Edwin W. Peters et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 27, 2019

14216682 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2019)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/216,682 03/17/2014 Edwin W. Peters CAM920130004US2_8150-0497 8411
52021 7590 09/27/2019
Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC
20283 State Road 7
Ste. 300
Boca Raton, FL 33498
EXAMINER
GODBOLD, DOUGLAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2658
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2019 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):
ibmptomail@iplawpro.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte EDWIN W. PETERS, SHERRY L. PLATEK,
NITTY T. PULIKAN, BALAJI RANGANATHAN, LIVIU RODEAN,
BALASUBRAMANIAN SIVASUBRAMANIAN, and ERIC WOODS

____________

Appeal 2019-000163
Application 14/216,682
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, ERIC S. FRAHM, and MELISSA A.
HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This application returns to us after we affirmed the Examiner’s
decision to reject then-pending claims 1 and 3–7. Ex parte Peters, Appeal
No. 2016-004945 (PTAB Apr. 28, 2017) (“Bd. Dec.”), reh’g denied (PTAB
Aug. 4, 2017) (“Reh’g Dec.”). Prosecution reopened after that decision, and
Appellant1 now appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
subsequent rejection of claims 21–30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as IBM
Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-000163
Application 14/216,682

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention automatically takes notes in a virtual meeting
including plural meeting content streams, at least one of which is in a non-
text format. After converting the latter streams to text, the text is analyzed
to identify a key element within the text to generate consolidated notes
including that element. See generally Abstract. Claim 21 is illustrative:
21. A computer-implemented method within a computer
hardware system, comprising:
receiving a first meeting content stream from a first
participant of a virtual meeting;
receiving a second meeting content stream from a second
participant of the virtual meeting;
analyzing text of the first and second meeting content
streams to identify key elements therein;
cross-referencing the analysis of the text of first and
second meeting content streams to identify a common key
element in the analysis thereof that is common to both the first
and second meeting content streams; and
generating consolidated system notes that include the
common key element, wherein the identifying of a key element
includes establishing that each key element meets a
predetermined threshold of significant.
RELATED APPEALS
As noted previously, we affirmed the Examiner’s decision to reject
then-pending claims 1 and 3–7 in an earlier appeal in the present application.
The prior art at issue in this appeal, however, differs from that cited in the
earlier appeal.
This appeal is also related to appeals filed in (1) Application No.
13/839,038 (Appeal No. 2019-000215); (2) Application No. 13/838,731
Appeal 2019-000163
Application 14/216,682

3
(Appeal No. 2019-002741); and (3) Application No. 14/523,250 (Appeal
No. 2019-002736). See Appeal Br. 1–2, 26.2

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner provisionally rejected claims 21–30 on the ground of
nonstatutory double patenting over claims 21–40 of copending Application
No. 13/839,038. Final Act. 6.
The Examiner rejected claims 21–25, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Bobbitt (US 2009/0276492 A1; published Nov. 5,
2009). Final Act. 6–9.
The Examiner rejected claims 26–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Bobbitt and Caspi (US 2004/0114746 A1; published June
17, 2004). Final Act. 9–10.

THE PROVISIONAL DOUBLE PATENTING REJECTION
Because Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s provisional double
patenting rejection of claims 21–30 (see Appeal Br. 33 n.1), we summarily
sustain this rejection. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP)
§ 1205.02 (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018); see also Reh’g Dec. 2–3

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed March
9, 2018 (“Final Act.”); (2) the Appeal Brief filed July 19, 2018 (“Appeal
Br.”); (3) the Examiner’s Answer mailed August 28, 2018 (“Ans.”); and (4)
the Reply Brief filed October 8, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).
3 Although the Appeal Brief’s page 3 is not paginated (unlike other pages of
the Brief), we nonetheless cite this page as page 3 consistent with its order of
presentation in the record.
Appeal 2019-000163
Application 14/216,682

4
(explaining why we properly summarily sustained the Examiner’s
provisional double patenting rejection in the earlier appeal).

THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION
The Examiner finds that Bobbitt discloses every recited element of
independent claim 21 including (1) receiving first and second meeting
content stream from first and second virtual meeting participants,
respectively; and (2) cross-referencing the analysis of these streams’ text to
identify a common key element in the analysis that is common to both
streams. Final Act. 6–7.
Appellant argues that Bobbitt does not receive two different content
streams from the same virtual meeting, let alone cross-reference textual
analysis of those streams to identify a common key element as claimed.
Appeal Br. 9–14; Reply Br. 2–5. According to Appellant, Bobbitt’s
“commonalities” are determined based on common participants—not cross-
referencing textual analysis as claimed. Appeal Br. 11; Reply Br. 4–5.

ISSUE
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 21 by finding
that Bobbitt (1) receives first and second meeting content stream from first
and second virtual meeting participants, respectively; and (2) cross-
references the analysis of these streams’ text to identify a common key
element in the analysis that is common to both streams (the “cross-
referencing limitation”)?

Appeal 2019-000163
Application 14/216,682

5
ANALYSIS
As noted above, a key disputed issue is whether Bobbitt discloses
receiving meeting content streams from respective participants of the same
virtual meeting. The Specification, however, does not define the term
“stream,” unlike other terms whose concrete definitions leave no doubt as to
their meaning. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 12, 21, 34–35, 47, 62, 64–67 (defining
various terms explicitly). The Specification does, however, explain that
meeting content can include, for example, (1) messaging (e.g., chat, instant
messaging), (2) video, and/or (3) audio data, and that this content can be
transmitted across one or more channels or streams and recorded. Spec.
¶ 28. The Specification’s paragraphs 39 to 43 give examples of these
meeting content streams, including meeting slides as an example of a video
stream, and chat as an example of a messaging stream. Notably, however,
meeting content streams are not limited to messaging, video, and audio data:
they can also include some other unspecified form of meeting content
stream. See Spec. ¶ 36 (listing exemplary meeting content as a (1) video
stream; (2) audio stream; (3) messaging stream; and/or (4) other meeting
content stream).
This description informs our understanding of the recited meeting
content streams, and that it is not limited to a particular type of stream. We,
therefore, construe the term “stream” with its plain meaning in the art that is
synonymous with “channel,” namely “a path for data.” See Ian R. Sinclair,
THE HARPERCOLLINS DICTIONARY OF COMPUTER TERMS 39 (1991) (noting
that a “channel” is also called a “stream”), 229 (defining “stream” by
referring to the definition of “channel”). Accord Spec. ¶ 28 (noting that
Appeal 2019-000163
Application 14/216,682

6
meeting content can be transmitted across one or more channels or streams
and recorded).
Given this construction, we see no error in the Examiner’s finding that
Bobbitt discloses receiving meeting content streams from respective
participants of the same virtual meeting. As noted in the Abstract, Bobbitt’s
system automatically summarizes significant events that occur within a
collaborative discussion in an immersive collaborative environment. To this
end, the system summarizes a captured record, namely a sequential data set
that can include, among other things, audio, video, and user comments so
that by documenting the associated collaborative discussion within a virtual
workspace environment, a user can obtain the gist or substance of a meeting
that occurred within that environment. See Bobbitt ¶¶ 32–35. Specifically,
activities or events within a virtual workspace or immersive collaborative
environment are monitored in real- or near real-time, including, among other
things, content, actions, data accesses, individuals present, conversations,
and significant events are inferred from this monitoring. Bobbitt ¶¶ 45–46.
Because users participate in this virtual workspace or immersive
collaborative environment via their workstations as shown in Bobbitt’s
Figure 1, data that is monitored within this environment, including the
associated audio, video, and discussion, would have been received via
meeting content streams, namely data paths, from respective participants.
Although only one participant is shown using a workstation in Bobbitt’s
Figure 1, there are nevertheless other participants in that virtual workspace
as shown by their avatars in the virtual conference room depicted in that
workspace. See Bobbitt ¶ 38 (noting that users are represented in the virtual
business or enterprise environment as avatars that occupy the spaces or
Appeal 2019-000163
Application 14/216,682

