Ex Parte Smith

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 26, 2009

09354052 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 26, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte KIM C. SMITH
____________
Appeal 2009-003783
Application 09/354,0521
Technology Center 2100
____________
Decided:2 June 29, 2009
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and THU A.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Filed on July 15, 1999. The real party in interest is Gateway, Inc.
2 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2009-003783
Application 09/354,052
2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 2 through 4, 12 through 16, 22, 23, 37, 39, and 41 through
44.3 Claims 1, 5 through 11, 17 through 21, 24 through 36, 38, 40, and 45
have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appellant’s Invention
Appellant invented a system and method that enables a user to search
for information across various media source types using a single interface.
(Spec. 4, ll. 1-2.) In particular, Figure 7 depicts a user interface (700) that
contains three main sections: video display (701), media menu (702), and
search content menu (704). (Spec. 18, ll. 6-7, 12-13.) Using a cursor (300), a
user can select menu items in the media menu (702), thereby displaying
corresponding search content in the search content menu (704). (Spec. 18, ll.
16-20.)

Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 12 further illustrates the invention as follows:
12. A computer system configured to search across one or more
media source types comprising:

3 Claim 4 improperly depends from cancelled claim 38. Since Appellant
groups claim 4 with claims 12 and 37, it consequently falls with claim 12.
(App. Br. 10-11.)
Appeal 2009-003783
Application 09/354,052
3
a user interface configured to receive inputs of search criteria for a
search relating to an item of a first media source type, the item being one of a
first plurality of items of the first media source type;

at least one processor configured to execute instructions to cause the
computer to:

limit the search to said one or more media source types,

conduct the search based on the search criteria in a database, the
database being a remote database,

wherein the search is conducted in one or more sections of the
database, each of the one or more sections of the database respectively
corresponding to one of said one or more media source types, and the one or
more sections comprising a first section of the database which includes
content information about the first plurality of items, the content information
coming from a plurality of content sources, and

wherein said one or more sections of the database comprises a
second section of the database which includes content information about a
second plurality of items which are of a second media source type; and

a display configured to provide results of the search; and

memory operably coupled to said processor and configured to store a
first section of the database.

Prior Art Relied Upon
The Examiner relies on the following prior art as evidence of
unpatenability:
Vora US 5,819,273 Oct. 6, 1998
Appeal 2009-003783
Application 09/354,052
4
Williams US 6,108,686 Aug. 22, 2000
(filed Mar. 02, 1998)
Etheredge US 6,172,674 B1 Jan. 09, 2001
(filed Aug. 25, 1997)
Tomita US 6,230,324 B1 May 08, 2001
(filed Apr. 11, 1997)
Schein US 6,732,369 B1 May 04, 2004
(filed Apr. 11, 1997)

Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
Claims 2 through 4, 12 through 16, 37, 41, 43, and 44 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Vora.
Claims 22 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Vora and Etheredge.
Claim 39 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Vora and Tomita.
Claim 42 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Vora and Schein and the combination of
Vora and Williams.

Appellant’s Contentions
1. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in finding that Vora
anticipates independent claims 12 and 37. In particular, Appellant argues that
Vora does not teach inputting search criteria, and that its disclosure of
Literature and Business News cannot be categorized as media source types.
Appeal 2009-003783
Application 09/354,052
5
(App. Br. 13.) Further, Appellant contends that Vora’s disclosure of the text
size of documents does not teach content information coming from a plurality
of content sources. (App. Br. 14.)
2. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Vora and Etheredge renders dependent claims 22 and 23
unpatentable. In particular, Appellant argues that Etheredge’s disclosure of
filtering listing information does not teach filtering search results based upon
content source availability. (App. Br. 15-16.)
3. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Vora and Tomita renders dependent claim 39 unpatentable.
In particular, Appellant argues that Tomita’s disclosure of TV programs
provided over the Internet does not teach Internet information about TV data.
(App. Br. 17.)
4. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Vora and Schein and the combination of Vora and Williams
renders dependent claim 39 unpatentable. In particular, Appellant argues that
neither Schein nor Williams teach the deficiencies of Vora in regards to
independent claims 12 and 37. (App. Br. 18-19.)

