Ex Parte Veitch et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 6, 2014

11796904 (P.T.A.B. May. 6, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ALISTAIR VEITCH, KARL ANDERS GYLLSTROM, HENRI J. SUERMONDT, and PANKAJ MEHRA ____________ Appeal 2011-007459 Application 11/796,904 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JEAN R. HOMERE, and DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPE0AL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection of claims 1-5 and the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 3, and 5-11. Claims 2 and 4 are objected to as containing allowable subject matter subject to being rewritten in independent Appeal 2011-007459 Application 11/796,904 2 form and to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection.1 Claims 12-25 have been withdrawn subject to a restriction requirement. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Oct. 28, 2010), the Answer (mailed Jan. 21, 2011), and the Reply Brief (filed Mar. 21, 2011) for the respective details. We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appellants’ Invention Appellants’ invention relates to collecting and storing user interface events to assist in grouping files. The user interface events are used to generate groups of files related to a task and to enhance a query to discover files associated with a task. See generally Abstract. Claims 1 and 6 are illustrative of the invention and read as follows: 1. A method executed by a computer, comprising: collecting user interface events for a currently focused window; using the user interface events to generate a group of files that are related to a task; filtering, from the group of files related to the task, file operations whose process identifier (PID) does not match the currently focused window; and enhancing a query to discover files associated with the task. 1 Page 8 of Final Office action mailed May 27, 2010. Appeal 2011-007459 Application 11/796,904 3 6. A method executed by a computer, comprising: storing information about file operations that occur in an application having a window focused on a display of a computer; ignoring information about file operations by applications executing on the computer and having a window on the display that is not a focused window; and using the information about the file operations that occurred with the window focused on the display to enhance a search query for a file. The Examiner’s Rejections The Examiner’s Answer cites the following prior art references: Kraft US 6,091,414 July 18, 2000 Goodwin US 2004/0177112 A1 Sept. 9, 2004 Kaptelinin US 7,546,317 B1 June 9, 2009 (filed Oct. 22, 2003) Spector Corporate Network Edition 4.0 (Spector CNE) (hereinafter “Spector”), SpectorSoft Corporation, 1-13, (December 2005). Claims 1-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention. Claims 1, 3, and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kaptelinin in view of Kraft. Claims 6-9 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Spector in view of Kraft. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Spector in view of Kraft and Goodwin. Appeal 2011-007459 Application 11/796,904 4 ANALYSIS 35 U.S.C. § 112, SECOND PARAGRAPH, REJECTION Appellants’ arguments, with respect to the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection of independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-5, contend the Examiner erred in finding the claim language “file operations whose process identifier (PID) does not match the currently focused window” indefinite. App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 2. According to the Examiner, the recited relationship between the recited process identifier and the recited currently focused window is unclear. Ans. 9. We agree with the Examiner. As explained by the Examiner, the existing claim language attempts to establish a relationship between two distinct and unrelated entities, i.e., a process identifier is a number or identification which uniquely identifies a process while a window is a visual area of a user interface. Id. Accordingly, because we find an ordinarily skilled artisan would have difficulty in determining the metes and bounds of the claims, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection of independent claim 1, as well as claims 2-5 dependent thereon, is sustained. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTIONS Claims 1, 3, and 5 Appellants initially contend, with respect to the obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, that Kraft does not overcome what the Examiner (Ans. 5) has identified as the deficiency in Kaptelinin, i.e., the failure to teach or suggest the recited “filtering” operation. App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 2-3. According to Appellants, Kraft merely teaches changing priority of Appeal 2011-007459 Application 11/796,904 5 operations by focusing and de-focusing a window. Id. In Appellants’ view, therefore, Kraft does not teach or suggest filtering file operations which have a process identifier that does not match a currently focused window. Id. We do not agree with Appellants. As explained by the Examiner, Kraft’s disclosure of placing a low priority on tasks associated with a de- focused window involves the removing or separating of a task or application associated with the de-focused window from other applications or tasks. Ans. 11 (citing Kraft, col. 7, ll. 36-47, col. 7, l. 57 to col. 8, l. 10,and col. 11, ll. 52-55). We find that the Examiner has broadly, but reasonably, interpreted Kraft’s removing or separating operations as corresponding to the claimed “filtering” of file operations of a task or application in which the process identifier does not match the currently focused window. Id. Appellants’ arguments which repeat the language of the claim, generally characterize the disclosure of Kraft, and conclude without further explanation that Kraft’s disclosed operations do not correspond to the claimed recitations are not persuasive of Examiner error. We also find unpersuasive Appellants’ further contention that the Examiner erred in determining that Kaptelinin teaches or suggests the enhancement of a query as claimed. App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 3. We find that the Examiner has broadly, but reasonably, interpreted Kaptelinin’s teaching of making a pool of resources, such as computer files, available to a user searching, i.e., querying, for files corresponding to a selected task in a focused window as corresponding to the claimed “enhancing a query.” Ans. 13 (citing Kaptelinin, Fig. 2, step 160, col, 4, l. 67 to col. 5, l. 3, and col. 13, ll. 36-44). Appeal 2011-007459 Application 11/796,904 6 For the above reasons, based on the record before us, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claim 1, as well as the rejection of dependent claims 3 and 5 not separately argued by Appellants, is sustained. Claims 6, 7, 9, and 10 We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection, based on the combination of Spector and Kraft, of independent claim 6 and dependent claim 7, as well as the rejection of dependent claims 9 and 10 not separately argued by Appellants. We find Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 14) unpersuasive of error in the Examiner’s determination that Kraft teaches or suggests the claimed “ignoring” feature of claims 6 and 7. We agree with the Examiner that, similar to the interpretation of Kraft relative to the “filtering” operation of claim 1, Kraft’s teaching of removing or separating a task or application and associated file operations related to a de-focused window can broadly, but reasonably, be interpreted as corresponding to the claimed “ignoring” of information of applications associated with a de-focused window that does not have a process identifier matching the application having the focused window. Ans. 14 (citing Kraft, col. 7, ll. 36-47, col. 7, l. 57 to col. 8, l. 10, and col. 11, ll. 52-55). It is also noteworthy that, as pointed out by the Examiner, Spector also provides a teaching of ignoring file operations of executing applications by not storing such file operations if they do not have a focused window. Ans. 15 (citing Spector, page 10, note 2). Further, contrary to Appellants’ generalized conclusion (App. Br. 14), we find no error in the Examiner’s determination that Spector’s storing of file operation information, that can Appeal 2011-007459 Application 11/796,904 7 later be searched, of applications that have a focused window corresponds to the claimed search query enhancing feature. Claim 8 We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claim 8. We find Appellants’ generalized arguments (App. Br. 15) unpersuasive of Examiner error. We agree with the Examiner that, because Spector teaches recording applications having a focused window and not recording applications that do not have a focused window even if running in the background, the file operations associated with an active window will be distinguished from those generated from a background process as claimed. Ans. 19 (citing Spector, page 10, second note). Claim 11 The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claim 11 is also sustained. As noted by the Examiner, Spector provides a teaching of recording all windows opened within a proprietary software, i.e., various AOL interface versions. Ans. 19 (citing Spector, page 4, sixth paragraph). We find no error in the Examiner’s explanation that, because a current window is focused when a user opens a window, the recording of all opened windows will result in the tracking of consecutive window focuses, thereby determining a subset of related windows as claimed. Id. Appellants (App. Br. 16) emphasize the “consecutive window focuses” claim recitation but, otherwise, provide no persuasive arguments demonstrating error in the Examiner’s line of reasoning. Appeal 2011-007459 Application 11/796,904 8 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-5 for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, and claims 1, 3, and 5-11 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, and claims 1, 3, and 5-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 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) (2007). AFFIRMED tj