Ex Parte Kaario et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 28, 2016

12567503 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/567,503 0912512009 11764 7590 Ditthavong & Steiner, P,C, 44 Canal Center Plaza Suite 322 Alexandria, VA 22314 05/02/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Juha Kaario 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. P3208USOO 4463 EXAMINER DEBNATH, SUMAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2495 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/02/2016 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): docket@dcpatent.com Nokia.IPR@nokia.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JURA KAARIO and JUKKA SAARINEN Appeal2014-009863 Application 12/567 ,503 1 Technology Center 2400 Before HUNG H. BUI, KEVIN C. TROCK, and MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Introduction Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-22, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellants indicate the real party in interest is Nokia Corporation. App. Br. 1. Appeal2014-009863 Application 12/567,503 Invention The claims are directed to embedding requests for news inputs in web feeds to news input sources. Abstract. Exemplary Claim Exemplary claim 1 is reproduced below, with disputed limitations emphasized. 1. A method comprising: receiving, via at least one processor, a request for news input in conjunction with a web feed, wherein the request includes filtering information for targeting news input sources; and causing at least in part, via the at least one processor, transmitting of the web feed with the request for news input embedded in the web feed to a news input source that satisfies the filtering information. Applied Prior Art The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims: Kahn et al. Marlow Rajan US 2007/0266414 Al US 2009/0112833 Al US 2010/0250647 Al Examiner's Rejections Nov. 15, 2007 Apr. 30, 2009 Sept. 30, 2010 (1) Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 12, 16-18, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Marlow and Rajan. (2) Claims 3-5, 8-10, 13-15, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Marlow, Rajan and Kahn. 2 Appeal2014-009863 Application 12/567,503 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and the evidence of record in light of Appellants' arguments the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants' arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken; and (2) the findings and the reasons set forth in the Examiner's Answer. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner and further highlight specific findings and argument for emphasis as follows. Independent Claims 1, 6, 11, and 17 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 6, 11, and 17, because the combination of Marlow and Rajan does not teach or suggest "transmitting of the web feed with the request for news input embedded in the web feed to a news input source that satisfies the filtering information," as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 6, 11, and 17. App. Br. 5-7; Reply Br. 2--4. Appellants argue: merely because an RSS feed comprises a document does not, necessarily, mean that that document is "embedded" in the RSS feed. Even if the document were embedded in the feed, this still does not correspond to the claimed subject matter, which requires that a request (not a document that may be the result of the request) be embedded in the web feed. Moreover, even though the document in Marlow may comprise data fields that "relate to a query response," even if the document were embedded in the RSS feed, a premise with which Appellants do not agree, embedded data fields that "relate to a query response" do not correspond to an embedding of the actual request since the claims require that the request be embedded in the web feed. In contrast 3 Appeal2014-009863 Application 12/567,503 at best, ivfarlow may only be considered to include data fields relating to a request response in an RSS feed. App. Br. 6. The Examiner correctly points out, however, that claim 1 recites "embedded in the web feed" and not embedded in "the RSS feed" as Appellants argue. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that: it is well understood that the underlying communication protocol for the web is HTTP. The request with a web feed would be equivalent to "an HTTP search request" shown by Marlow. Thus, search query embedded in a HTTP search request which, as admitted by the applicant, is shown by Marlow is equivalent to Appellant's claimed limitation "embedded in the web feed." Ans. 3. In Reply, Appellants admit that claim 1 does not recite embedding a search query "in a RSS feed." Reply Br. 2. Appellants, however, proffer no evidence to rebut the Examiner's finding that a request with a web feed would be equivalent to an HTTP search request as shown by Marlow.2 See Reply Br. 2--4. Thus, Appellant do not provide sufficient evidence or a technical line of reasoning to persuade us the Examiner's finding constitutes error. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's finding that the combination of Marlow and Rajan teaches or suggests "transmitting of the web feed with the request for news input embedded in the web feed to a news input source that satisfies the filtering information," as recited in independent claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claims 6, 11, and 17. 2 Appellants offer to amend the claims to recite "RSS feed" instead of "web feed". Reply Br. 2. 4 Appeal2014-009863 Application 12/567,503 Remaining Claims Appellants have not presented separate, substantive, persuasive arguments with respect to remaining claims 2--4, 6, 8, 13, 14, and 17. See App. Br. 9-21. Appellants agree that "the patentability of all dependent claims stands and falls with their respective independent claims, i.e., independent claims 1, 6, 11, and 17." App. Br. 4. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-22. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 5