Ex Parte Shuang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 17, 2012

09947149 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2012)

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. 09/947,149 09/04/2001 Chen Shuang D6653 4901 7590 09/17/2012 Dr. Benjamin Adler Adler & Associates 8011 Candle Lane Houston, TX 77071 EXAMINER PATEL, DHAIRYA A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2451 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/17/2012 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 CHEN SHUANG, CHARLES P. PACE, and WILLIAM B. RUBIN ________________ Appeal 2012-008182 Application 09/947,149 Technology Center 2400 ________________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ERIC B. CHEN, and STANLEY M. WEINBERG, Administrative Patent Judges. WEINBERG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-008182 Application 09/947,149 2 SUMMARY Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 4-15, 17-21, 26-34, 38-48, and 50-52. Claims 2, 3, 16, 22-25, 35-37, 49, and 53 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 1, 4-15, 17-21, 26-34, 38-48, and 50-52 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Fin (US 6,240,444 B1; May 29, 2001) in view of Varma (US 6,334,141 B1; Dec. 25, 2001) and Baker (US 6,611,498 B1; Aug. 26, 2003).1 We reverse. STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants’ invention relates to real time collaboration over computer networks using web browsers. A virtual document stack contains one or more transfer data structures for collaboration sessions. Each of the transfer data structures contain a window locator and a document locator and may be communicated to and from the collaboration computer through a network connection to enable a collaboration session with one or more other collaboration computers. The virtual document stack allows collaborators to review the history of the collaboration by sending all or part of the virtual document stack to a requesting collaborator who can use the thus transferred data structures to recreate and/or come to the current state of the collaboration. See generally Fig. 14; Spec. 3:33-35; 7:9-19; 34:3-13. 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief, filed September 27, 2011; and (2) the Examiner’s Answer, mailed January 31, 2012. Appeal 2012-008182 Application 09/947,149 3 Independent claim 1 is illustrative, with key disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A collaboration computer system having at least one memory, at least one central processing unit (CPU), at least one web browser, and at least one network connection, comprising: at least one window locator that uniquely identifies a web browser window of the at least one web browser where an event occurred; at least one document locator derived from information describing a document path from the web browser window to at least one document within the web browser window, the document path being a path in a hierarchical structure that includes the document and the web browser window; and a communicable virtual stack storing at least one transfer data structure on a collaboration computer, the at least one transfer data structure containing the at least one window locator and the at least one document locator, the virtual stack and the at least one transfer data structure stored therein is communicable through one or more of the at least one network connections via a collaboration server or a peer-to peer communication to enable a collaboration session with at least one other collaboration computer having at least one of a different platform, operating system or web browser over a Distributed Internet Services system that comprises one or more networks connected to one or more enterprise information systems (EIS) tiers, one or more component server tiers, and one or more target/client tiers. ISSUE Under § 103(a), has the Examiner erred by finding that Fin discloses a “virtual stack and at least one transfer data structure stored therein is communicable through one or more of the at least one network connections,” as recited in claim 1? FINDINGS OF FACT The record supports the following Findings of Fact (Fact) by a preponderance of the evidence: Appeal 2012-008182 Application 09/947,149 4 1. Appellants’ invention uses one or more transfer data structures, each containing a window locator and a document locator that are communicated between collaboration computers through a network connection. Spec. 7:8- 19. 2. Appellants’ invention creates a virtual document stack 1400 containing one or more transfer data structures (TDS) 300 for collaboration sessions. Spec. 34:3-5; see also Fig. 14. 3. Appellants’ invention sends all or part of the virtual document stack 1400, including the transfer data structures 300, to a requesting collaborator. Spec. 34:9-13. 4. Fin stores message and event information in a memory queue 165. Fig. 1A; col. 5, ll. 34-39. 5. Fin’s queue entries 171 in the queue 165 are in DDE (Dynamic Data Exchange) message form. Fig. 1A; col. 5, ll. 44-46; col. 7, l. 4. 6. Fin’s queue 165 and queue entries 171 have respective structures. Col. 5, ll. 44-47. 7. Fin’s queue entries 171 can be delivered to a destination. Fig. 1A; col. 7, l. 50–col. 8, l. 1. 8. A DDE message is an example of a queue entry 171 in Fin that is not processed because it does not affect the appearance of web pages displayed by a browser. Col. 10, ll. 30-37. 9. By using Fin’s invention, all sharing clients 150 A, B collaborate to share the same web page so that both users see the same web document displayed on their respective web browser 130. Fig. 1; col. 11, ll. 17-20. Appeal 2012-008182 Application 09/947,149 5 ANALYSIS According to Appellants’ Specification, one or more transfer data structures are contained within a virtual document stack 1400 and the virtual document stack 1400, along with the contained transfer data structures 300, is sent to a requesting collaborator. FF 1-3. In Fin, clients collaborate to share the same web page so that different users can see the same displayed document. FF 9. Fin accomplishes the collaboration in part by using a queue 165 that stores message and event information and queue entries 171 in DDE message form, each of which has its own structure. FF 4-6. Such queue entries 171 can be delivered to a destination, but its DDE queue entries 171 are not processed. FF 8. At one point, the Examiner equates Fin’s DDE queue entries 171 to the recited “virtual stack.” Ans. 6:11; 33:4-5. At another point, the Examiner equates Fin’s queue 165 itself to the recited “virtual stack” and finds that the queue 165 contains DDE message/packets entries which together teach the recited “virtual stack” containing transfer data structures. Ans. 40:9-11. In other words, the Examiner’s findings with respect to the recited “virtual stack” are inconsistent. Moreover, regardless of how the Examiner equates Fin to the recited “virtual stack,” the Examiner has not provided adequate fact finding to establish that Fin’s queue 165 is itself “communicable” as required by claim 1. For example, the Examiner finds that Fin teaches the virtual stack communicates at least one transfer data structure. Ans. 6:17-18; see also Ans. 14:18-19; 43:1-2. This assertion in effect says only that Fin’s virtual stack causes the transfer data structure to be communicated and fails to explicitly find that the virtual stack itself is also communicated. Appeal 2012-008182 Application 09/947,149 6 Nevertheless, based on the above inconsistent and vague findings, the Examiner concludes that Fin’s virtual stack and at least one transfer data structure stored therein is communicable. Ans. 32:5-7 of the last paragraph; 41:1-2. Appellants contend that Fin’s queue containing the requests is itself not communicated and that only the requests contained in Fin’s virtual stack are communicated. Br. 21:12-15; 22:15-18. More specifically, Appellants contend, Fin incorporates events/messages into data packets and sends them, not in a virtual stack, but only as individual data packets. Br. 25:20-22. To the extent that Fin can be said to have a virtual stack, on this record we are not persuaded that the Examiner has produced substantial evidence in support of his finding that Fin’s virtual stack is itself communicable. Neither Varma nor Baker teaches that Fin’s virtual stack, in addition to Fin’s transfer data structure, is communicable. CONCLUSION Under § 103, the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 as well as independent claims 29-33, 45, and 46 which all have similar recitations, and the claims that depend from them. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4-15, 17-21, 26-34, 38- 48, and 50-52 is reversed. REVERSED Appeal 2012-008182 Application 09/947,149 7 babc