Ex Parte Charles et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 27, 2014

11202324 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte BERNARD CHARLES, GUENOLE GICQUEL,
FRANCOIS PERROUX, and DUY-MINH VU
_____________

Appeal 2012-004601
Application 11/202,324
Technology Center 2100
______________

Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JOHN G. NEW, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Chartier (US
7,176,942 B2, Feb. 13, 2007 (filed June 22, 2001)).
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to Appellants’
arguments. Appellants’ contentions on pages 11 and 13 of the Appeal Brief
are persuasive. We concur with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner
erred in finding that Chartier discloses “(c) querying the database to
determine an update of said argument; (d) updating the argument displayed
Appeal 2012-004601
Application 11/202,324

2

in the field based on the querying step,” as recited in independent claim 1,
and similarly recited in independent claims 16–18.
Specifically, the Examiner finds,
Chartier[] discloses “modify the model ... queries the other
workstations of the workgroup to see if any sessions are
ongoing” Column 4, Lines 12-22 & Column 7, Lines 1-28 &
Column 14, Lines 14-16 wherein Chartier’s usage of “modify”
performs the same as applicant’s use of the term “update”
performs the same functions as the appellant’s claim language
of “querying the database to determine an update of said
argument.”
Ans. 12–13.
Appellants contend,
[T]he Examiner specifically concluded that Chartier’s statement
that “[t]he user queries the other workstations” (at col. 7, lines
19-20) “indicates a database is used” (Final Office Action of
April 28, 2011, page 10, lines 10-11), relying upon a definition
of the phrase “Query language” from Wikipedia, defining a
“Query language” as “a computer language used to make
queries into databases and information systems” (Final Office
Action, page 10, n. 1). However, this conclusion is in error.
. . . Nowhere does Chartier describe making use of a
“Query language” (nor does it expressly make use of the term
“database”). Instead, Chartier broadly discloses that “[t]he user
queries the other workstations of the workgroup to see if any
sessions are ongoing” (col. 7, lines 19-20).
App. Br. 11.
Appellants further contend,
With respect to the cell descriptor shown in Chartier,
FIG. 6, Chartier does not disclose “querying [a] database to
determine an update of said argument,” as recited in claim 1.
Instead, Chartier discloses that “the user can ... writ[e] a cell
descriptor script” (col. 9, lines 46-48), “the user types the cell
Appeal 2012-004601
Application 11/202,324

3

descriptor in the area on the display 25 designated for this
purpose” (col. 9, lines 49-50), and “the user would ... write a
script” (col. 10, line 23). Thus, Chartier only describes entry of
the cell descriptor into its designated area on the display 25
shown in FIG. 6 by a user typing out the cell descriptor.
Chartier does not disclose any other mechanism to “update” the
cell descriptor or determine an update for the cell descriptor,
and accordingly does not disclose “querying the database to
determine an update of said argument,” as recited in claim 1.
App. Br. 13.
We agree with Appellants that the cited portions of Chartier do not
disclose Query language, and the Examiner has not satisfactorily explained
how Chartier’s cell descriptor is interpreted to satisfy the claimed element
(d) feature of claim 1 (“updating the argument displayed in the field based
on the querying step”).
Because we have reversed the rejection for independent claims 1 and
16–18, we also reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of dependent
claims 2–15 for the same reasons.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–
18.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–18 is reversed.

REVERSED

msc