Ex Parte Facemire et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 8, 2013

11268326 (P.T.A.B. May. 8, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/268,326 11/07/2005 Michael D. Facemire RSW920050157US1 (218) 3129 46320 7590 05/09/2013 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG 7900 Glades Road SUITE 520 BOCA RATON, FL 33434 EXAMINER JORDAN, KIMBERLY L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2194 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/09/2013 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 MICHAEL D. FACEMIRE, ERIC L. MASSELLE, PATRICK G. MCGOWAN, SHANKAR RAMASWAMY, AMBER ROY-CHOWDHURY, and MICHAEL C. WANDERSKI ____________ Appeal 2010-011904 Application 11/268,326 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before DENISE M. POTHIER, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and GREGG I. ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judges. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-17. Claim 4 has been canceled. App. Br. 2.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed February 5, 2010; (2) the Examiner’s Answer (Ans.) mailed May 11, 2010; and (3) the Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed July 11, 2010. Appeal 2010-011904 Application 11/268,326 2 Invention Appellants’ invention relates to a method, system, and computer program product for re-wiring components in a computing environment to produce different applications. See Abstract; Spec. ¶ 0001. Claim 1 is reproduced below with a certain disputed limitation emphasized: 1. A hardware data processing system for re-wiring component assemblies of component based user applications, the system comprising: a component aggregation application configured to aggregate a plurality of components in an aggregation; a property broker coupled to the component aggregation application and configured to establish wires between selected ones of the components in the aggregation; and, re-wiring logic comprising program code configured to re-wire selected ones of the components in the aggregation, wherein the re-wiring logic is configured to re-wire selected ones of the components in the aggregation responsive to a change in characterization of the aggregation. The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability: Henn US 2005/0015293 A1 Jan. 20, 2005 Ramaswamy US 2005/0175015 A1 Aug. 11, 2005 The Rejection Claims 1-3 and 5-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ramaswamy and Henn. Ans. 4-8. THE CONTENTIONS Clams 1-3, 7-10, and 13-15 Regarding representative claim 1, the Examiner finds that Ramaswamy teaches a re-wiring logic configured to re-wire selected components in an aggregation responsive to a change in characterization of Appeal 2010-011904 Application 11/268,326 3 the aggregation, such as re-wiring the portal components. Ans. 4, 10 (citing Fig. 7; ¶ 0046). Appellants argue that the Examiner’s mapped characterization of changing the aggregation in Ramaswamy by updating wiring schemes contrasts with the claimed re-wiring logic that re-wires certain components based upon a change in the characterization of the aggregation. App. Br. 8-10; Reply Br. 3. Referring to Paragraph 0019 of the Specification, Appellants further disagree that Ramaswamy teaches “a change in characterization of the aggregation” in light of the disclosure. App. Br. 8. ISSUE Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding that Ramaswamy and Henn collectively would have taught or suggested the re-wiring logic is configured to re-wire selected ones of the components in the aggregation responsive to a change in the aggregation’s characterization? ANALYSIS The crux of this dispute focuses on the meaning of the phrase, “responsive to a change in characterization of the aggregation.” We therefore begin by construing this disputed phrase. A claim is given its broadest reasonable construction “in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (internal quotations and citations omitted). However, “[t]hough understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim.” Appeal 2010-011904 Application 11/268,326 4 SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellants argue that a “change in characterization of the aggregation” can be only those described in the disclosure (e.g., a change in role for a user and a change in an activity conducted using the aggregated components, such as a change in workflow). See App. Br. 8 (citing Spec. ¶ 0019). However, these are just examples of a “change in characterization of the aggregation,” and the disclosure further states that “[o]ther variations in the characterization of the aggregation 140 will be apparent to a skilled artisan . . . .” Spec. ¶ 0019. The phrase, “change in characterization of the aggregation” in claim 1, is thus broader in scope than asserted by Appellants and includes other types of changes in the aggregation’s characterization recognized by an artisan beyond a change in the user’s role or activity. We thus are not persuaded that Ramaswamy’s discussion in Paragraph 0046 has to be comparable to the examples in the disclosure to read on the claimed “change in characterization of the aggregation.” See App. Br. 8. The Examiner states that Ramaswamy teaches a mechanism for updating a wiring scheme by allowing wiring to be added or deleted using lists 708, 710, 712, and 714. Ans. 4, 10. The Examiner elaborates in the Response to Argument section that a user of the form in Figure 7 decides to make a change to the wiring between the components and uses the form to make those changes. The form is then submitted and wiring updates are made. In this example, the user deciding to update the wiring between the components and filling out the form constitutes ‘a change in an activity conducted utilizing the components of the aggregation’ which is an example of a change in characterization of the aggregation. Appeal 2010-011904 Application 11/268,326 5 Ans. 10 (emphases added). From this discussion, Appellants find the Examiner is mapping the act of filing out of