7
rooms), ¶ 39 (noting that groups of users can be depicted as performing
business tasks while in the virtual world, including attending meetings or
collaborating with others).
Although the users’ avatars are shown seated (or standing) around a
table in the virtual workspace in Bobbitt’s Figure 1, the actual users are
nevertheless participating in that virtual meeting via their respective
workstations, transferring data to and from the system hosting that virtual
workspace via their respective data paths or streams. Accord Ans. 9 (noting
that each user in Bobbitt’s Figure 1 has a workstation, and content is
necessarily received from each user’s workstation to establish and conduct a
meeting). That the block diagrams of Bobbitt’s immersive collaborative
system and associated computing environment in Figures 4 and 10 show
devices for multiple clients as the Examiner indicates (Ans. 9) only bolsters
the Examiner’s findings in this regard. See Bobbitt ¶¶ 56–57, 99–101
(describing the functionality of Figures 4 and 10).
Nor are we persuaded of error in the Examiner’s finding that Bobbitt’s
criteria identification component functionality in Figure 8 anticipates the
recited cross-referencing limitation. See Final Act. 7 (citing Bobbitt
¶¶ 79–81); Ans. 7–8. As we noted in our earlier decision, the term “cross-
referencing” is not defined in the Specification, unlike other terms whose
concrete definitions leave no doubt as to their meaning. See Bd. Dec. 5. We
further noted that, according to the Specification’s paragraph 37, analysis
engine 125 can index and/or cross-reference meeting content to extract key
elements therefrom, and that this extraction can use significance scoring
based on (1) time spent on the point; (2) the point’s appearance in multiple
meeting content streams; (3) note commonalities, etc. Id. We emphasized,
Appeal 2019-000163
Application 14/216,682

8
however, that although this broad and exemplary description informed our
understanding of cross-referencing in the context of the claimed invention in
the earlier appeal, it was not so limited. Id. at 5–6.
That is the case here. Therefore, as in our earlier decision, we
construe the term “cross-reference” under its plain meaning, namely
“reference from one part of a book, etc., to another.” Id. at 6 (citing
dictionary definition). With this construction, we see no error in the
Examiner’s finding that Bobbitt anticipates the recited cross-referencing
limitation.
Bobbitt’s paragraphs 79 to 81, on which the Examiner relies (see Final
Act. 7; Ans. 7–8), refer to an alternative system in Figure 8 that uses a
criteria identification component 108 that includes (1) content determination
component 802; (2) contacts determination component 804; and (3) context
determination component 806. As explained in Bobbitt’s paragraph 79, the
content determination component can establish the subject of discussion
within a virtual environment by using, among other things, speech
recognition, text analyzers, or pattern recognition to gather information
about the virtual workspace—information that is then analyzed to establish
the workspace’s content.
Similarly, the contacts determination component can employ voice or
pattern recognition to identify presence of contacts within the environment,
where this presence information can be used to further analyze the factors
surrounding the discussion within the virtual environment. Bobbitt ¶ 80.
For example, commonalities can be drawn between contacts to increase
probabilities of determining a topic of discussion from the record. Id. If, for
example, there are three participants in an immersive collaborative
Appeal 2019-000163
Application 14/216,682

9
discussion, it can be determined that these three individuals are members of
the team for Project XYZ, and, therefore, it can be determined that there is a
high probability that the discussion is centered around Project XYZ. Id.
Notably, this determination can be supplemented with other information,
such as content determined by the content determination component. Id.
The clear import of this functionality is that, by using text analysis
and pattern recognition to gather and analyze information to (1) establish the
virtual workspace’s content and contacts; (2) draw commonalities between
these contacts; and (3) determine the topic of discussion involving these
contacts, Bobbitt’s system effectively cross-references the textual analysis of
the participants’ meeting content streams or data paths to identify a common
key element, namely the topic. We emphasize Bobbitt’s pattern recognition
here, for this technique includes textual pattern recognition. See MICROSOFT
COMPUTER DICTIONARY 394 (5th ed. 2002) (defining “pattern recognition,”
in pertinent part, as “[t]he recognition of purely mathematical or textual
patterns”) (emphasis added). Appellant’s contention, then, that Bobbitt is
ostensibly silent as to how Bobbitt determines that the three participants are
members of the same team for Project XYZ in paragraph 80 (Reply Br. 4) is
unpersuasive. This contention ignores the fact that textual pattern
recognition is used to identify participants from which commonalities are
drawn—participants who transfer data to and from the system hosting the
virtual workspace via their respective data paths or streams as noted
previously. That Bobbitt’s topic determination based on this pattern
recognition can be supplemented with other information similarly obtained
via textual analysis and pattern recognition, such as content determined by
the content determination component (as noted in paragraph 80), only
Appeal 2019-000163
Application 14/216,682

10
further bolsters the notion that Bobbitt effectively cross-references the
textual analysis of the participants’ meeting content streams or data paths to
identify a common key element, namely the topic of the participants’
discussion.
Lastly, we note that although the Examiner relies on the embodiments
of Bobbitt’s Figures 1 and 8 in finding that Bobbitt anticipates claim 21 (see
Final Act. 6–7; Ans. 7–9), this multi-embodiment approach is not only
undisputed on this record, it is not dispositive of error in the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection in any event. It is well settled that a prior art reference
can anticipate a claim even if the reference does not expressly spell out all
limitations arranged or combined as claimed if ordinarily skilled artisans,
reading the reference, would “at once envisage” the claimed arrangement or
combination. Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1343
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co.,
780 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). That is, a reference need not always
expressly discuss the actual combination to anticipate. Blue Calypso, 815
F.3d at 1344. Rather, a reference can still anticipate if it teaches that the
disclosed components or functionalities may be combined, and ordinarily
skilled artisans would be able to implement the combination. Id.
That is the case here, at least with respect to common virtual
workspace and participant functionalities shown in Bobbitt’s Figures 1 and
8. We reach this conclusion noting the figures’ striking similarity in this
regard, including their identical depictions of the virtual workspace and its
participants, the immersive collaborative display, and participant using a
workstation.
Appeal 2019-000163
Application 14/216,682

11
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 21, and claims 22–25, 29, and 30 not argued separately with
particularity.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
Claim 26
We are also unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claim 26. Claim 26 recites the common key element, within the
consolidated system notes, includes a link to at least a portion of the first and
second meeting content streams that are stored within a database, and the
portion, to the link is directed, includes a relevant portion of the first and
second meeting content streams from which the common key element was
extracted.
Although the Examiner acknowledges on page 9 of the Final
Rejection that Bobbitt does not teach these elements specifically, and cites
Caspi to cure this deficiency, the Examiner nonetheless clarifies on pages 10
and 11 of the Answer that Bobbitt—not Caspi—was cited to teach the
recited (1) common key element; (2) consolidated system notes; and (3) first
and second meeting streams. As part of this clarification, the Examiner
emphasizes that Caspi was cited merely for teaching linking original content
streams at relevant points in a summary, and that the claim would have been
obvious over Bobbitt’s and Caspi’s collective teachings. See Ans. 10–11;
Final Act. 10 (explaining that it would have been obvious to combine
Caspi’s linking functionality with Bobbitt’s system to allow the user to more
easily review relevant portions of a conference).
Appeal 2019-000163
Application 14/216,682