Examiner’s Findings and Conclusions
1. The Examiner concludes that Vora anticipates independent
claims 12 and 37. In particular, the Examiner finds that Vora’s disclosure of
different types of information sources, including Business News, Literature,
Appeal 2009-003783
Application 09/354,052
6
Bibliographies, and Weather, teaches media source types as defined by
Appellant’s Specification. (Ans. 15-16; 22-23.) Further, the Examiner finds
that Vora’s disclosure of multiple processors that send requests over a
network and search documents in mass memory teaches a user interface,
processor, and searching sections of databases containing a first and second
media source type. (Ans. 17-21; 24.) The Examiner finds that Vora’s
disclosure of displaying content information that includes the name, index
size, text size, and number of documents retrieved teaches content
information coming from a plurality of content sources. (Ans. 25-26.)
2. The Examiner concludes that the combination of Vora and
Etheredge renders dependent claims 22 and 23 unpatentable. In particular,
the Examiner finds that Etheredge’s disclosure of filtering event data based on
the content source, channel, and availability teaches filtering search results
based upon content source availability. (Ans. 26-27.)
3. The Examiner concludes that the combination of Vora and
Tomita renders dependent claim 39 unpatentable. In particular, the Examiner
finds that Tomita’s disclosure of providing TV programs over the Internet
teaches searching a database containing Internet information about available
television programs. (Ans. 27-28.)
4. The Examiner concludes that the combination of Vora and
Williams renders dependent claim 42 unpatentable. In particular, the
Examiner finds that Williams’ disclosure of a graphical user interface and
associated content viewer, in conjunction with a database stored in a client
Appeal 2009-003783
Application 09/354,052
7
computer, teaches the display of a computer and a local database stored in the
memory of a computer. (Ans. 28-29.)

II. ISSUES
1. Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that
Vora anticipates independent claims 12 and 37? In particular, the issue turns
on whether Vora teaches a user interface and processor utilized to search
sections of multiple databases containing various media source types,
whereby each media source type includes content information coming from a
plurality of content sources, as recited in independent claims 12 and 37.
2. Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that
the combination of Vora and Etheredge renders dependent claims 22 and 23
unpatentable? In particular, the issue turns on whether Etheredge teaches
filtering search results based upon the content source and content information
availability, as recited in dependent claims 22 and 23.
3. Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that
the combination of Vora and Tomita renders dependent claim 39
unpatentable? In particular, the issue turns on whether Tomita teaches
wherein the first section of the database contains Internet information about
the TV data, the Internet being one of the plurality of content sources, as
recited in dependent claim 39.
4. Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that
the combination of Vora and Williams renders dependent claim 42
Appeal 2009-003783
Application 09/354,052
8
unpatentable? In particular, the issue turns on whether Williams teaches
wherein the display is the display of a computer, and wherein the local
database is stored in a memory of the computer, as recited in dependent claim
42.

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
Appellant’s Invention
1. A converging system contains several different media source
types. (Spec. 2, ll. 15-16.) For example, personal computers contain
information in several different file formats (i.e. .ini., .txt., .exe., etc.). (Spec.
2, ll. 16-17.) Electronic Program Guides contain information for current and
future television programming. (Spec. 2, ll. 17-19.) The Internet contains a
plethora of information on virtually every subject. (Spec. 2, ll. 19-20.)
2. Appellant’s claimed invention establishes a link between one
type of information and another. (Spec. 14, ll. 20-22.) Information is
presented through the Internet where a search engine accesses databases
containing content source types or media source types, including periodicals,
advertisements, home pages, etc. (Spec. 14, ll. 18-20, 22-24.)
3. As depicted in Figure 4, the local database (400) contains several
media source types, including TV sources (401), DVD drive/carousel (402),
Internet (403), Hard Drive and Internet (404), and Radio, CD, DVD, Satellite,
and Internet (405). (Spec. 15, ll. 13-15.) Each media section contains large
quantities of information relating to each media source. (Spec. 15, ll. 17-18.)
Appeal 2009-003783
Application 09/354,052
9
Additionally, each media section includes information relating to a user’s
interaction with each media source. (Spec. 15, ll. 21-22.)

Vora
4. As depicted in Figure 1, when a user requests a search via the
display (47), processor (37) sends the search request over the network through
the network interfaces (25, 35) to processor (10) to search documents stored
in the mass memory (17). (Col. 6, ll. 48-55.) Further, in conjunction with
searching the mass memory (17), the data stored on the storage device
coupled to the Internet server (63) may be searched. (Col. 6, ll. 56-66.) The
server (9) combines the results of searching the Internet server (63) with the
results of searching the mass memory (17) to generate search results
displayed on the client computer (33). (Col. 9, l. 67 through Col. 10, l. 4.)
5. Figure 4a depicts a search request window (401) whereby a user
may request a first search in the box (403) utilizing search parameters (403a).
(Col. 9, ll. 40-50.)
6. As depicted in Figure 9, a user may select potential information
sources stored in information storage devices, such as the mass memory (17).
(Col. 18, ll. 8-12.) These potential information sources include folders or
directories (903) containing Business News, Business Resources, Cold Water
Ports, Diamonds, Earth, Encyclopedia, Literature (905), and Mountain
Ranges. (Col. 18, ll. 16-18.) An information source may represent the most
current news and may be provided as a periodical, newsletter, or newspaper.
Appeal 2009-003783
Application 09/354,052
10
(Col. 17, ll. 48-50.) For example, when the Literature folder (905) is added
by selecting the add button (919), the text size of the documents located in the
Literature folder (905) is displayed in window (913). (Col. 18, ll. 21-28.)
7. Figure 7a depicts a report in summary format of a scheduled
search. (Col. 16, ll. 31-33.) The report window (701) includes the number of
documents retrieved (711), the name of the information source (717), the
name of the article retrieved (721), a brief summary of the article retrieved
(703), and the option to select the full text of the article retrieved (719). (Col.
16, ll. 33-47.)

Etheredge
8. Etheredge generally relates to filtering information. (Col. 1, ll.
16-17.) Specifically, in order to help a viewer locate information about
television shows, the television guide can filter the data prior to display.
(Abstract).
9. Figure 23 depicts a step-by-step process whereby: 1) the user
accesses data for a week (902); 2) the data is filtered to meet the sorting
selection criteria (904); 3) a weekly grid with rows and columns is established
(906); and 4) data is inserted into the grid (908). (Col. 18, ll. 48-58.) For
example, Figure 24 depicts an established grid illustrating when the movie
“Animal House” is available (i.e. 7:00 on channel 5 or 9:00 on channel 7).
(Col. 19, ll. 3-8.)

Appeal 2009-003783
Application 09/354,052
11
Tomita
10. Tomita generally relates to an information transmission device
that transmits information to a plurality of terminal devices connected via the
Internet so as to create a display on the display screen of each terminal device.
(Col. 1, ll. 16-19; Col. 5, ll. 30-36.)
11. Figure 8 depicts a listing of television programs provided via the
Internet, whereby a date-change-button (51) and time-slot-change button (52)
may be utilized to change the available time slot for a respective television
program. (Col. 7, ll. 18-19, 25-33.)

Williams
12. Williams generally relates to computer networking, specifically
techniques for retrieving and viewing information on a wide area network.
(Col. 1, ll. 5-8.)
13. Figure 2 depicts a computer system that includes a display
device (17) and mass storage device (18). (Col. 4, ll. 46-48.) Figure 4 depicts
the graphical user interface (24) of the computer system whereby an agent
utilizes rules specific to a user to retrieve data from a remote database (34)
and store the data in a local database (30). (Col. 6, ll. 54-57.)

Appeal 2009-003783
Application 09/354,052
12
IV. PRINCIPLE OF LAW
Claim Construction
"[T]he words of a claim 'are generally given their ordinary and
customary meaning.'" Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir.
2005) (en banc) (internal citations omitted). "[T]he ordinary and customary
meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person
of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of
the effective filing date of the patent application." Id. at 1313 (citations
omitted).
"[T]he PTO gives claims their 'broadest reasonable interpretation.'"
In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211
F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). "Moreover, limitations are not to be read
into the claims from the specification." In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181,
1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
Our reviewing court has repeatedly warned against confining the claims to
specific embodiments described in the specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
415 F.3d at 1323.

Anticipation
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art
reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a
claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm.
Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co.
Appeal 2009-003783
Application 09/354,052
13
v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc., 976 F.2d 1559, 1565 (Fed. Cir.
1992)). “Anticipation of a patent claim requires a finding that the claim at
issue ‘reads on’ a prior art reference.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190
F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed Cir. 1999) (internal citations omitted). “In other words,
if granting patent protection on the disputed claim would allow the patentee to
exclude the public from practicing the prior art, then that claim is anticipated,
regardless of whether it also covers subject matter not in the prior art.” Id.
(citation omitted).

Obviousness
"On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection [under
§ 103] by showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by
rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of
nonobviousness." In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when "the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art
are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains."

KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007).
In KSR, the Supreme Court emphasized "the need for caution in
granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art,"
and discussed circumstances in which a patent might be determined to be
obvious. Id. at 415 (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 12
Appeal 2009-003783
Application 09/354,052
14
(1966)). The Court reaffirmed principles based on its precedent that "[t]he
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." Id. at 416. The
operative question in this "functional approach" is thus "whether the
improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according
to their established functions." Id. at 417.
In identifying a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary
skill in the relevant field to combine the prior art teachings, the Examiner
must show some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.

V. CLAIM GROUPING
Appellant argues that Vora does not anticipate claims 12 and 37.
Appellant separately argues that: 1) the combination of Vora and Etheredge
does not render dependent claims 22 and 23 unpatentable, 2) the combination
of Vora and Tomita does not render dependent claim 39 unpatentable, and 3)
the combination of Vora and Williams does not render dependent claim 42
unpatentable. In accordance with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 41.37
(c)(1)(viii), we will consider claims 2 through 4, 13 through 16, 37, 41, 43,
and 44 as standing or falling with claim 12. Claim 23 stands or falls with
claim 22.

Appeal 2009-003783
Application 09/354,052
15
VI. ANALYSIS
Claim 12
Independent claim 12 recites in relevant parts:
1) a user interface configured to receive inputs of search
criteria for a search relating to an item of a first media source
type…; 2) at least one processor configured to…conduct the
search based on the search criteria in a database…; 3) wherein
the search is conducted in…sections of the database, each of the
one or more sections of the database respectively corresponding
to one of said one or more media source types…; 4) wherein said
one or more sections of the database comprises a second section
of the database which includes content information about a
second plurality of items which are of a second media source
type…

We first consider the scope and meaning of the term “media source
type,” which must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with Appellant’s disclosure, as explained in In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048 (Fed.
Cir. 1997):
[T]he PTO applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the
broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage
as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art,
taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of
definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written
description contained in the applicant's specification.
Id. at 1054. See also In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (stating
that “claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow.”).
Appellant’s Specification states the following:
Appeal 2009-003783
Application 09/354,052
16
In a preferred embodiment of the present invention, a link is an
association between one type of information and another. Information
today is commonly presented through the Internet where a search
engine accesses databases with links to periodicals, advertisements,
home pages, etc., of interest to the user. Local database (400) contains
several media source types, wherein each section is associated with its
media source type including TV data (410/401), DVD titles (420/402),
Websites (430/403), Games (440/404), and Music Titles (450/405).
Each media section contains large quantities of information relating to
each unique media source. Additionally information is also included in
each media section relating to a user’s interaction with each unique
media source.

(Spec. 14, ll. 18-24; Spec. 15, ll. 13-22; see also FF 2, FF 3.)
Additionally, the Background section of Appellant’s Specification
states the following:
[C]onvergence systems contain several different media source types.
For example, PCs [“personal computers”] contain information in
several different file formats (i.e. .ini., .txt., .exe., etc.). Electronic
Program Guides, or EPGs, contain information for current and future
television programming, and the Internet contains a plethora of
information on virtually every subject.

(Spec. 2, ll. 16-20; see also FF 1.)
Upon reviewing Appellant’s Specification for context, we broadly but
reasonably construe the claim term “media source type” as any type of media
-related information source.
As set forth in the Findings of Fact section, Vora discloses a search
request window (401) whereby a user may request a search. (FF 5). Further,
Vora discloses that when a user requests a search, the user may select
Appeal 2009-003783
Application 09/354,052
17
potential information sources stored in information storage devices. (FF 4, 6.)
These potential information sources consist of periodicals, newsletters, or
newspapers and are labeled as folders or directories (903) containing Business
News, Business Resources, Cold Water Ports, Diamonds, Earth,
Encyclopedia, Literature (905), and Mountain Ranges. (FF 6.) Thus, once
the user has established search parameters and selected an information source,
processor (37) sends the search request over the network to processor (10)
and Internet server (63), whereby respective remote databases containing the
selected information sources are searched. (FF 4.) Therefore, consistent with
the broadest reasonable interpretation adopted above, the information sources
disclosed in Vora represent media information that may be stored in remote
databases located on the Internet.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Vora’s disclosure
of information sources, such as Business New, are topics of information that
could be provided by many media source types. (App. Br. 13.) Based on the
disclosure in Vora, it is clear that Business News is an information source that
may be provided as a periodical, newsletter, or newspaper, and stored on a
remote database located on the Internet. We find that Vora’s disclosure of
inputting search criteria into a request window, selecting information sources
stored on remote databases located on the Internet, and sending respective
search requests to a processor teaches a user interface and at least one
processor [that]…conduct[s] the search based on the search criteria in a
database…wherein the search is conducted in…sections of the database, each
Appeal 2009-003783
Application 09/354,052
18
of the one or more sections of the database respectively corresponding to one
of said one or more media source types.
Further, Vora discloses that when a user selects an information source
or folder, the text size of the documents located in the folder (905) are
displayed in window (913). (FF 6.) After selecting a folder (905) and
conducting a search, the report window (701) of a requested search is
displayed in summary format. (FF 7.) The report window (701) includes a
caption indicating the number of documents retrieved (711). (FF 7.) We find
that Vora’s disclosure of selecting an information source or folder, displaying
the text size of documents located in a folder, and providing a search report
that indicates the number of documents retrieved, teaches conduct[ing] the
search based on search criteria in a database… wherein said one or more
sections of the database comprises a second section of the database which
includes content information coming from a plurality of content sources. It
follows that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Vora anticipates independent claim 12.