a form to the recited change of activity conducted using the aggregated components. Reply Br. 3. We disagree. The Examiner states the user in Ramaswamy decides to change or update the wiring between components and uses the form to effectuate this change. See Ans. 10. The act of filling out the form alone is not the “change in characterization of the aggregation.” See id. Rather, the user’s decision to re-characterize or update the wiring between components (e.g., a change in aggregation’s characterization) is an integral part of the “change in characterization of the aggregation.” See id. As a result of this change in the aggregation’s characterization as decided by the user (e.g., decides to delete wires in the aggregation), the user uses the form (e.g., logic or program code) to implement the decision to re-wire the components. See Ramaswamy ¶ 0046; Fig. 7. Thus, as broadly as recited, Ramaswamy teaches or suggests “re- wiring logic” (e.g., code for the form) that re-wires the selected components in response to a change in the characterization of the aggregation (e.g., user’s decision to re-characterize the wiring of the portals). For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 2, 3, 7-10, and 13-15 not separately argued with particularity. Claims 5, 6, 11, 12, 16, and 17 Regarding representative claims 5 and 6, the Examiner finds that Ramaswamy teaches a change in characterization of the aggregation as a change in role for a user of the aggregation (claim 5) or a change in activity Appeal 2010-011904 Application 11/268,326 6 for the components of the aggregation (claim 6). Ans. 6 (citing ¶¶ 0044, 0046; Fig. 7), 11-13. Appellants argue that the Examiner mischaracterizes Ramaswamy and that the Examiner’s positions are factually unsupported. App. Br. 12-13. Specifically, concerning claim 5, Appellants assert that a change in a user cannot reasonably be interpreted as “change in a role for a user.” App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 4. Regarding claim 6, Appellants also contend that a new property mapping in Ramaswamy is not a change in activity since the mapping is not an activity of the portlets and merely characterizes the components’ relationships. App. Br. 13-14. ISSUES Under § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Ramaswamy and Henn collectively would have taught or suggested the change in the aggregation’s characterization is: (1) a change in a role for a user of the aggregation as recited in claim 5? (2) a change in activity for the components of the aggregation as recited in claim 6? ANALYSIS Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of representative claims 5 and 6. These claims further define the phrase, “a change in characterization of the aggregation” to be (1) a change in a role for a user of the aggregation (claim 5) or (2) a change in activity for the selected components of the aggregation (claim 6). Regarding claim 5, Appeal 2010-011904 Application 11/268,326 7 the Examiner finds that Ramaswamy teaches a user can customize portlet collaboration (Ans. 6, 11) and different users (e.g., a user or an administrator) can customize the portlets and its wiring differently (Ans. 11). Given that the phrase, “role for a user,” has not been defined in the Specification (see generally Spec.), we are not limited by the Appellants’ position that the role must “connote[] a certain function to be performed by the user.” App. Br. 12. Additionally, Ramaswamy teaches that a user can be an end user or have administrator privileges (see Ans. 11 (citing Ramaswamy ¶¶ 0014, 0044)), indicating that users can have different roles and at least suggesting to an ordinarily skilled artisan that a given user’s role can switch from a normal user to an administrator (see Ramaswamy ¶ 0044). Ramaswamy further teaches that, unlike a normal user, the administrator can create wires that apply to or hold for all users by using the “Yes, all users” button 406 or selecting the Global Wire 716. Ramaswamy ¶¶ 0044, 0046; Figs. 4, 7. Thus, in the scenario where a normal user’s role switches to one with administrative privileges, as Ramaswamy suggests, the re-wiring logic will be configured to permit re-wiring of components in the aggregation in a different way than a normal user. Given that the logic for wiring the components depends on whether the user is a normal user or an administrator, Ramaswamy at least suggests re-wiring logic that is configured to re-wire selected components in the aggregation responsive to the change in a user’s role as recited in claim 5. Concerning claim 6, as discussed above, a change in the aggregation’s character in Ramaswamy includes changing or updating the aggregation wiring, including deleting a component or item from the aggregation. See Appeal 2010-011904 Application 11/268,326 8 Ans. 10 (citing Ramaswamy ¶ 0046). This deletion of an item or component in Ramaswamy can reasonably be considered a change in activity (e.g., removing a previous active component or making the component inactive) for selected components of the aggregation. See Ramaswamy ¶ 0046. As such, a broad, but reasonable construction of claim 6 includes logic that re- wires selected components of an aggregation in response to a change in activity for the components of the aggregation (e.g., re-wiring in response to a decision to remove an active component or make a component inactive). We, therefore, disagree with Appellants (App. Br. 12-13) and find that the Examiner has provided evidence that Ramaswamy teaches or suggests the limitations of claims 5 and 6 and that conclusions that Ramaswamy suggests such features are reasonably based. For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the rejection of claims 5 and 6 and claims 11, 12, 16, and 17 not separately argued with particularity. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-3 and 5-17 under § 103. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3 and 5-17 is affirmed. Appeal 2010-011904 Application 11/268,326 9 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED rwk