Ex Parte Begole et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 25, 2016

12623015 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/623,015 11120/2009 James M.A. Begole
35699 7590 02/29/2016
PVF--PARC
c/o PARK, VAUGHAN, FLEMING & DOWLER LLP
2820 FIFTH STREET
DAVIS, CA 95618-7759
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.
PARC-20081265-US-NP 5475
EXAMINER
MARCUS, LELAND R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/29/2016 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):
sy _incoming@parklegal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES M.A. BEGOLE,
OLIVER BRDICZKA, and
NORMAN MAKATO SU
Appeal2013-008758 1
Application 12/623,0152
Technology Center 3600
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1--4, 6-11, 13-18, and 20-22. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Our decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed
November 20, 2012) and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed
April 3, 2013), and Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed July 10, 2012).
2 Appellants identify Palo Alto Research Center Incorporated as the real
party in interest (Br. 1 ).
Appeal2013-008758
Application 12/623,015
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention relates to "a method for assisting a user
in recovering from task interruption" (Spec. if 1 ).
Claim 1, reproduced below with added bracketed notations, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A computer-executable method for assisting a user
in recovering from a task interruption, the method comprising:
[a] recording the user's activities on a computer while the
user is performing a task;
[b] in response to determining that the user has suspended
a first task, transferring a portion of the recorded user activities
corresponding to a predetermined time period to a storage; and
[c] in response to receiving a task-recovery request from
the user after the user has suspended a second task, presenting a
visual representation associated with at least the first task based
on the transferred portion of the activities to the user.
REJECTION
Claims 1--4, 8-11, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lomet (US 6,182,086 Bl, iss. Jan. 30, 2001) and Takeda
(US 2008/0172406 Al, pub. July 17, 2008).
Claims 6, 7, 13, 14, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Lomet and Official Notice.
ANALYSIS
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because the
combination of Lomet and Takeshi fails to disclose or suggest "in response
2
Appeal2013-008758
Application 12/623,015
to receiving a task-recovery request from the user after the user has
suspended a second task, presenting a visual representation associated with
at least the first task based on the transferred portion of the activities to the
user," as recited by limitation [c] of independent claim 1 (Br. 12-15). In
response, the Examiner maintains that the rejection is proper and relies on
paragraphs 203-207 of Takeshi as disclosing the argued limitation (see Final
Act. 2-3; see also Ans. 6-7).
Lomet is directed to a method "for recovering from system crashes in
a manner that ensures that the applications running on the clients and servers
persist across the crash" (Lomet col. 1, 11. 9-11 ). Lomet discloses:
resource manager 34 also has a volatile log 40 that temporarily
stores log records for operations, which are to be moved into the
stable log 30. A log manager 42 executes on the processor 24 to
manage when the operations are moved 20 from the volatile log
40 to the stable log 30. The transfer of an operation from the
volatile log to the stable log is known as a log flush.
(Id. at col. 2; 11. 16-22). Lomet :farther discloses:
[ w ]hen a crash occurs, the application state (i.e., address space)
of any executing application 32, the data pages in volatile cache
36, and the operations in volatile log 40 all vanish. The computer
system 20 invokes a recovery manager. It begins at the last
flushed state on the stable database 28 and replays the operations
posted to the stable log 30 to restore the database of the computer
system to the state as of the last stably logged operation just prior
to the crash.
(Id. at col. 2, 11. 41--49). More particularly, Lomet discloses
[ t ]he server 54 tracks active applications that it is servicing (or
those for which its clients are responsible) in the active
application table 98. An application remains listed in the table
98 until the application terminates, or (optionally) is timed out
after a predetermined length of time. The active application table
98 is useful for determining which applications need to be
3
Appeal2013-008758
Application 12/623,015
recovered after a system failure. Only active applications listed
on the table 98 are recovered. Applications not listed in the table
need not be recovered."
(Id. at col. 9, 1. 61 - col. 10, 1. 2).
Takeshi is directed to "a technique of generating preference data of a
viewer pertinent to content displayed in one of a plurality of screen areas
displayed on a display unit in an information processing system provided
with the display unit" (Takeshi i-f 3). Takeshi discloses that its system
"enable[s] precise and sufficient analysis of a viewer's preference pertinent
to content to be displayed, even in an information processing apparatus
capable of displaying multiple screen areas" (id. at i-f 11 ). Takeshi discloses
that its system includes:
a state information acquisition unit that acquires state
information pertinent to the plurality of screen areas displayed
on the display unit; a preference evaluation value calculation unit
that calculates a preference evaluation value pertinent to the
content, based on the state information acquired by the state
information acquisition unit; and a preference data generation
unit that generates preference data pertinent to the content, based
on the preference evaluation value calculated by the preference
evaluation value calculation unit.
(Id. at i-f 12, Abstract). Takeshi also discloses a "work concentration state
detection unit" which can detect a user's work concentration state either
notify or not notify the user "when a predetermined event has occurred in
media such as a TV program" (id. at i-fi-1203-204) utilizing the "the work
concentration state, based on the screen area process state information
indicative of the processing state pertinent to multiple windows 252 in the
information processing apparatus 100" (id. at i-f 205). More particularly
Takeshi discloses:
4
Appeal2013-008758
Application 12/623,015
(Id.).
notification is performed by the notification unit 112 when a
predetermined event has occurred in media such as a TV
program. On the other hand, if the user concentrates on the work
in the window 252-1, notification is not made by the notification
unit 112 even if a predetermined event has occurred in media
such as a TV program, so that the user's work is not interrupted.
We have reviewed the cited portions of Takeshi, on which the
Examiner relies, and agree with Appellants that nothing in the portions of
Takeshi relied on by the Examiner discloses or suggests "presenting a visual
representation associated with at least the first task based on the transferred
portion of the activities to the user" "in response to receiving a task-recovery
request from the user after the user has suspended a second task," as
required by limitation [c] of independent claim 1 (see Br. 14). Although
Takeshi describes that its "notification unit" may provide "notification by
increasing the size of the window" (Takeshi i-f 207), i.e., "presenting a visual
representation associated with at least the first task;" Takeshi does not
disclose or suggest doing so "in response to receiving a task-recovery
request from the user after the user has suspended a second task," as
required by limitation [ c] of independent claim 1 (see e.g., Spec. i-f 41 ). The
addition of Lomet fails to cure this deficiency.
In the Response to Arguments section of the Answer, the Examiner
finds that "receiving a task-recovery request" is part of the "natural process"
(see Ans. 7). However, we fail to see, and the Examiner does not adequately
explain, how the "natural process" discloses or suggests "receiving a task-
recovery request," as required by limitation [ c] of independent claim 1. See
In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) ("The Patent Office has
the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not,
5
Appeal2013-008758
Application 12/623,015
because it may doubt that the invention is patentable, resort to speculation,
unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in
its factual basis.").
And, to the extent the Examiner's rejection is based on a view that
Takeshi inherently describes the argued feature, more than speculation is
required. "Inherency ... may not be established by probabilities or
possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set
of circumstances is not sufficient." Continental Can Co. USA, Inc. v.
Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1269 (Fed.Cir.1991) (quoting In re Oelrich,
666 F.2d 578, 581(CCPA1981)). Instead, the Examiner must provide
evidence and/or technical reasoning that make "clear that the missing
descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the
reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill."
Id. at 1268. No such evidence and/or technical reasoning is presented here.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of independent claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lomet
and Takeshi. As noted by Appellants, independent claims 8 and 15 each
include a limitation similar to limitation [ c] in independent claim 1 (see
Appeal Br. 12), and they are rejected on the same grounds (see Final Act. 4).
Thus, for the same reasons, we also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of independent claim 8 and 15 as unpatentable over Lomet and Takeshi.
Dependent Claims 2--4, 9-11, and 16--18
Claims 2--4, 9-11, and 16-18 depend, directly or indirectly, from one
of independent claims 1, 8, and 15, and thus incorporate limitation [ c]
recited in independent claim 1 or the similar limitations recited in
6
Appeal2013-008758
Application 12/623,015
independent claims 8 and 15. These dependent claims are rejected on the
same grounds as the independent claims; and the Examiner's further
findings with respect to them do not cure the above-discussed shortcomings
of Lomet and Takeshi identified by Appellants. Thus, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2--4, 9-11, and 16-18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lomet and Takeda.
Dependent Claims 6, 7, 13, 14, and 20--22
Claims 6, 7, 13, 14, and 20-22 depend, directly or indirectly, from one
of independent claims 1, 8, and 15, and thus incorporate limitation [ c]
recited in independent claim 1 or the similar limitations recited in
independent claims 8 and 15. These dependent claims are rejected as being
unpatentable over Lomet and Official Notice (see Final Act. 4). As
acknowledged by the Examiner (see id.), and argued by Appellants (see
Appeal Br. 12), Lomet fails to teach limitation [c]; and the Official Notice
taken by the Examiner does not cure this deficiency (see Final Act. 5).
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 6, 7, 13, 14, and
20-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lomet and Official
Notice.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1--4, 6-11, 13-18, and 20-22
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed.
REVERSED
7