Claim 22
Dependent claim 22 recites in relevant part wherein the searching
further includes filtering search results based upon the content source
availability.
As set forth in the Findings of Fact section, Etheredge discloses helping
a viewer locate information about television shows by receiving selection
Appeal 2009-003783
Application 09/354,052
19
criteria, filtering data according to the selection criteria, and displaying the
results. (FF 8, 9.) The results of the filtered data are displayed in a weekly
grid that illustrates when a television show is available (i.e. “Animal House”
at 7:00 on channel 5). (FF 9.) We find that Etheredge teaches filtering
television information according to selection criteria and displaying the
results based on availability. In particular, we find that Etheredge’s
disclosure of filtering television information according to selection criteria
and displaying the results based on availability teaches filtering search results
based upon the content source availability. It follows that Appellant has not
shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that the combination of Vora
and Etheredge renders claim 22 unpatentable.

Claim 39
Dependent claim 39 recites in relevant part wherein the first section of
the database contains Internet information about the TV data, the Internet
being one of the plurality of content sources.
As set forth in the Findings of Fact section, Tomita discloses a
transmission device that transmits information to a plurality of terminal
devices so as to create a listing of television programs provided via the
Internet. (FF 10, 11.) Further, Tomita discloses that the available time slot
for a respective television program may be changed. (FF 11.) We find that
Tomita teaches the availability of television programs provided via the
Internet. As set forth above, we find that Vora teaches conducting a search by
Appeal 2009-003783
Application 09/354,052
20
selecting information sources stored on remote databases located on the
Internet. In particular, we find that Vora’s disclosure of conducting a search
by selecting information sources stored on remote databases located on the
Internet, in conjunction with Tomita’s disclosure of availability of television
programs provided via the Internet, teaches wherein the first section of the
database contains Internet information about the TV data, the Internet being
one of the plurality of content sources. It follows that Appellant has not
shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that the combination of Vora
and Tomita renders claim 39 unpatentable.

Claim 42
Dependent claim 42 recites in relevant part wherein the display is the
display of a computer, and wherein the local database is stored in a memory
of the computer.
As set forth above, we find no deficiencies in Vora in regards to
independent claim 12. As set forth in the Findings of Fact section, Williams
discloses techniques for retrieving and viewing information on a wide area
network. (FF 12.) Further, Williams discloses a computer system that
includes a graphical user interface (24) that retrieves data from a remote
database (34) and stores the data in a local database (30). (FF 13.) We find
that Williams teaches a computer display and a local database. In particular,
Williams’ disclosure of a computer display and a local database teaches the
display is the display of a computer, and wherein the local database is stored
Appeal 2009-003783
Application 09/354,052
21
in a memory of the computer. It follows that Appellant has not shown that
the Examiner erred in concluding that the combination of Vora and Williams
renders claim 42 unpatentable.

VII. CONCLUSIONS
A. Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Vora anticipates independent claims 2 through 4, 12 through 16, 37, 41, 43,
and 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
B. Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in concluding
that:
1. the combination of Vora and Etheredge renders claims 22 and 23
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
2. the combination of Vora and Tomita renders claim 39
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
3. the combination of Vora and Williams renders claim 42
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

VIII. DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2 through 4, 12
through 16, 22, 23, 37, 39, and 41 through 44.

Appeal 2009-003783
Application 09/354,052
22
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).

AFFIRMED

rwk

PEARNE & GORDON LLP
1801 EAST 9TH STREET
SUITE 1200
CLEVELAND OH 44114-3108