications to share said accepted
data for processing without regard to which application accepted said data.'"
(App. Br. 10.)
Therefore, we conclude that the Examiner did err in finding Moraes
would have taught "allowing the plurality of UIS applications to share . . .
accepted data . . . without regard to which application accepted said data," as
required by independent claims 7 and 34.

DECISION
We reverse the rejection of claims 7 and 34 and of claims 8-12, 25,
and 26, which depend therefrom.

REVERSED
peb