Ex Parte Creekbaum et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 28, 2016

12291496 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/291,496 11/10/2008 32054 7590 Tina M. Lessani Lessani Law Group, PC 163 Cypress Point Road Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 08/01/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR William J. Creekbaum 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. 15017-01082US 7664 EXAMINER AL HASHEM!, SANA A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2156 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/01/2016 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): tina@lessanilaw.com kathy@lessanilaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte WILLIAM J. CREEKBAUM, MICHAEL B. JETTER, and STEVEN BASHFORD 1 Appeal2015-000558 Application 12/291,496 Technology Center 2100 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, MICHAEL M. BARRY, and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 20-22, 26, 29, 30, 32, 33, and 35-37, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. App. Br. 3. Claims 2, 6-8, 10, 11, 14, 17, 19, 23-25, 27, 28, 31, and 34 have been cancelled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellants identify Mindjet LLC as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal2015-000558 Application 12/291,496 Introduction Appellants state their disclosure relates "to visual mapping systems, and, more particularly, to enabling a user to search an external domain within a visual mapping interface." Spec. 1. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below, with disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A method for enabling a user to search a domain within a visual mapping interface on a computer, the method comprising: providing a visual mapping interface on a computer in which a user can enter search terms into a topic node in a visual map, wherein the visual map comprises hierarchically-arranged topic nodes; providing the user with one or more search domain options within the visual mapping interface; in response to the user entering one or more search terms into a topic node and selecting a search domain within the visual mapping interface, prompting the user to enter parameters for the search and then initiating a search of the search domain based on the search terms; receiving search results from the search in the visual map; and displaying the search results in the visual map, wherein the search results are displayed as subtopic nodes to the topic node in which the search terms were entered. App. Br. 11 (Claims App'x). References and Rejections Claims 1, 3-5, 9, 12-13, 15-16, 18, 20-22, 26, 29-30, 32-33, and 35- 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination 2 Appeal2015-000558 Application 12/291,496 of\X/olton et al. (US 2004/0030741 il~l; Feb. 12, 2004) ("\X/olton") and Heidenreich et al. (US 7,962,433 Bl; June 14, 2011) ("Heidenreich). Final Act. 2-5. ANALYSIS Appellants argue the Examiner errs in determining the combination of W olton and Heidenreich teaches or suggests claim 1 's requirements that "a user can enter search terms into a topic node in a visual map, wherein the visual map comprises hierarchically-arranged topic nodes" and "receiving search results from the search in the visual map; and displaying the search results in the visual map, wherein the search results are displayed as subtopic nodes to the topic node in which the search terms were entered." App. Br. 6-8. The Examiner answers that "[t]he combination of Wolton in view of Heidenreich discloses the method of displaying the search result in a visual manner as disclosed in Para. 153 Wolton and Fig. 4A, Heidenreich" (Ans. 2) and that W olton discloses receiving and retrieving search in a visual map as shown in Para. 52. Furthermore, the combination of Wolton in view of Heidenreich disclose[ s] the method of displaying a search result on the user GUI as shown in Fig. 7C of Heidenreich and Para. 55, and Para. 179 of Wolton, and Para. 433 which disclose the subtopic displayed. Ans. 3 (also citing Wolton i-f 433, Fig. 18c; Heidenreich cols. 37, 52, Figs. 4A, C). Appellants reply that Wolton paragraph 153 "merely describes how a user can navigate through 3D displayed nodes" and Heidenreich Figure 4A "merely illustrates an example of structure for a topic set." Thus, Appellants contend, "[ n ]either reference teaches that the search results are displayed as 3 Appeal2015-000558 Application 12/291,496 subtopic nodes to the topic node in \x1hich the search terms \x1ere entered." Reply Br. 3. Appellants also reply that "Figure 7C of Heidenreich does not teach displaying search results on a GUI." Reply Br. 4. Appellants further reply that "Figure 12al of Wolton displays a window that allows the user to specify which agent(s)/application program(s) commence activity" which "is not a topic node in the visual map of Fig. 18c" and, thus, any searching in W olton "will not result in search results being displayed as subtopic nodes to the topic node in which the search terms were entered." Reply Br. 4--5. Appellants further contend Heidenreich "merely discloses that a process manager may facilitate the user in conducting research and gathering information, organizing the data and information, and/or developing or associating analyses. It does not disclose the claimed search features." Reply Br. 5. Appellants do not persuade us the Examiner errs in determining the combination of W olton and Heidenreich teaches or suggests claim 1 's entry of a search term into a topic node in a visual map comprising hierarchically arranged topic nodes. The Examiner finds disclosure for this feature in both Wolton and Heidenreich. Final Act. 6; Ans. 3 (citing Wolton Figs. 12al, 18c; Heidenreich col. 37, 11. 26-30, 56-64). We note the Examiner's citations to Heidenreich refer to Figure 5, which is part of the "Integrated Thinking and Knowledge Construct" embodiment illustrated in Figures 4A- 10 (see col. 16, 11. 29-31; col. 36, 11. 26-27). We also note Heidenreich relates to "performing one or more searches regarding the arbitrary problem, and obtaining results." Col. 2, 11. 1-2 ("Field of the Invention").2 The cited 2 We also note Heidenreich's title, "Systems and Methods for Facilitating User Thinking about an Arbitrary Problem with Archetype Enabled Search," shows that search is a focus of Heidenreich. 4 Appeal2015-000558 Application 12/291,496 embodiment of Heidenreich clearly sho\x1s hierarchically arranged topics (Fig. 4A) and visual mapping interfaces (Figs. 7 A-D). Further in support of the Examiner's findings, we note over twenty columns of Heidenreich discuss the search capability (see cols. 7 6-97), and specifically explain the integration of search features into the embodiment identified by the Examiner (see, e.g., col. 78, 11. 32-36). Appellants do not persuade us the Examiner errs in finding one ordinary skill would understand "Heidenreich discloses the user enter[ ed] search could be identical to [the] main topic which corresponds to the user search terms entered into [the] topic [node]" of Heidenreich. See Ans. 3. We also find Appellants' argument that "[ n ]either reference teaches that the search results are displayed as subtopic nodes to the topic node in which the search terms were entered" unpersuasive. See Ans. 3. Further in support of the Examiner's findings on this issue, we note Heidenreich specifically teaches that "an archetype enabled search results formatter" may "utilize the application of an archetype structure or archetype or archetype process or both to format results." Heidenreich col. 81, 11. 47--48. Consistent with the Examiner's findings, one of ordinary skill would understand this to mean Heidenreich teaches formatting search results according to its disclosed embodiments, including the hierarchical 2D and 3D visual maps containing hierarchical topic nodes as shown in Figs. 7 A-D. Appellants have not provided persuasive argument or evidence to show combining Wolton's and Heidenreich's teachings to achieve claim 1, including specifically the entry of search terms into a topic node and displaying the results as subtopic nodes, was "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art." See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. 5 Appeal2015-000558 Application 12/291,496 Fisher-Price, Ivzc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Ivzt'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007)). We accordingly sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 18, which Appellants argue together. We also sustain the rejection of claims 3-5, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 20-22, 26, 29, 30, 32, 33, and 35-36, which Appellants argue are allowable solely based on dependency from claim 1 or 18 (see App. Br. 8-9). Appellants also argue the Examiner errs in determining W olton and Heidenreich teach claim 3 7' s requirements of "enabling a user to initiate a search of a search domain by adding a topic node to a visual map in the interface that is associated with the search domain, wherein the visual map comprises hierarchically-arranged topic nodes" and "receiving search results from the search in the visual map; and displaying the search results in the visual map as subtopic nodes to the added topic node." App. Br. 9. We disagree. As discussed supra for claim 1, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of W olton and Heidenreich teaches adding search results as subtopic nodes to a visual map. Such added subtopic nodes enable a user to initiate a search as recited by claim 37. We accordingly sustain the rejection of claim 3 7. DECISION For the reasons above, we affirm the rejections of claims 1, 3-5, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18,20-22,26,29,30,32,33,and35-37. 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)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6