Ex Parte Charles et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 27, 201411202324 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2014) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation