Ex Parte GfellerDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 2, 201711814754 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 2, 2017) 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. 11/814,754 05/07/2008 Reto Gfeller TSW-42566 8598 86378 7590 06/06/2017 Pearne Rr frnrHnn T T P EXAMINER 1801 East 9th Street HOLLAND, SHERYL L Suite 1200 Cleveland, OH 44114-3108 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2161 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/06/2017 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): patdocket@peame.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RETO GFELLER Appeal 2016-002561 Application 11/814,754 Technology Center 2100 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, AMBER L. HAGY, and MICHAEL S. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 23—27, 29, 30, and 32-45, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2016-002561 Application 11/814,754 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention is directed to “a method for supplementing search engines with menus and teaching modules” (Spec. 1:1). “When a teaching module is selected, that module causes a learning window to guide the user through the other informational details” (Spec. 1:4—6). Independent claim 23, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal. 23. A method for using a computer for supplementing a search engine on a network, comprising the steps of: using the computer for conducting a search of a knowledge base using a particular search criteria on the search engine to obtain an original list of search results; using the computer for creating a teaching module; using the computer for adding one or more items from said list of search results to said teaching module; and using the computer for adding said teaching module to said knowledge base; and providing a user interface on the computer for a user to organize a plurality of the original list of search results as a structured study program in the teaching module such that a user clicking on the link to the teaching module obtains a learning window that can guide the user in focused fashion through the plurality of the original list of search results, wherein after adding said teaching module to said knowledge base, a subsequent search by users of the search engine using said particular search criteria in a new session returns a link to said teaching module added to the resulting list of search results, said link to said teaching module not being part of said original list of search results, and wherein the structured study program includes at least one learning step of an instruction for providing a self-teaching interactive process for users of the teaching module. 2 Appeal 2016-002561 Application 11/814,754 REFERENCES and REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 23—27, 29, 30, and 32—45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Yoon (2004/0059584 Al; Mar. 25, 2004) and Bushkin (2002/0178223 Al; Nov. 28, 2002). ANALYSIS The Examiner finds Yoon discloses all the claim limitations except for not explicitly disclosing the step of providing a user interface for a user to organize a plurality of an original list of search results as a structured study program in a teaching module such that a user clicking on the link to the teaching module obtains a learning window that can guide the user in focused fashion through the original list of search results, the structured study program including at least one learning step of an instruction for providing a self-teaching interactive process for users of the teaching module (Final Act. 3 4). The Examiner relies on Bushkin for this limitation (Final Act. 5). Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Yoon discloses “using the computer for adding said teaching module to said knowledge base” because, although “Yoon may add new web pages to its knowledge base” it fails to “teach a teaching module” in which “a user clicking on a link to the teaching module obtains a learning window that can guide the user in focused fashion through the plurality of the original list of search results,” as claimed (App. Br. 10). We do not agree. Appellant acknowledges the Examiner did not rely on Yoon for teaching the “Teaming window’ feature” (App. Br. 9). Appellant contends, however, Bushkin does not disclose the learning window; rather Bushkin 3 Appeal 2016-002561 Application 11/814,754 teaches the user searches a quest (teaching module) database to find an already existing quest entry in the database and does not teach information is returned by the searcher to create a new quest to add to the database {id.). Again, we do not agree. Appellant further asserts Yoon does not disclose “a user clicking on a link to the teaching module obtains a learning window that can guide the user in focused fashion through the plurality of the original list of search results” (App. Br. 10). As Appellant acknowledges, the Examiner relies on Bushkin, not Yoon, for this limitation (Final Act. 4; Ans. 17—18; App. Br. 9). Appellant also argues Bushkin does not teach the claim limitation “after adding the teaching module to said knowledge base, a subsequent search by users . . . returns a link to said teaching module” (App. Br. 9). We agree with the Examiner’s findings (Ans. 17—19; 2—5; Final Act. 3—5). Particularly, we agree Yoon teaches a user may modify a retrieved page from the Knowledge Management System (KMS), create additional (new) pages, and the KMS can categorize and automatically index the content so that when a subsequent search is performed in the same category as the original search, the new web page is returned as an additional link along with the pre-existing search results (Ans. 17—18 citing Yoon || 46 and 49—53). Thus, Yoon teaches the claimed step “after adding said teaching module to said knowledge base . . . .” (Ans. 18). We also agree Bushkin teaches interactive learning (Ans. 18—19). Bushkin’s paragraph 19 specifically states “an educational resource (ER). . . is a novel form of self-guided educational experience composed of, among other things, questions and corresponding URLs . . . that may be used to answer the questions,” thus providing “innovative guided learning 4 Appeal 2016-002561 Application 11/814,754 experiences . . . . ” This is in line with Appellant’s Specification, which does not specifically define interactive learning nor a teaching module. Rather, Appellant’s Specification states interactive quizzes are part of a self teaching system (Spec. 4:4—7) and a teaching module is “one or several entries or individual terms” placed in a separate file (Spec. 3:22—25). Thus, in light of the arguments presented and the Examiner’s reasonable findings, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 23, 32, and 44. Appellant asserts the Examiner erred in finding Bushkin teaches a correct answer can be verified by a teaching module, as recited in dependent claim 29 (App. Br. 11—12). Particularly, Appellant asserts Bushkin’s paragraph 112 is unclear as to how the answers are “correct” and that the answers are presumably “user supplied answers” (App. Br. 12). Bushkin’s paragraph 112, however, broadly states “[t]he question answers include answers to any specific questions posed as a part of the quest.” Further, as the Examiner finds, Bushkin’s paragraph 27 teaches “a quest is a structured, self-guided lesson plan” (Ans. 20). Based on the Examiner’s findings, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 29 and claims 43 and 45, reciting similar limitations and argued therewith (App. Br. 12). Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Bushkin’s paragraph 115 teaches learning progress monitoring as claimed in dependent claims 34 and 36 (App. Br. 12, 13). Claim 34 recites the learning window includes “a progress monitoring capability” to track the “learning progress” of a user and claim 36 recites the teaching module permits external access to allow an administrator to “monitor a learning progress of the user.” As the Examiner finds, and we agree, the claims “do not recite how learning 5 Appeal 2016-002561 Application 11/814,754 progress is monitored and what indicator is required to show that a user has accomplished learning” (Ans. 20.) Affording these claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification, we agree Bushkin provides teaching and suggestion within the scope of the claims. As the Examiner finds, and we agree, the disclosure of the “monitoring” in Appellant’s Specification (“the learning window can be used for scheduling and for keeping track of who has worked himself through which teaching module. This permits success tracking, making the achieved knowledge transfer measurable, for instance by external monitoring” (Spec. 8:8—16)) is similar to paragraphs 115 and 116 of Bushkin (“after the questor completes the quest, a confirmation page is displayed to the questor verifying the completion of the quest”) (Ans. 21—22). Further, Bushkin’s paragraph 30 teaches a creator has the ability to aggregate and tabulate responses from a group of quest takers, which at a minimum suggests monitoring the questor (user) (App. Br. 22). Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 34 and 36. With respect to dependent claim 37, we agree with the Examiner that Bushkin teaches allowing the user to contact the author of the teaching module (Ans. 22). Bushkin’s paragraph 25 recites “communicator features enable a user to communicate with other persons about one or more ERs [educational resources]” and paragraph 102 recites “enables a quest creator to give designated quest takers permission to return quest results ... to the quest creator” (Ans. 12, 22). Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 37. Appellant contends Bushkin’s paragraph 30 does not disclose monitoring and quantifying knowledge transfer as recited in dependent claim 6 Appeal 2016-002561 Application 11/814,754 38 (App. Br. 13). As the Examiner finds, paragraph 30, at a minimum, suggests this by disclosing monitoring the data (quest has been completed (see 1114)) and aggregating and tabulating (quantifying) the data (Ans. 22— 23). Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 38. Appellant further contends Bushkin’s paragraph 30 does not disclose the limitations of dependent claims 39 and 40, without presenting arguments or reasoning. Appellant merely asserts there is no teaching of the claim limitations in Bushkin (App. Br. 13—14). The Examiner, however, has made reasonable findings, with which we agree (Ans. 23—24). We further note Appellant’s Specification does not define or even mention corporate parameters (claim 39) and does not mention knowledge carriers or knowledge providers as recited in claim 40. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 39 and 40. The remaining dependent claims have not been separately argued. Thus, we also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 24—27, 30, 33, 35, 41, and 42. Appellant also argues the combination of Yoon and Bushkin is improper (App. Br. 14—15). We do not agree. Appellant provides no persuasive reasoning or evidence rebutting the Examiner’s motivation. As to Appellant’s hindsight argument, Appellant fails to persuasively illustrate that any such knowledge was gleaned only from Appellant’s disclosure. Therefore, we agree with and adopt the Examiner’s reason and motivation to combine (Ans. 24—25). 7 Appeal 2016-002561 Application 11/814,754 DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 23—27, 29, 30, and 32-45 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation