Ex Parte Bustelo et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 17, 2012

11218264 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2012)

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. 11/218,264 09/01/2005 Leugim A. Bustelo AUS920050407US1 9506 7590 12/18/2012 J. B. Kraft 710 Colorado Street #5C Austin, TX 78701 EXAMINER VO, TRUONG V ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2156 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/18/2012 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 LEUGIM A. BUSTELO, ANDREW D. HATELY, and JULIO E. RUANO _____________ Appeal 2010-005986 Application 11/218,264 Technology Center 2100 ______________ Before, ROBERT E. NAPPI, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-005986 Application 11/218,264 2 This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10-14, and 21-25.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. INVENTION The invention is directed to a method, computer usable medium, and system for displaying content reviews from multiple reviewing functions in different colors in order to indicate the current status. Spec. 3-4. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. In a communication network with user access via a plurality of data processor controlled interactive network display stations, a system for creating markup language documents having multiple content portions respectively from multiple sources comprising: means for providing multiple content portions for a created markup language document from a plurality of sources including said interactive display stations; means for displaying said created markup language document at an interactive network display station; means for subjecting each content portion to a set of content reviews from a plurality of different reviewing functions; a set of displayable different color visual indicators associated with each content portion, each color indicator respectively representing the status of one of said set of content reviews from a different one of said set of reviewing functions; and means enabling a user at said display station to sequentially step through said sets of content reviews by displaying at each content review step, only the color indicator representing the status of said content review step for all of the 1 Claims 2, 9, and 15-20 were previously cancelled. Appeal 2010-005986 Application 11/218,264 3 content portions subjected to said content review by the reviewing function for said step. REFERENCES Millican, III US 2003/0177041 A1 Sep. 18, 2003 Van Geldern US 2004/0019634 A1 Jan. 29, 2004 REJECTION AT ISSUE Claims 1, 3-8, 10-14, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Van Geldern and Millican, III. Ans. 3-11. ISSUES Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Van Geldern and Millican, III teaches or suggests “enabling a user at said display station to sequentially step through said sets of content reviews by displaying at each content review step, only the color indicator representing the status of said content review step for all of the content portions subjected to said content review by the reviewing function for said step,” as recited by each of independent claims 1, 8, and 21?2 ANALYSIS Appellants argue that neither Van Geldern nor Millican, III teaches or suggests “enabling a user at said display station to sequentially step through said sets of content reviews by displaying at each content review step, only the color indicator representing the status of said content review step for all of the content portions subjected to said content review by the reviewing 2 Appellants make additional arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-8, 10-14, and 21-25. App. Br. 10-14; Reply Br. 2-4. However, we do not reach these additional arguments, as this issue is dispositive of the appeal. Appeal 2010-005986 Application 11/218,264 4 function for said step,” as recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 21. App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 3. Claims 3-7, 10-14, and 22-25 depend upon independent claims 1, 8, and 21 (respectively). We agree, as the Examiner’s finding in Millican, III merely indicates that multiple results can be accessed and viewed by a physician wherein the results are assorted by level of severity, status, etc. Ans. 14-15. While the Examiner finds that Millican, III’s level of significance is represented by a status and a color associated with the status (Ans. 15), the Examiner has not found or otherwise made a showing that the references sequentially step through the information and only display one color, i.e., status, at a time as required by the claims. As such, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10-14, and 21- 25. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Van Geldern and Millican, III teaches or suggests “enabling a user at said display station to sequentially step through said sets of content reviews by displaying at each content review step, only the color indicator representing the status of said content review step for all of the content portions subjected to said content review by the reviewing function for said step,” as recited by each of independent claims 1, 8, and 21. Appeal 2010-005986 Application 11/218,264 5 SUMMARY The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3-8, 10-14, and 21-25 is reversed.3 REVERSED msc 3 We have decided the appeal before us. However, should there be further prosecution of these claims, the Examiner's attention is directed to recently issued guidance from the Director and our reviewing court as follows: Should there be further prosecution of claims 21-24, which recite a computer usable medium, the Examiner’s attention is directed to In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) and the Director’s Memo Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010). Should there be further prosecution of claims 1 and 3-7, the Examiner’s attention is directed to Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co, 598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc); Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008); and Suppl. Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 Fed. Reg. 7162, 7167-71 (Feb. 9, 2011).