Ex Parte O et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 5, 2014

11948458 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 5, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE __________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD __________ Ex parte PATRICK J. O’SULLIVAN, HEMA SRIKANTH, and CAROL S. ZIMMET __________ Appeal 2012-003840 Application 11/948,458 Technology Center 2100 __________ Before ERIC B. GRIMES, ULRIKE W. JENKS and CHRISTOPHER G. PAULRAJ, Administrative Patent Judges. PAULRAJ, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING Appellants request reconsideration of the Decision on Appeal entered June 6, 2014, which affirmed the rejection of all pending claims for anticipation, obviousness, and obviousness-type double patenting. We have considered the arguments presented, but deny the requested relief. Appeal 2012-003840 Application 11/948,458 2 BACKGROUND Appellants’ claims recite a method, system, and computer program product for autonomically configuring a workspace in a collaborative computing environment. The Examiner rejected the claims as anticipated or rendered obvious by Yagoda.1 Appellants allege that the “Board’s conclusion that the collaborative computing environment and the social network are not separate systems is incorrect” (Req. Reh’g 4). ANALYSIS The Board affirmed the Examiner’s anticipation and obviousness rejections based on the findings that “the sharing of data, services, and applications between users, such as different users within a company, across a network as disclosed in Yagoda constitutes a collaborative computing environment in which producers and consumers work toward a common goal,” and that “[t]he network of consumer and producer portals, such as the ‘portals for different business units and departments’ and ‘portals for company employees’ disclosed by Yagoda (FF7), may be considered a social network because of the interdependencies of the users of the portals with each other” (Decision 9–10). Appellants allege that this conclusion is erroneous because the “Board mistakenly indicated that Appellants’ Specification does not define the ‘social network’ as being a separate system from the ‘collaborative computing environment.’” (Req. Reh’g 5.) In support, Appellants cite to Figure 2 of the Specification, which they assert is an indication “that the host server 230 supporting the collaborative computing system 270 is separate 1 Yagoda et al., US 2009/0031004 A1, published Jan. 29, 2009. Appeal 2012-003840 Application 11/948,458 3 from a social network 200B executing in a supporting server 200A” (id. at 4). Appellants acknowledge they “are not arguing that the current claims includes [sic] claim language indicating that the collaborative computing environment is separate from the social network” (Req. Reh’g 5 n.1). We find no error in our Decision’s statement that the Specification fails to define the claim terms in a manner such that users within a “social network” could not also constitute part of a “collaborative computing environment.” Although Appellants rely upon the embodiment of Figure 2 to support their assertion, that figure is identified in the Specification as merely a “schematic illustration,” and therefore does not either explicitly or implicitly define the claim terms (Spec. ¶ 11, 15). “[D]uring examination proceedings, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Although “it is entirely proper to use the specification to interpret what the patentee meant by a word or phrase in the claim, ... this is not to be confused with adding an extraneous limitation appearing in the specification, which is improper.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Here, Appellants seek to import an extraneous limitation based on an illustration in the Specification when there is no claim language suggesting that a collaborative computing environment must necessarily be separate from a social network. We therefore decline to revisit the claim construction set forth in the Decision. Appeal 2012-003840 Application 11/948,458 4 CONCLUSION We have considered Appellants’ request, but find the evidence shows that we did not misapprehend or overlook any issues of fact or law in the original Decision. SUMMARY We deny the requested relief. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). DENIED cdc