Ex Parte Gfeller

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 2, 2017

11814754 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 2, 2017)

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