Ex Parte Audenaert et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2018

14124358 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/124,358
22913 7590
Workman Nydegger
60 East South Temple
Suite 1000
12/06/2013
08/31/2018
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Geert Michel Maria Audenaert
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.
19826.22 9035
EXAMINER
ORANGE, DAVID BENJAMIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2018 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):
Docketing@wnlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GEERT MICHEL MARIA AUDENAERT and
CARL RENE D'HALLUIN
Appeal2017-011209
Application 14/124,358
Technology Center 2600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
IRVINE. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 16-30. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b ).
Claims 16-30 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Final Act. 10-12.
Claims 16-30 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the invention. Final Act. 12.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is GREEN IT GLOBE
NV. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-011209
Application 14/124,358
Claims 16-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as claiming an
abstract idea without significantly more. Final Act. 13.
Claims 16-25 and 27-30 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as obvious over Oberoi (US 2012/0072261 Al; publ. Mar. 22,
2012) and Round (US 2006/0224442 Al; publ. Oct. 5, 2006). Final Act.
13-20.
Claim 26 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious
over Oberoi, Round, and Ieperen (US 2010/0178645 Al; publ. July 15,
2010). Final Act. 20-21.
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to "a communication platform that
allows for interactive multiparty convergence towards a micro-decision."
Spec. ,r 1. Claim 16 is illustrative and reproduced below:
16. An interactive communication system for
supporting iterative convergence in a multiparty poll participated
in by a plurality of participants, the system comprising:
a plurality of communication devices each having a
display and each being associated with a respective one of the
participants;
a communication network;
a server having a server application installed thereon; and
a plurality of client applications, each being installed on a
respective one of the plurality of communication devices, each
client application being configured to communicate through the
communication network with said server application, said client
applications being configured to receive selections of one or
more selection means, from the participants during a plurality of
iterations, in reply to a message, said one or more selection
means corresponding to one or more predetermined responses,
2
Appeal 2017-011209
Application 14/124,358
each client application compnsmg a visual representation of
selections made by the participants in a most recent iteration, the
visual representation being positioned in a predetermined area on
the display of the respective communication device, said visual
representation comprising:
a distribution of said one or more selection means aligned
along a first direction;
a distribution of one or more identifier zones, each
identifier zone being associated with a respective one of the
selection means, each identifier zone being aligned with its
respective selection means in a second direction transverse to
said first direction, the identifier zones extending in the second
direction from the selection means to an end position in the visual
representation; and
one or more visual identifiers, each visual identifier
corresponding to a respective one of the participants, each of the
visual identifiers being positioned in the identifier zone
associated with the selection means selected by the
corresponding participant so that the visual identifiers in the
identifier zones reflect which participants have selected which
selection means, the visual identifiers being arranged in the
identifier zones such that the area of each identifier zone covered
by visual identifiers correlates to the number of participants
having selected the associated selection means,
wherein the communication system is configured such that
when a new selection is made by a participant at any of the
communication devices, the server, communication devices, and
respective client applications are configured to cause the visual
representation at each of the communication devices to be
updated to reflect the new selection, such that upon selection of
a selection means at any of the client applications of any of the
corresponding communication devices by any of the
corresponding participants, all client applications of all of the
communication devices of all corresponding participants update
all corresponding visual representations such that the visual
identifier corresponding to the participant is displayed in the
identifier zone associated with the selected selection means.
3
Appeal 2017-011209
Application 14/124,358
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010)
(precedential).
ANALYSIS
THE WRITTEN DESCRIPTION REJECTION OF CLAIMS 16-30
Contentions
The Examiner finds claims 16-30 fail to comply with the written
description requirement. Final Act. 10-12.
In particular, the Examiner finds "[b ]roadening the claims beyond
micro-decisions is not supported by the original specification." Final Act.
11; see also Ans. 2-3. In particular, the Examiner finds "[ t ]he end of claim
16, specifically, from 'the communication system being configured such that
... ' until the end of the claim is describing the desired result, but does not
identify the steps taken to achieve this result." Final Act. 11; see also Ans.
4. In particular, the Examiner finds
Claim 28 recites "said server application is configured to
wake up whichever of the client applications that are not running
and provide a token to whichever of the client applications that
are already running to communicate." The original specification
does not disclose that this is performed by a single application,
but rather that a different approach is used for these two groups
of applications.
Final Act. 11; see also Ans. 5.
4
Appeal 2017-011209
Application 14/124,358
Appellants present the following principal arguments:
[i.] As the Final Office Action concedes, the breadth of the
range or genus of how many participants may participate in the
poll (2 to 7 or "thousands") is limited by claim 16 by how many
visual identifiers corresponding to the participants the display of
the communication device is able to display in the identifier
zones while still being identifiable by the participants viewing
the displays of the communication devices. (Final Office Action,
p. 11, 11. 5-9). Thus while not conceding that the number of
possible participants should be limited by how many visual
identifiers representing can be displayed on a cell phone,
Appellant respectfully submits that considering claim 16 as a
whole with all of its limitation, the assertion of the Final Office
Action that claim 16 attempts to claim an entire range or genus
that extends beyond the written description is unfounded when
the claim is considered as a whole.
App. Br. 13-14; see also Reply Br. 2--4.
[ii.] Appellants respectfully disagree with the assertions of the
Final Office Action that these features of the last clause of claim
16 are merely a "desired result." The last clause of claim 16
describes, rather, the functions of the claimed system, and
sufficient support is given at least in FIGS. 1-3, 6, and 7 and
paragraphs [53], [54], and [60]-[69] of the Appellants' original
disclosure, as to how these functions are performed.
App. Br. 14; see also Reply Br. 4--5.
111. "But because the analysis of the Final Office Action relies on
an assertion that features described in the specification must be imported
into the claim, the rejection of this particular claim should also be reversed."
App. Br. 14.
5
Appeal 2017-011209
Application 14/124,358
Our Review
Appellants' arguments persuade us that that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 16-30 as failing to comply with the written description
requirement.
"[T]he test for sufficiency [ of the written description] is whether the
disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled
in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of
the filing date." Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351
(Fed. Cir. 2010) (en bane).
Regarding the broadening of the claims beyond micro-decisions,
claim 16 recites, "each visual identifier corresponding to a respective one of
the participants, each of the visual identifiers being positioned in the
identifier zone associated with the selection means selected by the
corresponding participant so that the visual identifiers in the identifier zones
reflect which participants have selected which selection means."
Claim 16 is not limited to any particular number of participants. Nor
is claim 16 limited to any particular display. However, claim 16 is limited to
a visual representation in which the visual identifiers individually
correspond to participants.
Appellants' Specification describes, with reference to Figure 6, "when
any of the participants 'rl '-'r6' or 'sl ['] makes its selection by means of
selecting at least one of the buttons 400, its corresponding visual identifier
360 is placed in the corresponding identifier zone 430." Spec. ,r 66.
Appellants' Specification at paragraph 66 and Figure 6 illustrate a
visual representation in which the visual identifiers individually correspond
to participants, without being limited to any particular number of
6
Appeal 2017-011209
Application 14/124,358
participants or being limited to any particular display. Thus, we agree with
Appellants' argument (i) that the Examiner's assertion that claim 16
attempts to claim a range beyond the written description is incorrect.
Regarding the last paragraph of claim 16, we agree with Appellants'
argument (ii). Appellants' Specification in paragraphs 53, 54, 60-69, and
Drawing in Figures 1-3, 6, and 7 reasonably convey to a skilled artisan that
Appellants had possession, at the time the application was filed, of the final
recitation of claim 16 directed to the configuration of the communication
system.
Regarding claim 28, claim 28 (emphasis added) recites
wherein said system is configured to wake up whichever of the
client applications that are not running and provide a token to
whichever of the client applications that are already running
to communicate to said client applications that said message
or a next iteration of said message is available in the server
application.
Appellants' Specification at paragraphs 84--86 describes the server
application implementing a Kick mechanism for client applications that are
already running, and the platform being configured to use a Wake-up
mechanism for client applications that are not running. We find that
Appellants' Specification reasonably conveys to a skilled artisan that
Appellants had possession of the claimed invention as recited in claim 28 as
of the filing of the application.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's written description
rejection of claims 16-30.
7
Appeal 2017-011209
Application 14/124,358
THE INDEFINITENESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 16-30
Contentions
The Examiner concludes claims 16-30 are indefinite. Final Act. 12.
In particular, the Examiner concludes
Claims 16, 19, 20, 22 and 30 recite "identifier zone."
While this term has a meaning, the specification fails to provide
a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of
ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the
scope of the invention. In particular, it is hard to know how to
identify a "zone."
Final Act. 12; see also Ans. 5-6.
In particular, the Examiner concludes
Claim 16 is directed to a system, but recites several
method steps that are required to produce the claimed visual
representation (e.g., the various user inputs). MPEP 2173.05(p)
provides "A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the
method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C.
112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph."
Final Act. 12; see also Ans. 7.
Appellants present the following principal arguments:
1. The claims themselves describe "identifier zones" and the
Specification also describes "identifier zones" such that the term "identifier
zones" would have been understood by one of ordinary skill. See App. Br.
16-19; see also Reply Br. 6-10.
11. "While claim 16 may describe functions of the interactive
communication system there is nothing inherently wrong with defining some
part of an invention in functional terms." App. Br. 19.
8
Appeal 2017-011209
Application 14/124,358
Our Review
Regarding "identifier zones," we recognize that an "identifier zone"
describes a boundary around the visual identifiers such as identifier zones
430 in Figures 6 and 7. Claim 16 recites
each identifier zone being associated with a respective one of the
selection means, each identifier zone being aligned with its
respective selection means in a second direction transverse to
said first direction, the identifier zones extending in the second
direction from the selection means to an end position in the visual
representation.
We agree with Appellants' argument (i) and we conclude that an ordinary
skilled artisan would have understood what is claimed by "identifier zone"
when the claims are read in light of the Specification.
Regarding claim 16' s alleged method steps, we agree with Appellants'
argument (ii). For example, claim 16 recites, "the communication system is
configured such that when ... the server, communication devices, and
respective client applications are configured to cause the visual
representation .... " Thus, claim 16' s limitations are directed to the
configuration of the communication system, server, communications
devices, and client applications. Such limitations are not method steps;
rather, such limitations are limitations to the system described in functional
language and are not required steps of using the system. Accordingly, we
conclude that an ordinary skilled artisan would have understood what is
claimed when the claims are read in light of the Specification.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's indefiniteness
rejection of claims 16-30.
9
Appeal 2017-011209
Application 14/124,358
THE 35 U.S.C. § 101 REJECTION OF CLAIMS 16-30
Contentions
The Examiner concludes
Claims 16-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. [§] 101
because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject
matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim
elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to
significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are
directed to the abstract idea of organizing human activity. In
particular, the claims are directed to a method of a group of
people making a decision. Aside from claim elements
determined to be aesthetic design changes, the additional
element( s) or combination of elements in the claim( s) other than
the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than: recitation of
generic computer structure that serves to perform generic
computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and
conventional activities previously known to the pertinent
industry. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element( s)
do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract
idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such
that the claim( s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract
idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
[§] 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Final Act. 13; see also Ans. 7-9.
Appellants present the following principal arguments:
1. "Appellant[ s] respectfully submit[] that because the Final
Office Action fails to provide 'clear rationale supporting the determination
that an abstract idea has been claimed' (MPEP [§] 2106(II)(B)(2)[)]-and
further because claim 16 is not directed to an abstract idea-the non-
statutory subject [ matter rejection] of the Final Office Action should be
reversed." App. Br. 22; see also Reply Br. 11-13 (discussing first step of
Alice/Mayo and discussing preemption).
10
Appeal 2017-011209
Application 14/124,358
[ii.] In its extremely short analysis, the Final Office Action
fails to consider the problems of the known systems and
improvements to the technology of multiparty polling provided
by the claimed system.
Thus, even if claims 16-30 were directed to a judicial
exception, which Appellant[ s] submit[] is not the case, the
claimed invention provides significantly more to transform the
nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application of the
judicial exception.
App. Br. 25; see also Reply Br. 13-14 ("The particular problem addressed
by the system of claim 16 and the particular way to achieve the solution
provided by the system is described in detail in pages 22 to 25 of
Appellant[s'] Appeal Brief').
Our Review
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a "new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter." 35 U.S.C. § 101. The
Supreme Court, however, has long interpreted § 101 to include implicit
exceptions: "[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas" are not
patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int 'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347,
2354 (2014) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
In determining whether a claim falls within the excluded category of
abstract ideas, we are guided in our analysis by the Supreme Court's two-
step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 2355 (citing Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 76-77 (2012)).
In accordance with that framework, we first determine whether the claim is
"directed to" a patent-ineligible concept such as an abstract idea. See Alice,
134 S. Ct. at 2356 ("On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the
concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate
11
Appeal 2017-011209
Application 14/124,358
settlement risk"); Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) ("Claims 1 and
4 in petitioners' application explain the basic concept of hedging, or
protecting against risk"); Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 184 (1981)
("Analyzing respondents' claims according to the above statements from our
cases, we think that a physical and chemical process for molding precision
synthetic rubber products falls within the § 101 categories of possibly
patentable subject matter"); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594--95 (1978)
("Respondent's application simply provides a new and presumably better
method for calculating alarm limit values"); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S.
63, 64 (1972) ("They claimed a method for converting binary-coded decimal
(BCD) numerals into pure binary numerals").
The patent-ineligible end of the spectrum includes fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Flook, 437 U.S. at 594--95); and basic tools of
scientific and technological work ( Gottschalk, 409 U.S. at 67). On the
patent-eligible side of the spectrum are physical and chemical processes,
such as curing rubber (Diamond, 450 U.S. at 184 n.7), "tanning, dyeing,
making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores," and a
process for manufacturing flour (Gottschalk, 409 U.S. at 69).
If the claim is "directed to" a patent-ineligible concept such as an
abstract idea, we then consider the elements of the claim-both individually
and as an ordered combination-to assess whether the additional elements
transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application of the
abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. This is a search for an "'inventive
concept"'-an element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that
12
Appeal 2017-011209
Application 14/124,358
the claim amounts to "significantly more" than the abstract idea itself. Id.
(internal citation omitted).
Regarding Appellants' arguments (i) and (ii), we do not see any error
in the Examiner's rejection of claims 16-30 as directed to an abstract idea
without significantly more.
We conclude that claims 16-30 are directed to an abstract idea, and
adopt as our own the Examiner's explanations in the Examiner's Answer:
"[t]he examiner identified an abstract idea, a method of organizing human
activity on pg. 13 of the Final Rejection. The examiner specified that the
claims are directed to a method of a group of people making a decision."
Ans. 8. The Examiner correctly concludes the claims fail to offer
"something more than just implementing the abstract idea on a computer."
Id. at 9. As the Examiner correctly notes:
[T]he abstract idea is a group of people making a decision.
Imagine a group of people standing in a circle and one asks if
they should go to lunch at an Indian place or a French place.
(Published paragraph 0002 of the specification lists "Where do
we go for dinner tonight?" as a problem that a group might wish
to solve.) The various members of the circle each chime in and
a decision is reached. The present invention is merely carrying
out this conversation on a computer.
Ans. 9.
We agree with the Examiner that the claims relate to the basic concept
of a group of people making a decision. Put another way, the claims relate
to the basic concept of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying
certain results of the collection and analysis. As well, claim 16 's visual
representation can be done by human thought, a pen and paper.
The Federal Circuit has held that if a method can be performed by
human thought alone, or by a human using pen and paper, it is merely an
13
Appeal 2017-011209
Application 14/124,358
abstract idea and is not patent-eligible under § 101. CyberSource Corp. v.
Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[A] method
that can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and
is not patent-eligible under§ 101 "). Similarly, the Federal Circuit has found
claims directed to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying
certain results of the collection and analysis" as directed to a patent-
ineligible abstract idea. Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d
1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, the visual representation recited
in independent claim 16 describes the abstract idea. The abstract idea, even
when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have
been done with pen and paper, remains an abstract idea. CyberSource, 654
F.3d at 1375 ("That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when
performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in
Gottschalk v. Benson").
We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by
Appellants' argument that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
Specifically, we have determined that the claims are directed to the basic
concept of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results
of the collection and analysis (in a visual representation); in addition, we
have determined claim 16' s visual representation can be done by human
thought and a pen and paper.
Turning to the second step of the Alice analysis, because we determine
that independent claim 16 is directed to an abstract idea, the claim must
include an "inventive concept" in order to be patent-eligible, i.e., there must
be an element or combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that the
claim in practice amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
14
Appeal 2017-011209
Application 14/124,358
The question is whether the implementation of the abstract idea
involves more than the performance of well-understood, routine, and
conventional activities previously known to the industry. Claim 16 recites
generic computer functions (i.e., display a visual representation on each
client application) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional
activities previously known to the industry. However, nothing in claim 16
purports to improve computer functioning or "effect an improvement in any
other technology or technical field." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359. In particular,
independent claim 16 requires no more than a generic computer to perform
generic computer functions that are well known. See Ans. 9.
Further regarding Appellants' arguments in the Reply Brief relating to
preemption, these arguments do not show any error in the Examiner's
findings and conclusions. We recognize as a threshold matter that the
Supreme Court has described "the concern that drives this exclusionary
principle [to statutory patentability] as one of pre-emption." See Alice, 134
S. Ct. at 2354. Characterizing preemption as a driving concern for patent
eligibility, however, is not the same as characterizing preemption as the sole
test for patent eligibility. As our reviewing court has explained: "questions
on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the [section] 101 analysis,"
and, although "preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the
absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility."
Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir.
2015); cf OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362---63
(Fed. Cir. 2015) ("[T]hat the claims do not preempt all price optimization or
may be limited to price optimization in the e-commerce setting do not make
them any less abstract").
15
Appeal 2017-011209
Application 14/124,358
Further regarding Appellants' arguments in the Reply Brief relating to
the claimed invention being a particular way to achieve a particular solution,
we find these arguments unavailing. In short, the claimed invention is
merely carrying out the multiparty conversation on a computer in the same
way such conversation would take place without the computer. See Ans. 9.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of
claim 16. We also sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of
claims 17-30, which are not separately argued with particularity.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 16-25 AND 27-30 OVER 0BEROI
AND ROUND
Contentions
The Examiner finds Oberoi and Round teach all limitations of claim
16. Final Act. 14--16; see also Ans. 9-17. In particular, the Examiner finds
Oberoi teaches all limitations of claim 16, except for the "one or more visual
identifiers"; the Examiner finds Round teaches the "one or more visual
identifiers." See Final Act. 16. The Examiner reasons "[ o ]ne of ordinary
skill in the art before the date of the invention would have been motivated to
provide the survey targets of Oberoi with the screens of Round such that the
voters can consider other's past voting history." Final Act. 16 ( citing Round
Appellants present the following principal arguments:
1. Oberoi's vertical bar chart 4820 (Fig. 48), which anonymizes
the results of the individual participants, does not describe the claimed
"identifier zones." See App. Br. 27-32; see also Reply Br. 14--16. Oberoi
16
Appeal 2017-011209
Application 14/124,358
does not "enable a decision/poll in multiple iterations, such as required in the
claimed system or method." App. Br. 29. "Oberoi does not appear to make
any mention regarding 'each identifier zone being aligned with its respective
selection means in a second direction transverse to said first direction,' as
required by claim 16." Id.
[A]s Oberoi's vertical bar chart 4820 is not shown with the
actual selection means for the different choices of beef, pork,
chicken, etc., Oberoi fails to show "the identifier zones extend[]
in the second direction from the selection means to an end
position in the visual representation," as required by claim 16.
Id. at 29--30.
