Ex Parte Issa

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 29, 2013

11189141 - (D) (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. 11/189,141 07/25/2005 Alfredo C. Issa 1104-050 2271 74548 7590 04/29/2013 FlashPoint Technology and Withrow & Terranova 100 Regency Forest Drive Suite 160 Cary, NC 27518 EXAMINER SURVILLO, OLEG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2442 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/29/2013 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 ALFREDO C. ISSA ____________________ Appeal 2010-012380 Application 11/189,141 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-3, 5-19, 21-26, and 34. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2010-012380 Application 11/189,141 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to syndication feeds used with peer computer devices and in peer networks (Spec. ¶[001]). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative. 1. A method for providing syndicated feeds from peers of a peer-to-peer network, the method comprising: receiving a request at a server from a requestor for a syndicated feed from a peer on the peer-to-peer network; determining whether the peer is currently online or offline; pulling the requested feed from the peer and serving the requested feed to the requestor if the peer is currently online; retrieving the requested feed from a cache of the server and serving the requested feed to the requestor only if the peer is currently offline; and inserting an indicator in the requested feed before serving the requested feed to the requestor, the indicator indicating the online or offline status of the peer serving the requested feed. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 13-15, 17, 18, 21, 22, and 34 under 35 U.S.C §103(a) based upon the teachings of Teodosiu (US Pat. Pub. 2005/0147044 A1), O'Neil (US Pat. Pub. 2003/0069968 A1), and Raymond (“Broadcatching with BitTorrent” scottraymond.net (Dec 16, 2003) pp. 1-3). Appeal 2010-012380 Application 11/189,141 3 The Examiner rejected claims 3, 7, 8, 11, 12, 16, 19, 23, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C §103(a) based upon the teachings of Teodosiu, O'Neil, Raymond, and Svendsen (US 2003/0063770 A1). The Examiner rejected claim 10 under 35 U.S.C §103(a) based upon the teachings of Teodosiu, O'Neil, Raymond, and Applicants Admitted Prior Art (hereinafter “AAPA”) (Spec. ¶[004]). The Examiner rejected claim 24 under 35 U.S.C §103(a) based upon the teachings of Teodosiu, O'Neil, Raymond, AAPA, and Sahota (US 2005/0114757 A1). ANALYSIS The dispositive issue in this case is whether the Examiner is incorrect in finding Teodosiu “discloses or suggests inserting an indicator in a feed before serving the feed to a requestor” as claimed (Br. 17). The Examiner finds Teodosiu discloses this feature by providing “status information including whether a master publisher is online or offline” (Ans. 5, 17; Teodosiu ¶[0052]). Appellant contends paragraph [0052], along with paragraphs [0038] and [0047] cited by the Examiner, do not disclose the claimed step “inserting an indicator in the requested feed before serving the requested feed to the requestor, the indicator indicating the online or offline status of the peer serving the requested feed” (Br. 17). In light of Appellant’s contentions (Br. 16-18), we find Teodosiu does not disclose this limitation. Teodosiu discloses status information (¶[0052]) and receiving or accessing resource requests (¶¶[0038], [0047]; however Teodosiu does not disclose inserting an indicator in the requested feed, as claimed. We therefore conclude the Appeal 2010-012380 Application 11/189,141 4 weight of the evidence does not support the Examiner’s findings and legal conclusion of obviousness. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 13-15, 17, 18, 21, 22, and 34. With respect to claims 3, 7, 8, 11, 12, 16, 19, 23, 25, and 26, these clams depend from independent claims 1 and 17. Thus, for the reasons set forth above and because the additional cited references do not cure the deficiencies of Teodosiu, we also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 3, 7, 8, 11, 12, 16, 19, 23, 25, and 26. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejection of claims 1-3, 5-19, 21-26, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. §103 is reversed. REVERSED tkl