Ex Parte 6,741,833 B2 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 27, 2016

90013103 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 2016)

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.
90/013,103 12/23/2013 6,741,833 B2 ENGL-0001-R02 3849
87084 7590 01/28/2016
GTC Law Group LLP & Affiliates
c/o CPA Global
P.O. Box 52050
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
SAADAT, CAMERON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/28/2016 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 ENGLISHTOWN, INC.,
Patent Owner and Appellant
____________

Appeal 2015-006379
Reexamination Control 90/013,103
Patent 6,741,833 B2
Technology Center 3900
____________

Before STEPHEN C. SIU, ANDREW J. DILLON, and JEREMY J.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.

SIU, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This proceeding arose out of a request by Rosetta Stone Inc.
(“Requester”) for ex parte reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,741,833 B2
(“the ’833 patent”) to Christopher McCormick, Scott Rule, Lincoln Davis,
and William Fisher, entitled Learning Activity Platform and Method for
Appeal 2015-006379
Reexamination Control 90/013,103
Patent 6,741,833 B2

2
Teaching a Foreign Language Over a Network, issued May 25, 2004, and
assigned to Englishtown, Inc.
Patent Owner appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 and 306 from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–44. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). Patent Owner indicates that this matter is related to Reexamination
Control No. 90/013,142 (filed January 12, 2015). App. Br. 5.
The disclosed invention relates generally to online educational courses
and teaching foreign languages over a network. Spec 1:13–15.
Independent claim 1 reads as follows:

1. A method for encouraging communication over a
network between participants engaged in a learning activity,
comprising the steps of:
opening a communication channel over a network between
the participants;
displaying content related to an objective to each participant
of the learning activity, wherein the content displayed to one
participant differs from the content displayed to another
participant;
presenting the objective shared by the participants that
requires cooperative interaction between the participants to
complete the objective, wherein the objective is for the
participants to exchange messages that induces at least one of the
participants to take an action that reduces a difference in the
content displayed to the participants;
exchanging messages in real-time between the participants
over the communication channel to allow the participants to
progress cooperatively towards completing the objective;
Appeal 2015-006379
Reexamination Control 90/013,103
Patent 6,741,833 B2

3
receiving input from one of the participants of the learning
activity representing an action taken in response to the messages
exchanged over the communication channel; and
dynamically updating the content displayed to the
participants based on the action taken by one of the participants
during the learning activity to depict progress towards the
objective.

The Examiner relies on the following references:

Ozzie US 6,640,241 Oct. 28, 2003
Liles US 5,880,731 Mar. 9, 1999

William Littlewood, Communicative Language Teaching, An
Introduction, 1981 (“Littlewood”).

Albert Dudley, “Information Gap: A New Application in the CALL
Environment,” The Language Teacher Online 22.02, 1998 (“Dudley”).

Jill Pellettieri, “Negotiation in Cyberspace,” Network-based Language
Teaching, Concepts and Practice, 2000 (“Pellettieri”).

The Examiner rejects claims 1–44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Littlewood and Ozzie; claims 15-28, 43, and 44 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pellettieri and Liles; and claims 29-44
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dudley and Liles.

.

Appeal 2015-006379
Reexamination Control 90/013,103
Patent 6,741,833 B2

4
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1–44?

ANALYSIS

Patent Owner argues that “Littlewood does not disclose displaying
content related to an objective to each participant of the learning activity,
wherein the content displayed to one participant differs from the content
displayed to the other participant,” as recited in claim 1, for example. App.
Br. 14.
In particular, Patent Owner argues that in Littlewood, “Learner A
‘has’ . . . shapes” but “[t]here is nowhere taught an affirmative step of
displaying” because “[a] ‘display’ requires a particular arrangement of
content.” App. Br. 15. Patent Owner also argues that after a user arranges
shapes “into a pattern” in Littlewood, Littlewood fails to disclose
“displaying said pattern to the person.” App. Br. 16.
The Examiner explains that Littlewood discloses providing “Learner
A” with an “assortment of shapes” (Ans. 4 (citing Littlewood 31) and that
the shapes provided are “capable of being viewed in Littlewood.” Ans. 5.
Patent Owner agrees that the shapes are “arranged in a pattern by Learner A
[and are] capable of being viewed.” App. Br. 15. We agree with the
Examiner that Littlewood discloses displaying the shapes to the user at least
because Patent Owner does not explain sufficiently how the user would be
Appeal 2015-006379
Reexamination Control 90/013,103
Patent 6,741,833 B2

