Ex Parte England et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 17, 201310314471 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 17, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 10/314,471 12/09/2002 Laurence Edward England SVL920020096US1/A8524 1246 46159 7590 07/17/2013 SUGHRUE MION PLLC USPTO CUSTOMER NO WITH IBM/SVL 2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20037 EXAMINER CHOJNACKI, MELLISSA M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2164 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/17/2013 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 LAURENCE EDWARD ENGLAND and CHENHONG XIA ____________ Appeal 2013-006453 Application 10/314,471 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges. COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2013-006453 Application 10/314,471 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Patent Examiner finally rejected claims 1-11 and 23-32. Appellants appeal therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. INVENTION This invention relates to "techniques for the efficient retrieval, integration and presentation of distributed information via an integrated Graphical User Interface (GUI)." (Spec. 1). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of enhancing performance of a recipient's graphical user interface that displays information originating from at least one of a plurality of information sources, the method comprising: [a] sending a demand request from the recipient to at least one of the information sources requesting an asynchronous update message, wherein the demand request includes [(1)] metadata referring to data stored in the at least one of the information sources to be displayed at the recipient graphical user interface, and [(2)] an update message time factor which indicates a desired timing for receiving the requested asynchronous update message at the recipient; [b] receiving at the recipient the asynchronous update message at the desired timing indicated by the update message time factor included in the demand request from said at least one of the plurality of the information sources, the received asynchronous update message containing data stored in the at least one of the information sources for display by the recipient graphical user interface; [c] storing at the recipient the data received in the received asynchronous update message; and Appeal 2013-006453 Application 10/314,471 3 [d] retrieving, based on the update message time factor, at least a portion of said stored data of the received asynchronous update message for display via the recipient graphical user interface, [e] wherein the update message time factor comprises a delay factor indicating a time period after occurrence of a change to the data stored in the at least one of the information sources to be displayed at the recipient graphical user interface, after which time period the recipient desires receiving the requested asynchronous update message. (Disputed limitations emphasized). REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1-11 and 23-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable based upon the teachings of Chandra (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number: US 2002/0138582 A1, published September 26, 2002) and Pather (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number: US 2004/0002972 A1, published January 1, 2004). (Ans. 4). PRIOR DECISIONS Appeal No. 2007-3449 (Application No. 10/314,471), mailed Jan. 3, 2008. (Examiner Affirmed). Appeal No. 2010-000470 (Application No. 10/314,471), mailed Feb. 14, 2012. (Examiner Reversed). Appeal 2013-006453 Application 10/314,471 4 ANALYSIS OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1, 23, AND 32 A. Appellants contend that the Examiner is incorrect in finding that Pather would have taught or suggested claim 1 limitation [e]: [e] wherein the update message time factor comprises a delay factor indicating a time period after occurrence of a change to the data stored in the at least one of the information sources to be displayed at the recipient graphical user interface, after which time period the recipient desires receiving the requested asynchronous update message. (emphasis added), and the limitations recited in commensurate form in claims 23 and 32. (Reply Br. 5-6, 9-10). Appellants contend Pather's preference schedule for delivery of notifications would not have taught or suggested the limitation. (Reply Br. 5-6). Appellants specifically contend: the 'information required for distribution' in Pather corresponds to certain events (e.g., stock alert) identified by a user which trigger a notification to the user after a change to the user's subscription (Pather, paragraph [0083]). Pather, however, does not teach or even remotely suggest that its user can further set a delay factor indicating a time period after occurrence of a change to such a subscription (e.g., stock alert), after which time period the subscriber desires to receive the stock alert. (Reply Br. 5, emphasis omitted). Appellants' contentions are not persuasive because Pather's stock alerts are delayed by a delay factor after a change in stock price ("change to data"). (¶ [0086]; Ans. 4). Specifically, Pather discloses an embodiment where stock alerts are sent "only if a new stock price is at least 5% more or less than the price in the subscriber's previous notification." (¶ [0086]). Thus, we find Pather would have taught or suggested the claimed "delay Appeal 2013-006453 Application 10/314,471 5 factor indicating a time period after occurrence of a change to the data" by disclosing an infinite delay ("delay factor") for sending the stock alert when the stock price changes less than 5% of the stock price in the subscriber's previous notification ("after the occurrence of a change in data . . . "). (Id.). For these reasons, on this record, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. B. Appellants contend that the Examiner is incorrect in finding Chandra would have taught or suggested claim 1 limitation [a]: [a] sending a demand request from the recipient to at least one of the information sources requesting an asynchronous update message, wherein the demand request includes [(1)] metadata referring to data stored in the at least one of the information sources to be displayed at the recipient graphical user interface, and [(2)] an update message time factor which indicates a desired timing for receiving the requested asynchronous update message at the recipient; (emphasis added), and limitations recited in commensurate form in claims 23 and 32. (Reply Br. 7-10). Appellants contend "Chandra does not disclose or suggest a single user request including the claimed metadata and the claimed update message time factor." (Emphasis added; Reply Br. 9). Specifically, Appellants contend "Chandra discloses in paragraphs [0256]- [0257] and corresponding FIGS. 7A -7B that the user sets their notification preferences in a separate window/interface. That is, the notification preferences are sent independently of any request for the transportable application itself." (Emphasis added; Reply Br. 8). Appellants' contention that "a demand request" requires a "single demand request" including both the "metadata" and the "update message time factor" is not commensurate with the broader scope of the claim for two Appeal 2013-006453 Application 10/314,471 6 reasons (Reply Br. 8-9): First, as a matter of claim construction, the limitation "a demand request" more broadly covers one or more demand requests.1 Therefore, we find Chandra would have taught or suggested the limitation at issue by: (1) sending a submit selection ("demand request") with a transportable application request ("metadata") and, (2) sending a set notification preference request ("demand request") with the notification time preferences ("update message time factor"). (Ans. 9-10). Second, the claims do not require a single demand request with both "metadata" and "update message time factor" to be sent simultaneously. We agree with the Examiner's broad but reasonable interpretation of the claim term "demand request" as including Chandra's "demand request" that comprises separate transmissions of: (1) transportable application request ("metadata"; Chandra ¶¶ [0043]-[0044], ¶ [0337]; Fig. 2C) and (2) set notification preferences ("update message time factor"; Chandra ¶¶ [0256]- [0257]); Fig. 7A). (Ans. 9-10). Appellants fail to cite a more narrow definition of "demand request" in the Specification.2 For these reasons, on 1 The Federal Circuit guides “that an indefinite article ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent parlance carries the meaning of ‘one or more’ in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase ‘comprising.’†KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000)(citations omitted). 2 Any special meaning assigned to a term "must be sufficiently clear in the specification that any departure from common usage would be so understood by a person of experience in the field of the invention." Multiform Desiccants Inc. v. Medzam Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("A patentee may act as its own lexicographer and assign to a term a unique definition that is different from its ordinary and customary meaning; however, a patentee must clearly express that intent in the written description."). Appeal 2013-006453 Application 10/314,471 7 this record, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. We thus sustain the rejection of claim 1 and of claims 23 and 32, which recite commensurate limitations. REMAINING CLAIMS Although Appellants present nominal separate arguments for rejected claims not addressed above, we affirm the Examiner's rejections of all rejected claims for the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer and for the reasons discussed above regarding commensurate limitations and issues. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-11 and 23-32 under § 103. No time period for taking any action connected with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). ORDER AFFIRMED Vsh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation