Ex Parte Al-Yousuf

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 27, 2014

11412447 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2014)

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. 11/412,447 04/27/2006 Ahmed Khalifa Al-Yousuf AA-1-js 8085 23647 7590 08/28/2014 MICHAEL I KROLL 80 Skyline Drive Suite 304 Plainview, NY 11803 EXAMINER SYED, FARHAN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2165 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/28/2014 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 AHMED KHALIFA AL-YOUSUF ___________ Appeal 2012-004295 Application 11/412,447 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8–10, and 12–21, all remaining claims of the application. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 In this Opinion, we refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Br.,” filed June 29, 2011 as supplemented September 6, 2011) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed October 26, 2011). Appeal 2012-004295 Application 11/412,447 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE THE INVENTION Appellant’s invention relates to a system for obtaining, storing, organizing and locating content in response to a user request. Specification p. 2, l. 4. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative with the disputed limitation in italics: 1. A system for storing and retrieving data representing research materials obtained online from multiple sources comprising: a. a repository for storing said data representing research materials obtained from a plurality of remote sources, and input processor receiving and actively acquiring content from said remote sources, said repository having a home page which includes a visual display of data stored, organized and accessible by the repository, wherein a free form search can be conducted by entry of a text string, by selection of one of a plurality of category buttons displayed, or by selection of a letter in displayed letters of the alphabet representing the first letter of a content category to be searched; b. an organization processor connected to said input processor and said repository for organizing said stored data and for retrieving said data, said organization processor using a plurality of algorithms to organize the content that is acquired by said input processor, said algorithms parsing and analyzing the acquired content and adding a plurality of classification tags, flags corresponding to fields in said repository, and summaries of the content acquired; c. a user interface including means comprising a search processor for receiving at least one input from a user defining a search criteria, wherein upon receiving said input said search processor retrieves stored data representing a desired research material based on said search criteria for output to said user; and Appeal 2012-004295 Application 11/412,447 3 d. means for providing output to a user, said output comprising a log in access for a user, said system allowing a search without log in whereby results of a search without log in produces only a summary of available content relating to said search criteria, and whereby said user can then elect to proceed with a log in and payment to obtain full access to content relating to said search criteria. THE REJECTIONS Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8–10, 12–17, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over White (US 2002/0128935 A1, published Sept. 12, 2002) and Yellow Pages (“Yahoo! Yellow Pages” http://yp.yahoo.com, retrieved snapshot on 05 April 2005 from www.archieve.org, pages 1–19). Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over White, Yellow Pages, and Haveliwala (US 2005/0222989 A1, Oct. 6, 2005). Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have been considered in this Decision. Arguments that Appellant did not make in the Brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. Br. 7–9. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s contentions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and as set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (see Ans. 13–14). However, we highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows. Appeal 2012-004295 Application 11/412,447 4 CLAIMS 1–3, 5, 6, 8–10, 12–17, 19, AND 21 Appellant argues with respect to the above-identified disputed limitation, A detailed analysis of White et al., particularly ¶ 0062, finds that an author of data “is presented with a form allowing the author to enter information pertaining to the document to be submitted,” as well as allowing the author of a document to upload the document to a database or repository. White et al. neither discloses nor suggests the use of “a plurality of algorithms to organize the content that is acquired by said input processor, said algorithms parsing and analyzing the acquired content and adding a plurality of classification tags, flags corresponding to fields in said repository,” as recited in Appellant’s independent Claim 1, and all remaining claims via dependency. Br. 8. We find Appellant’s argument unpersuasive of Examiner error in the rejection of claim 1. Merely reciting language of the claims and asserting the cited prior art reference does not teach or suggest the claim limitation is insufficient. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (“A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.”); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”). Appellant fails to provide sufficient, persuasive argument or evidence regarding the specific deficiency of White (alone or in combination with Yellow Pages) with respect to the disputed limitation of claim 1. Appeal 2012-004295 Application 11/412,447 5 In view of the above discussion, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 or claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8–10, 12–17, 19, and 21 not argued separately (Br. 8). CLAIMS 18 AND 20 Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 18 and 20 for the same reasons as claim 1 (Br. 9) and thus, for the same reasons discussed supra, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 18 and 20. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decisions rejecting claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8–10, and 12–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED dw