[A]lthough Oberoi's vertical bar chart 4820 appears to
show a histogram, as asserted by the Office Action, Oberoi's
vertical bar chart 4820 fails to show "each of the visual
identifiers being positioned in the identifier zone associated with
the selection means selected by the corresponding participant,"
as required by claim 16.
Id. at 30.
Id.
[A]s Oberoi's vertical bar chart 4820 only shows a
histogram, without any indication of which of the participants
selected beef, pork, chicken, etc., Oberoi fails to disclose or
suggest "the visual identifiers in the identifier zones reflect which
participants have selected which selection means" or even "the
visual identifiers [are] arranged in the identifier zones," as
required by the claim.
[ A ]s Oberoi fails to disclose "visual identifiers being
arranged in the identifier zones" but rather only shows a
histogram, Oberoi further fails to disclose or suggest "upon
selection of a selection means at any of the client applications of
any of the corresponding communication devices by any of the
corresponding participants, all client applications of all of the
communication devices of all corresponding participants update
all corresponding visual representations such that the visual
17
Appeal 2017-011209
Application 14/124,358
Id ..
identifier corresponding to the participant is displayed in the
identifier zone associated with the selected selection means."
11. Round (Fig. 5) is missing "selection means" and does not
"enable a decision/poll in multiple iterations, such as required in the claimed
system or method." App. Br. 34. "Round does not appear to make any
mention regarding 'each identifier zone being aligned with its respective
selection means in a second direction transverse to said first direction,' as
required by claim 16." Id. "[T]he chart of Round fails to show 'the
identifier zones extend[] in the second direction from the selection means to
an end position in the visual representation,' as required by claim 16." Id.
"Round-FIG. 5 fails to show 'each of the visual identifiers being positioned
in the identifier zone associated with the selection means selected by the
corresponding participant,' as required by claim 16." App. Br. 35.
Our Review
Claim 16 ( emphasis added) recites
[ a ]n interactive communication system for supporting iterative
convergence in a multiparty poll participated in by a plurality of
participants, ... client applications being configured to receive
selections of one or more selection means, from the participants
during a plurality of iterations . . . , each client application
comprising a visual representation of selections made by the
participants in a most recent iteration . ...
Oberoi ( element 4820, Fig. 48) discloses shaded rectangles associated
with beef, pork, etc., which are answers to the survey shown in Figure 37 in
which radio buttons 3740 are selection means. Oberoi (Fig. 57) depicts
sharing the results of the poll. Oberoi discloses that "[i]n one embodiment,
the data reflected in the sitelet [displaying poll results] is updated in real-
18
Appeal 2017-011209
Application 14/124,358
time." Oberoi ,r 197. Oberoi's disclosures of the poll results in Figure 48,
updating poll results in real-time in paragraph 197, the survey shown in
Figure 37, and the option to share the poll results shown in Figure 57,
collectively, suggest to a skilled artisan that the survey of Figure 37 and poll
results of Figure 48 may be displayed side by side with the poll results being
updated in real-time.
Given these findings, Oberoi's disclosure of updating the poll results
in real-time reasonably describes a user being able to watch the poll results
come in from a single poll. However, we do not see any cited disclosure of
Oberoi on the record that suggests multiple iterations of the poll, as recited
in the emphasized limitations of claim 16 above.
Round, in Figure 2, discloses visual identifiers associated with the
selection means selected by a poll participant, for example, selection means
PURSUE selected by poll participant REVIEWER I. However, we do not
see any cited disclosure of Round on the record that suggests multiple
iterations of the poll, as recited in the emphasized limitations of claim 16
above.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 16.
We also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 17-25 and 27-30,
which depend from claim 16.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIM 26 OVER 0BER0I, ROUND, AND
lEPEREN
Claim 26 depends from claim 16. The Examiner does not find
Ieperen cures the deficiency of Oberoi and Round discussed above when
addressing claim 16. See Final Act. 20-21.
19
Appeal 2017-011209
Application 14/124,358
For the same reasons explained above when addressing claim 16, we
do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 26.
ORDER
Because we sustain one ground of rejection of claims 16-30, the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 16-30 is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
20