5
capable of “viewing” the shapes (or the pattern of arrangement of the
shapes) if the shapes were not displayed to the user. For example, if the
shapes were not “displayed” to the user, the user would be unable to
perceive the shapes and would not be able to arrange the shapes (being
unable to perceive the shapes in the first place) in a desired pattern and
would further be unable to perceive the pattern of the shapes. Because
Littlewood discloses a process in which a user is, in fact, capable of
perceiving the shapes provided as well as the pattern of shapes both before
and after the shapes are arranged, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s
argument.
Patent Owner appears to argue that Littlewood fails to disclose or
suggest both “singular” and “different” content. For example, Patent Owner
argues that Littlewood fails to disclose “content related to an objective,” as
recited in claim 1, because “it is not logically possible for patterns created in
sequence by Learners A and B to comprise such singular content related to
an objective.” Hence Patent Owner argues that Littlewood fails to disclose
“singular content.” Patent Owner also argues that Littlewood fails to
disclose or suggest “displaying different content related to an objective to
two participants.” App. Br. 20. Hence, Patent Owner also argues that
Littlewood fails to disclose “different content.” First, we note that claim 1
does not recite “singular content.” For at least this reason, we need not
consider whether or not Littlewood discloses or suggests “singular content.”
Appeal 2015-006379
Reexamination Control 90/013,103
Patent 6,741,833 B2

6
In any event, as the Examiner points out and as discussed above,
Littlewood discloses “displaying” an “assortment of shapes” arranged “into
a pattern” by “Learner A” and displaying “the same shapes” (but in a
different pattern of arrangement) to “Learner B,” who attempts to
“reproduce as exactly as possible the same pattern as A.” See e.g., App. Br.
14 (citing Littlewood 31). In other words, Littlewood discloses displaying
“content related to an objective” – i.e., an assortment of shapes arranged into
a desired pattern to “Learner A” and “the same shapes” in a different pattern
to “Learner B.” The “content” displayed to each of “Learner A” and
“Learner B” “differs from” one another (e.g., different patterns of
arrangement) and both displays are “related to an objective” (i.e., “to
reproduce as exactly as possible the same pattern as A”). Patent Owner does
not demonstrate sufficiently a difference between Littlewood and the
disputed claim feature.
Patent Owner also argues that Littlewood fails to disclose displaying
content related to an objective in which “displaying must be . . . performed
by a single entity that is separate from the participants to which the content
is displayed.” App. Br. 16. Claim 1 recites “displaying content related to an
objective to each participant of the learning activity.” Claim 1 does not
recite “displaying content by a single entity that is separate from the
participants to which the content is displayed.” Therefore, we need not
consider whether or not Littlewood (or any other cited reference) discloses
or suggests this hypothetical feature.
Appeal 2015-006379
Reexamination Control 90/013,103
Patent 6,741,833 B2

7
Patent Owner does not provide additional arguments for claims 1–44
or the Ozzie reference. The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–44 as
unpatentable over Littlewood and Ozzie.
In view of the above, we need not consider the additional rejections of
claims 1–44 on other grounds (e.g., Pellettieri, Liles, or Dudley). Cf. In re
Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

SUMMARY
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–44 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Littlewood and Ozzie. 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).

AFFIRMED

Appeal 2015-006379
Reexamination Control 90/013,103
Patent 6,741,833 B2

8
Patent Owner:

GTC LAW GROUP LLP & AFFILIATES
C/O CPA GLOBAL
P.O. BOX 52050
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402

Third Party Requester:

COOLEY LLP
ATTN: PATENT GROUP
1299 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW,
SUITE 700
WASHINGTON, DC 20004

Pl:cu