12
Despite Appellant’s arguments to the contrary (Appeal Br. 14–18;
Reply Br. 5–8), we see no harmful error in the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection. First, a key aspect of this dispute centers on the meaning of the
term “link” in the context of claim 26, namely that the common key element,
within the consolidated system notes, includes a link to a portion of the
stored meeting content streams. The Specification, however, does not define
the term “link,” unlike other terms whose concrete definitions leave no
doubt as to their meaning. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 12, 21, 34–35, 47, 62, 64–67
(defining various terms explicitly). Although the Specification’s paragraph
21 defines the term “communicatively linked” clearly and unambiguously,
there is no such concrete definition for the term “link” as the term is used in
claim 26—an omission underscored by Appellant’s reliance on a general-
purpose dictionary in defining the term. See Reply Br. 7.
Nevertheless, the Specification discusses various linking
functionalities in paragraphs 31, 44, 46, and 54. Paragraph 31, for example,
explains that virtual meeting module 120 can be configured to link meeting
content 140 to the data extracted therefrom (e.g., the text of the audio, video
and/or messaging channels). Notably, this paragraph indicates, quite
broadly, that this linking can be performed in any suitable manner including,
for example, tagging the meeting content with a timestamp to indicate when
each meeting content portion was made. Spec. ¶ 31. The Specification
adds, quite broadly, that data or notes extracted or generated from the
meeting content can be linked or otherwise associated with virtual meeting
content having the same timestamp to allow quick recall of meeting content
during that timestamp. Id.
Appeal 2019-000163
Application 14/216,682

13
The Specification’s paragraph 44 similarly discusses linking in broad
and exemplary terms. That paragraph explains that consolidated system
notes 145 can include links back to the associated meeting content. For
example, the consolidated system notes can present key elements that
provide links back to the underlying recording of one or more content
streams of the meeting content from which the notes were extracted. Spec.
¶ 44. The Specification adds that this linking of the consolidated system
notes to the original meeting content can include linking the notes to
surrounding meeting content to provide context. Id.
The Specification’s paragraph 46 similarly discusses linking in broad
and exemplary terms. That paragraph explains that each key element may
link to individual content streams relating to that element, and that the
virtual meeting module can link the key elements to meeting content
recordings that occurred at or near the same time. For example, the virtual
meeting module can tag the meeting content with a timestamp indicating
when each portion of the meeting content was made. Spec. ¶ 46. In
addition, Specification explains, quite broadly, that the virtual meeting
module can link the notes or key elements extracted from the meeting
content with the actual meeting content, allowing quick recall of audio,
video, chat and/or other data streams during that time. Id.
Although these descriptions inform our understanding of the recited
link in the context of the disclosed invention, the term is not so limited. We,
therefore, construe the term “link” with its plain meaning in the art. The
term “link” is defined, in pertinent part, as synonymous with a pointer,
namely “[a] character or group of characters that indicates the location of an
item of data in memory.” John Daintith & Edmund Wright, THE FACTS ON
Appeal 2019-000163
Application 14/216,682

14
FILE DICTIONARY OF COMPUTER SCIENCE 122 (Revised ed. 2006) (small
capital letters omitted) (“Facts on File Dictionary”). Accord id. at 173
(defining the term “pointer” similarly).
Given this interpretation, we see no error in the Examiner’s reliance
on Caspi’s summarization functionality for at least suggesting the recited
link (Ans. 10–11), particularly in view of Caspi’s indices in Figure 9B that
mark “points” or recording cues by a time stamp on a recorded conference
900b. See Caspi ¶¶ 70–71. These index-based pointers reasonably comport
with the definition of “link” above, namely “[a] character or group of
characters that indicates the location of an item of data in memory.” Facts
on File Dictionary 173.
We reach this conclusion even if claim 26 required an activatable
link—which it does not. Although dependent claim 27 requires activating
the link, there is no such activation in claim 26 from which claim 27
depends, nor will we import such a requirement into claim 26 despite
Appellant’s arguments to the contrary. See Appeal Br. 18 (arguing that
claim 26’s link is “activatable code”). Nevertheless, Appellant’s arguments
regarding Caspi’s individual shortcomings regarding the recited link (Appeal
Br. 14–18; Reply Br. 5–8), do not show nonobviousness where, as here, the
rejection is not based on Caspi alone, but rather based on the cited
references’ collective teachings. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Accord Ans. 10–11 (noting this point).
Although the claimed invention is not “a recipe to make soup” as
Appellant contends (Reply Br. 6), familiar items may nevertheless have
obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and often ordinarily skilled
artisans can fit multiple references’ teachings together like puzzle pieces, as
Appeal 2019-000163
Application 14/216,682

15
is the case here. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420
(2007). On this record, then, the Examiner’s proposed enhancement uses
prior art elements predictably according to their established functions—an
obvious improvement. See id. at 417. Moreover, the Examiner provides
further persuasive rationale to support the combination, namely that the
combination would allow the user to more easily review relevant portions of
the conference. See Final Act. 10.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 26.

Claims 27 and 28
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 27 reciting
activation of the link, within the consolidated system notes, causes the
relevant portion of the first and second meeting content streams from which
the common key element was extracted to be presented. Despite Appellant’s
arguments to the contrary (Appeal Br. 18–19; Reply Br. 8–10), we see no
error in the Examiner’s reliance on Caspi’s summarization functionality for
at least suggesting the recited link activation and resulting content
presentation (Final Act. 10; Ans. 11), particularly in view of Caspi’s indices
in Figure 9B that mark “points” or recording cues by a time stamp on a
recorded conference 900b for playback. See Caspi ¶¶ 55, 70–71.
After a participant, such as a moderator, activates or invokes a
“recording cue,” such as the cues at times Ta and Tb in Caspi’s Figure 4,
Caspi’s system either marks predetermined periods (e.g., 410 and 412) on
the recorded conference or saves these periods as a separate summary file.
See Caspi ¶ 55. That is, for later playback, the system either marks the point
Appeal 2019-000163
Application 14/216,682

16
where the cue was recorded on the conference’s master recording, or stores
the associated passage in a separate file. Caspi ¶ 62. In either case, the
conference portion pertinent to the cue is designated for later playback. Id.
As shown in Caspi’s Figures 7A and 7B, summarizations are played
by activating a summary function via the user interface in Figure 7B by (1)
selecting the conference from window 7002, and (2) selecting the play
button. Caspi ¶¶ 64–66. Our emphasis underscores that by activating this
summary playback functionality, the associated links to the respective
content portions, such as those shown in Caspi’s Figure 9B, are effectively
activated to retrieve and play back the particular content portions associated
with those links. Accord Ans. 11. We reach this conclusion emphasizing
that claim 27 does not specify how the link is activatedan activation that is at
least suggested by Caspi’s link-based playback functionality.
Appellant’s arguments, including the contention that Caspi’s
summaries and complete record in paragraph 71 are within the same file
(Appeal Br. 18–19; Reply Br. 8–10), are not only incommensurate with the
scope of the claim, but also do not show nonobviousness where, as here, the
rejection is not based on Caspi alone, but rather based on the cited
references’ collective teachings. See Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 27, and claim 28 not argued separately with particularity.

Appeal 2019-000163
Application 14/216,682

17
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
Basis Affirmed Reversed
21–30
(provisional)
obviousness-type
double patenting
21–30
21–25, 29, 30 § 102 Bobbitt 21–25, 29, 30
26–28 § 103 Bobbitt, Caspi 26–28
Overall Outcome 21–30

AFFIRMED

Notice of References Cited
. ..
. . . . .
~, .. . . . . ~.
~ ,;:.~.~ ·\~/,-... . . - ' . . . . . . . . . .
~ : . .. THE FACTS ON FILE .. ::.
~ ·< ..-:.... DICTIONARY OF .~::-:
~ ~......... . 1 ·.- # " .. ~ - ~~~
~ ~{'"
~ ~·-COMPUTER SCIENCE ,~: u ~{ i'i:ll~ .
JOHN DAINTITH &
EDMUND WRIGHT
T he Facts On File Dictionary of Computer Science
Revised Edition
Copyright © 2001, 2006 by Marker House Books Ltd
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any
form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,
recording, or by any information storage or retrieval systems, without
permission in writing from the publisher. For information conract:
Facts On File, Inc.
An imprint of lnfobase Publishing
132 West 31st Street
New York NY 10001
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
The Facts on File dictionary of computer science. / edited by John Daintith,
Edmund Wright. - Rev. ed.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references
ISB 1 0-8160-5999-3
1. Computer science-Dictionaries. I. Daintith, John. IT Wright, Edmund
(Thomas Edmund Farnsworth). Ill. Facts on File, Inc.
QA76.15.F345 2006
004.03-dc22
2006042004
Facts On File books are available at special discounts when purchased in bulk
quantities for businesses, associations, institutions, or sales promotions. Please call
our Special Sales Department in New York at (212) 967-8800 or (800) 322-8755.
You can find Faces On File on the World Wide Web at
http://www.facrsonfile.com
Compiled and typeset by Market House Books Led, Aylesbury, UK
Printed in the United $races of America
MP 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
This book is printed on acid-free paper
This dictionary is one oi a seri~
dents of computer science. but ~t
srudenrs and to anyone inreresre...: m
oaries in a variety of disciplines. i;:
ence, physics, machemarics, iorcrux
science.
The first edition of this book v...s ;:
extensively revised and extended .in~
the terminology of computing. , • • •
of over 500 pronunciations for t~ •
pendixes have been included co,~ -
tensions, domain names, and nume.~,
and a bibliography. A guide co .:sm= •
est version of the book.
We would like to thank aJI the pea;; •
..\ list of contributors is given on th: ad:
the many people who ha\·e gi\·en ~
link
ribbon
l
rows of embossed
paper
rotat ing cylinder
hammers (not all shown)
barrel printer
(o l
hammers (not all shown)
embossed
characters
rotating metal belt
band printer
Line printers
link 1. (linkage) The part of a computer
program, possibly a single instruction or
address, that passes control and PARAME·
TERS berween separate portions of the pro-
gram.
2. (pointer) A character or group of char-
acters that indicates the LOCATION of an
item of da ta in memory.
3. A path for communications. See data
link.
4. See hypertext.
5. To join together program modules chat
have been compiled separately ro form a
program that can be executed. This opera-
tion is performed by a LINK EDITOR.
linkage See link.
link editor (linkage editor; Linker) A
UTILITY PROGRAM that combines a number
of user-written or library routines, which
have already been compiled or assembled
but are individually incomplete, into a sin-
gle executable program. This program is
then either stored on disk or placed in main
store for immediate execution. A link edi-
tor that performs the latter function is
sometimes called a link loader. See also
program library.
linked list See list.
122
linker See link editor .
link loader See link editor.
hnkrot /link-rot/ Informal The coc.cii-
:lon in which HYPERTEXT leads no,vn=
recause Web sites have removed or reo9-
aized their Web pages and the links ue
outdated.
Linux /lin-uks/ A freely distribucab!e ~
crating system chat runs on several hard-
,..are platforms including Imel .m:::
~locorola microprocessors, and rhus a;;
PCs and Macintoshes. Linux is a form r,F
:'lX written by Linus Torva lds. Its use has
.ncreased rapidly in recent years, especi.a..T
'Or SERVERS.
liquid crystal display See LCD.
Lisp A high-level programming laogn....?5'C
,vhose name is derived from list proc~
~r was developed in the early 1960s. Lisp
was designed specifically for the manipwa-
;:ion of LIST and TREE structures of varioes
kinds and has an unusual SYNTAX. Ir ""35
larer taken up by those working in .i:r-
c:mergenr field of ARTIFICIAL INTEWG~a..
There are now a number of d ialects of:..sp,
extended in various directions. Lisp ?~
grams are generally translated by an C-.Tu-
PRETER.
list One form in which a collection of
dara items can be held in compurer mem-
ory. The items themselves are in a paro_"":!-
l_a r order. The items could all be inreg~~
to r example, or real numbers, or Jener$. -
,hey could be a mixture of, say, inrege;5
and real numbers. If all the items are or ilie
same type then the list is a one-dimension:lJ
\ RRAY.
There are two commonly used forms m
which this collection of data items is hd.:
in memory. In a sequentially allocated lk--:
rhe items are stored in their correct order c-.
adjacent LOCATIONS. ln a linked list each,<>-
cation contains a data item and a LC-.'K coc-
ra ining the address of the ne.'