Ex Parte Hill et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 29, 2013

11618162 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 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. 11/618,162 12/29/2006 Charles R. Hill CAM920060142US1 (166) 5372 46321 7590 04/30/2013 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG 7900 Glades Road SUITE 520 BOCA RATON, FL 33434 EXAMINER OBISESAN, AUGUSTINE KUNLE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2156 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/30/2013 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 CHARLES R. HILL, SANDRA L. KOGAN, SHI XIA LIU and MARTIN M. WATTENBERG ____________________ Appeal 2010-010130 Application 11/618,162 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, HUNG H. BUI, and BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges. BUI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejections of claims 1-17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.2 1 Real Party-in-Interest is International Business Machines Corp. 2 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed Feb. 16, 2010 (“App. Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed Apr. 14, 2010 (“Ans.”); and the original Specification filed Dec. 29, 2006 (“Spec.”). Appeal 2010-010130 Application 11/618,162 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Invention Appellants’ invention relates to a method and data processing system configured for context browser based navigation of pivotally related information for a document. See Appellants’ Spec. ¶[0019] and Abstract. Claims on Appeal Claims 1, 8, and 13 are independent claims. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention, and is reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A context browser-based information management data processing system configured for navigation of pivotally related information for a document, the system comprising: an activity-centric collaboration tool configured for managing a plurality of activity objects in an activity-centric collaborative computing environment; a relationship model for selected ones of the activity objects, the model defining direct relationships between individual ones of the activity objects; a relationship browser comprising program code enabled to query the relationship model with a pivot activity object to identify a set of related activity objects for the pivot activity object; and, a context browser configured to concurrently display the content of the pivot activity object and a listing of the set of related activity objects. Appeal 2010-010130 Application 11/618,162 3 Evidence Considered The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Hellman US 2003/0163597 A1 Aug. 28, 2003 Spataro US 2006/0080432 A1 Apr. 13, 2006 Examiner’s Rejections (1) Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-13, and 15-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Hellman. Ans. 3-9. (2) Claims 2, 4, 9, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Hellman and Spataro. Ans. 9-12. ISSUE The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-13, and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Hellman. The issue turns on whether Hellman discloses a relationship model that defines direct relationships between individual activity objects, as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 8 and 13 (App. Br. 5-7). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments presented in the Appeal Brief that the Examiner has erred. Only those arguments actually made by Appellants in the Appeal Brief have been considered. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appeal 2010-010130 Application 11/618,162 4 §102(b) Rejection of Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-13, and 15-17 With respect to independent claims 1, 8, and 13, Appellants contend that Hellman does not disclose a “relationship model” that defines direct relationships between “individual activity objects.” App. Br. 5-7. In particular, Appellants argue that: (1) paragraph [0046] of Hellman only discloses “graph-like relationships between ontology classes”; (2) “graph- like” relationships of Hellman pertain to “enterprise knowledge relationships”; and (3) classes of Hellman are for “invoices,” “companies”, “products,” “components,” “measurements,” “credit ratings,” and the like. App. Br. 6. According to Appellants, these invoices, companies, products, etc., are not and do not constitute “individual activity objects” as recited in claims 1, 8, and 13. App. Br. 6-7. However, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. At the outset, we note Appellants have not explicitly defined either “relationship model” or “individual activity objects” in their Specification. “Relationship model” is recited in claim 1 as “defining direct relationships between individual ones of the activity objects.” We further note claim terms are given their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). According to Appellants’ own Specification, the term “individual activity objects” can include, for example, activities, tasks, documents, e-mail messages, chats, instant messaging sessions, roles, users, and references to workflows. See Appellants’ Spec. ¶[0008]. Therefore, consistent with Appellants’ own Specification, we agree with the Examiner’s broad but reasonable interpretation that: (1) the term Appeal 2010-010130 Application 11/618,162 5 “relationship model” encompasses Hellman’s graph-like relationships as shown, for example, in FIG. 1B of Hellman, and (2) the term “individual activity objects” encompasses Hellman’s ontology classes used to model (i) things such as documents, invoices and (ii) relations between things, as described in ¶¶[0006], [0044], and [0046], and shown in FIG. 1B of Hellman. Ans. 13. In addition, we also agree with the Examiner’s finding that Hellman discloses “a context browser configured to concurrently display the content of the pivot activity object and a listing of the set of related activity objects.” Ans. 13 (citing Hellman, ¶[0194] and FIG. 4B). Appellants have not presented sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us of error in the Examiner’s finding. Absent that evidence or argument, we therefore sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 13 as well as claims 3, 5-7, 10-12, and 15-17, which depend upon independent claims 1, 8, and 13 and thus stand therewith. §103(a) Rejection of Claims 2, 4, 9, and 14 Appellants present no arguments regarding patentability of these claims separately from independent claims 1, 8 and 13. As such, claims 2, 4, 9, and 14 stand and fall together with independent claims 1, 8 and 13. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (stating that “the failure of Appellant to separately argue claims which Appellant has grouped together shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the Board must consider the patentability of any grouped claim separately.”). Appeal 2010-010130 Application 11/618,162 6 CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner has not erred in rejecting: (1) claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-13, and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b); and (2) claims 2, 4, 9, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s final rejections of claims 1-17. 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 msc