Ex Parte Bodin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2012

10889817 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte WILLIAM KRESS BODIN and DERRAL CHARLES THORSON
____________

Appeal 2010-004822
Application 10/889,817
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ERIC S. FRAHM,
and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-7. Claims 8-20 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2010-004822
Application 10/889,817

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention relates to delivering dynamic media content to
collaborators (see Abstract).
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
1. A method for delivering dynamic media content to
collaborators, the method comprising:
providing collaborative event media content, wherein the
collaborative event media content further comprises a grammar and a
structured document;
receiving a plurality of disparate client location representations;
generating a dynamic client context for a client in dependence
upon at least one of the client location representations;
detecting an event in dependence upon the dynamic client
context;
identifying one or more collaborators in dependence upon the
dynamic client context and the event;
selecting from the structured document a classified structural
element in dependence upon an event type and a collaborator
classification; and
transmitting the selected structural element to the collaborator.
The Examiner’s Rejection
Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cheung (US 2003/0065712 A1) and Gimson (US
2003/0158969 A1).
Appellants’ Contentions
With respect to claim 1, Appellants contend that the cited portions in
paragraphs [0009], [0010], [0012], and [0030] of Cheung fail to disclose the
claimed “collaborative event media content” (Br. 4-5). Appellants rely on
paragraph [0031] of their Specification and further argue that the claimed
“collaborative event media content is data that includes event types and
Appeal 2010-004822
Application 10/889,817

3
collaborator classifications that support selecting from a structured
document a classified structural element in dependence upon an event type
and a collaborator classification and transmitting the selected structural
element to the collaborator” (Br. 6).
With respect to Gimson, Appellants contend that the reference
disclosure in paragraphs [0012], [0029], [0034], and [0035] indicates that the
device classification of Gimson is not the same as the collaborator
classification recited in claim 1 (see Br. 7-9). Appellants further argue that
Gimson includes no teachings about collaboration or collaboration
classification and therefore, its device classification cannot be considered to
be a collaborator classification (Br. 9).
With respect to the rejections of the remaining claims, Appellants
merely rely on the same arguments presented regarding claim 1 to assert the
patentability of those claims (Br. 12), allowing claims 2-7 to stand or fall
with independent claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii).

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’
Appeal Brief. However, we highlight and address specific findings and
arguments regarding claim 1 for emphasis as follows.
With respect to the teachings of Gimson, the Examiner specifically
states (Ans. 5) that:
Appeal 2010-004822
Application 10/889,817

4
Gimson teaches a user’s device classification that classifies a
user’s device such as a desktop PC, PDA, or a mobile phone,
see [0031]. This user’s device collaborates with a server in
order to present information content (i.e. an event type) from
the server to the particular user. Thus, Gimson shows
classification that classifies a collaborator such as a user’s
device.
The Examiner properly concludes that, based on the broadest reasonable
interpretation, the claimed collaborator classification is met by the cited
portions of Gimson (Ans. 6).
With respect to the teachings of Cheung, the Examiner properly
argues that the proposed rejection is based on the combination of Cheung
and Gimson and Appellants’ challenge to the references individually is not
convincing of error in the Examiner’s position (Ans. 6). The Examiner
correctly relies on the holding in In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981) and asserts that “one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking
references individually where the rejections are based on combination of
references” (id.). As such, we also agree with the Examiner’s conclusion
that the Gimson provides the disclosure related to “selecting from a
structured document a classified structural element in dependence upon an
event type and a collaborator classification as explained above” (id.).

CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude that, because the references
teach or suggest all the claim limitations, the Examiner did not err in
rejecting claim 1 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Cheung and
Gimson. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1, and of
claims 2-7 falling therewith.
Appeal 2010-004822
Application 10/889,817

5
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-7 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

tj