Ex Parte England et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 17, 2013

10314471 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 17, 2013)

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