Ex Parte Bonasso et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 28, 2016

12042434 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/042,434 03/05/2008 Jeffrey J. Bonasso 46583 7590 05/02/2016 ROBERTS MLOTKOWSKI SAFRAN & COLE, P.C. Intellectual Property Department P.O. Box 10064 MCLEAN, VA 22102-8064 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. END920070506US 1 3367 EXAMINER RIFKIN, BEN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2122 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/02/2016 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@rmsclaw.com lgallaugher@rmsclaw.com dbeltran@rmsclaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JEFFREY J. BONASSO, SARA GIORDANO, RAHUL GUPTA, KATHRYN MARIETTA-TONDIN, JANIS A. MORARIU, DEV ANG D. PATEL, AMYS. PURDY, MICHAEL REED, and ANTONELLA V ACCINA Appeal 2015-006147 Application 12/042,434 Technology Center 2100 Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and JOHN F. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judges. Per Curiam DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2015-006147 Application 12/042,434 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal 1 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the rejection of claims 1, 4--14, 16-22, and 24--29, which are all the claims remaining in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. Illustrative Claim 1. An instructional design tool comprising: at least one component implemented in a computer infrastructure configured to: receive recorded knowledge from a worker; save the recorded knowledge in a standardized XML schema, wherein the standardized XML schema includes one or more objects derived from the recorded knowledge; visually model a gaming scenario by adding scenario specific details comprising graphical content defined by values associated \x1ith classes of respective models to the one or more objects included within the standardized XML schema; and translate the added scenario specific details for the one or more objects into the standardized XML schema such that an XML feed including the standardized XML schema is automatically generated for use by a gaming layer; and a graphical user interface configured to: provide a field comprising the models and the classes, which are viewable in a hierarchical format on the graphical user interface; receive input from a user comprising a selection of at least one of the models or the classes via the graphical user interface based on the one or more objects derived from the recorded knowledge; 1 This appeal is related to Appeal No. 2014-007138, Application No. 12/042,451, which was affirmed on March 16, 2016. 2 Appeal2015-006147 Application 12/042,434 Beall Rafal generate a template including tillable fields comprising the values used to define the graphical content of the selected model or classes for the scenario specific details, such that the template provides the graphical content incorporated with the one or more objects derived from the recorded knowledge; receive the values as input in the fillable fields, wherein the values provide information for the added scenario specific details; and display the standardized XML schema. Prior Art US 6,169,992 Bl Chu Hayes-Roth US 2002/0002586 Al US 2002/0099581 Al US 2003/0028498 Al Jan.02,2001 Jan.03,2002 July 25, 2002 Feb.06,2003 Zisman, A. "An overview of XML," Computing and Control Engineering Journal, Aug. 2000. Java Basics, "Lesson 2 - Data- Student Class" pp. 1-2, available at http://replay.web.archive.org/200512 l 8073559/http://leepoint.net/ J avaBasics/ oop/ oop-20-data-student.html, 2005. Examiner's Rejections Claims 1, 4--14, 16-22, and 24--29 stand provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting over co-pending Application No. 12/042,451. Final Act. 3-10. Claims 1, 4, 6-9, 11, 12, and 16-19, 25-27, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hayes-Roth, Rogan, Zisman, Rafal, Beall, and Java Basics. Final Act. 11--41. Claims 5 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hayes-Roth, Rogan, Zisman, Rafal, Beall, Java Basics, and Chu. Final Act. 41--44. 3 Appeal2015-006147 Application 12/042,434 Claims 10 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hayes-Roth, Rogan, Zisman, Rafal, Beall, Java Basics, and Merkh. Final Act. 44--46. Claims 20 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hayes-Roth, Beall, Zisman, Rafal, and Java Basics. Final Act. 47-54. Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hayes-Roth, Beall, Zisman, Rafal, Java Basics, and Chu. Final Act. 54--55. Claims 24 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hayes-Roth, Beall, Zisman, Rafal, Java Basics, and Rogan. Final Act. 55-59. ANALYSIS We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final Action and Examiner's Answer as our own. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner for the reasons given in the Examiner's Answer. We sustain the rejection of claims 1, 4--14, 16-22, and 24--29 on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting. We sustain the rejections of claims 1, 4--14, 16-22, and 24--29 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103. DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 4--14, 16-22, and 24--29 is affirmed. 4 Appeal2015-006147 Application 12/042,434 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(Â±). AFFIRMED 5