Ex Parte Ulrich et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 1, 2016

12242855 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/242,855 09/30/2008
58127 7590 03/01/2016
FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC
409 BROAD STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15143
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sean M. Ulrich
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.
RPS920080055USNP(710.075) 9303
EXAMINER
FABBRI, ANTHONY E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2453
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SEAN M. ULRICH, PETER G. GAUCHER,
DAVID C. CHALLENER, JENNIFER G. ZA WACK.I,
JAMES J. THRASHER, JUSTIN T. DUBS, and JULIE A. MORRIS
Appeal2013-005104
Application 12/242,855 1
Technology Center 2400
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, ANDREW J. DILLON, and
IRVINE. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1, 3, 10, 12, 20, 22, 24, and 27-39. Claims 2, 4--9,
11, 13-19, 21, 23, 25, and 26 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Lenovo Singapore
PTE LTD. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2013-005104
Application 12/242,855
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' claimed subject matter provides for establishing a
collaborative web browsing session that enables at least one peer device to
join the collaborative web browsing session at a web site hosted by an
automated peer. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A system comprising:
a CPU;
a memory in communication with said CPU; and
instructions stored in the memory and executable by said
CPU to establish a collaborative web browsing session, the
instructions further comprising:
instructions for recognizing at least one peer device
at a web site hosted by an automated peer;
instructions for joining the at least one peer device
as a session user to the collaborative web browsing session
at the web site hosted by the automated peer; and
instructions for linking peer devices currently at the
web site hosted by the automated peer in the collaborative
web browsing session; and
instructions for, responsive to joining the automated
peer as a session user, leading with the automated peer an
automated collaborative web browsing session via
Uniform Resource Locator sharing with the linked peer
devices.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 10, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Qian (US 2006/0129642 Al; June 15, 2006) and Leeds
(US 2002/0138588 Al; Sept. 26, 2002). Final Act. 4--9. 2
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Action mailed May 8,
2012 ("Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief filed October 9, 2012 ("Br."); and
(3) the Examiner's Answer mailed November 23, 2012 ("Ans.").
2
Appeal2013-005104
Application 12/242,855
The Examiner rejected claims 3, 12, 29--31, 33-35, and 37-39 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Qian, Leeds, and Lee
(US 2003/0225836 Al; Dec. 4, 2002). Id. at 9--12.
The Examiner rejected claims 20, 22, 27, 28, 32, and 36 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Qian, Leeds, and Nakajima
(US 5,805,846; Sept. 28, 2008). Id. at 12-16.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER QIAN AND LEEDS
Claims 1, 10, and 24
The Examiner finds that the combination of Qian and Leeds teaches
all limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 4---6. Appellants argue that "Qian does
not suggest adding an automated peer as a peer to the [collaborative web
browsing] session, and hence Qian does not teach or suggest 'responsive to
joining the automated peer as a session user."' Br. 13. Appellants argue
further that
Qian does not teach or suggest "leading with the automated
peer an automated collaborative web browsing session via
Uniform Resource Locator sharing with the linked peer
devices", Claim 1, because Qian clearly teaches that although
an initial page may be selected by a coordinated server, this
server does not act as an automated peer, nor does it provide
any leading activities of a "collaborative web browsing session"
as Qian indicates that anything other than the initial page
originates from user (human) leader activities.
Br. 13-14. In other words, Appellants argue that Qian does not teach or
suggest "instructions for, responsive to joining the automated peer as a
session user, leading with the automated peer an automated collaborative
web browsing session via Uniform Resource Locator sharing with the linked
3
Appeal2013-005104
Application 12/242,855
peer devices," as recited in claim 1 and as commensurately recited in claims
10 and 24.
The Examiner further explains in the Answer that Qian discloses a
machine acting at the behest of an administrator to join the automated peer
and lead the collaborative web browsing session. Ans. 5 (citing Qian i-fi-1 51-
52 ). The Examiner reasons that the automated machine acting at the behest
of the administrator is irrelevant. Id. The Examiner finds that a machine
joining the automated peer and "simplif-1ying] the process of sending the
webpage redirect notices to the number of attendees" meets the claimed
"instructions for, responsive to joining the automated peer as a session user,
leading with the automated peer an automated collaborative web browsing
session via Uniform Resource Locator sharing with the linked peer devices."
Id.
We find the further explanations of the Examiner's Answer to be
persuasive. Moreover, Appellants filed no response to the Answer, thus
leaving the Answer's findings unrebutted. We are, therefore, unpersuaded
of error in the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 10, and 24.
We adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions as to the rejection
of the independent claims. Final Act. 4--6; Ans. 5.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER QIAN AND LEEDS
Claims 20, 22, 27, 28, 32, and 36
Claim 20 depends from claim 1 and adds "instructions for, responsive
to joining the automated peer as a session user, leading the linked peer
4
Appeal2013-005104
Application 12/242,855
devices in the automated collaborative web browsing session via the
automated peer according to a predetermined schedule of events." The
Examiner finds claim 20 unpatentable over the combination of Qian, Leeds,
and Nakajima. Final Act. 13.
Appellants argue claims 20, 22, and 27 on the basis that Nakajima
does not disclose an automated peer, so it also fails to teach or suggest
"leading the linked peer devices in the automated collaborative web
browsing session via the automated peer according to a predetermined
schedule of events." Br. 14--15.
We are unpersuaded that the combination of Qian, Leeds, and
Nakajima fails to teach or suggest an automated peer for the reasons stated
above with respect to Appellants' arguments against claim 1. And we are
unpersuaded that the combination further fails to teach or suggest an
automated peer leading an automated collaborative web browsing session
"according to a predetermined schedule of events," because, as the Examiner
finds, "Nakajima causes the blackboard program to bring a tardy user up to
speed by replaying some of the blackboard events to bring the new user to
the same state as the other users." Ans. 6 (citing Nakajima 2: 54--67).
Accordingly, we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's decision to
reject claims 20, 22, and 27.
Appellants also argue claims 28, 32, and 36 on the basis that "all
references operate on a model wherein a central or coordinator node passes
through user interactions and does not place control or leading of the session
in an automated peer." Br. 15. We find this argument unpersuasive of error
for reasons discussed supra.
5
Appeal2013-005104
Application 12/242,855
Because Appellants do not separately argue the rejections of claims 3,
12, 29--31, 33-35, and 37-39, we sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting
those claims over Qian, Leeds, and Lee. Final Act. 9--12.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 10, 12, 20, 22, 24, and
27-39 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6