Ex Parte Bourland et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 1, 2013

11647964 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte FREDDIE J. BOURLAND II, STEPHEN C. WALDEN, and CHRISTOPHER A. BAKER ____________ Appeal 2010-007162 Application 11/647,964 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and GREGG I. ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention interfaces data entry to an address matching engine by sending entered alphanumeric values of street portions of addresses and locale data to a web service which, in turn, provides potential Appeal 2010-007162 Application 11/647,964 2 address matches based on received data. See generally Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method of interfacing data entry to an address matching engine, comprising the steps of: receiving in a client processing system browser entered locale data for an address; receiving in said client processing system browser an entered alphanumeric value of the street portion of said address; sending from said client processing system to a web service after each receipt of an alphanumeric value of said street portion of said address, said entered locale data and said entered alphanumeric street portion of said address; searching at said web service for potential address matches based on said entered locale data and said entered alphanumeric street portion of said address; returning from said web service to said client processing system any potential address matches obtained by said web service in such a manner that the state of any address matching session is maintained on said client processing system; and, repeating said alphanumeric data entering step, said sending to a web service step, said searching at said web service step and said returning to said client processing system step to refine potential address matches. THE REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Qian (US 2008/0065694 A1; Mar. 13, 2008; eff. filed Sept. 8, 2006).1 Ans. 3-9.2 1 Although Qian’s provisional application was filed on September 8, 2006— the same day as the present application’s underlying provisional application No. 60/843,041—Appellants do not dispute Qian’s qualification as prior art. 2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed September 29, 2009 (“Br.”) and the Examiner’s Answer mailed January 22, 2010 (“Ans.”). Appeal 2010-007162 Application 11/647,964 3 CONTENTIONS The Examiner finds that Qian discloses every recited element of representative claim 1 including receiving in a “client processing system browser” (local search server) an entered alphanumeric value of a street portion of an address which is said to correspond to an incomplete address. Ans. 3-4, 10. According to the Examiner, this entered “alphanumeric value” is sent to a “web service” (search engine) to (1) search for potential address matches based on the entered locale data and alphanumeric value, and (2) return any potential matches to the client processing system. Id. This process is said to be repeated to refine these potential matches as more incomplete addresses are received. Id. Appellants argue that Qian does not receive an alphanumeric value of a street address portion of an address, but rather receives queries about a business, using the business’ name. Br. 6-7. Appellants add that Qian likewise does not disclose the sending, searching, and repeating steps recited in claim 1. Id. Appellants further contend Qian discloses an incomplete local database and requires consultation with alternative data sources. Id. This is alleged to differ from the claimed invention, which assists a user who is attempting to input an address into a system that processes addresses. Id. ISSUE Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding that Qian discloses (1) receiving in a client processing system browser an entered alphanumeric value of the street portion of an address; (2) sending from the client processing system to a web service after each receipt of an alphanumeric value of a street portion of an address, entered locale data and Appeal 2010-007162 Application 11/647,964 4 the entered alphanumeric value; (3) searching at the web service for potential address matches based on the entered locale data and alphanumeric value; and (4) repeating the recited alphanumeric data entering, sending, searching, and returning steps to refine potential address matches as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS We begin by noting that the Examiner maps the recited “client processing system browser” not to Qian’s client 110, but rather to the local search server 112. See Ans. 10 (noting that Qian’s Figure 4 shows an “incomplete address (an alphanumeric value of the street portion of an address) has been received from the local search server (client processing system browser) . . . .” (emphasis added)). Nevertheless, Appellants do not contest that the local search server is not a “client processing system browser” as per claim 1 and thus do not persuasively rebut this finding, let alone the Examiner’s finding that this “browser” receives an entered alphanumeric value of a street portion of an address, namely an incomplete address for a business. See Ans. 10 (citing Qian Fig. 4; ¶¶ 0057-58); see also Qian ¶ 0049. Leaving aside the fact that Qian’s local search server receives search queries from the client that can include not only a business’ name as Appellants indicate (Br. 6-7), but also a business’ partial address (Qian ¶ 0033), nothing in the claim precludes the incomplete street address (e.g., “Freeport Road”) as constituting a received alphanumeric value of a street portion of an address. We reach this conclusion noting that the term Appeal 2010-007162 Application 11/647,964 5 “alphanumeric value” does not preclude the letters of this incomplete address, for the term “alphanumeric” can be letters, digits, or both.3 Nor do Appellants persuasively rebut the Examiner’s reliance on Qian’s local search server for sending entered locale data and alphanumeric street portion information to a “web service” which the Examiner equates to the search engine associated with the local search server’s address completion module 316. Ans. 10. Nor are we persuaded of error in the Examiner’s finding that this “web service” searches for potential street address matches based on this received data. Id. (citing Qian ¶¶ 0057-58). Qian’s local search server (1) receives an alphanumeric value of a street portion of an address (“Freeport Road”) from its database 310 or from a data supplier 116, and (2) uses the search engine to search for documents containing those terms from hosts 118. Id. Lastly, we see no error in the Examiner’s finding (Ans. 10) that the process of alphanumeric data entry, searching, and returning potential address matches is repeated if there are more incomplete addresses that are received from the “browser’s” database 310. See Qian ¶ 0053; Fig. 4 (step 426 “YES” option). We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting (1) representative claim 1; (2) independent claims 124 and 20 not separately argued with particularity (see Br. 7-9); and (3) the dependent claims for similar reasons. 3 See MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY 24 (5th ed. 2002). 4 We note in passing that no antecedent basis exists for “said client processing system browser” in lines 17 and 18 (emphasis added). Appeal 2010-007162 Application 11/647,964 6 CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-20 under § 102. ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 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 babc