Ex Parte Bittles et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 6, 201613027041 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 6, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/027,041 02/14/2011 46320 7590 09/08/2016 CRGOLAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG 7900 Glades Road SUITE 520 BOCA RATON, FL 33434 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR William Bittles 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. GB920090050US1 (720) 6019 EXAMINER KING, MONICA C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2844 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/08/2016 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): docketing@crgolaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte WILLIAM BITTLES, DAVID GRANDSHA W, and JOHN B. PICKERING Appeal2014-005397 Application 13/027,041 Technology Center 2800 Before TERRY J. OWENS, PETERF. KRATZ, and LINDA M. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-12 and 15-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Invention The Appellants claim a method, system and computer software product for message handling. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method for message handling, wherein a structured message is transmitted as a reduced message with the structure removed, the method compnsmg: monitoring messages to be transmitted, the step of monitoring compnsmg: Appeal2014-005397 Application 13/027,041 for each message, identifying one or more elements within the message and structural information associated with the one or more elements; determining the probability that a message will conform to a previously identified format based on the identified elements and the structural information associated therewith; and using the determined probability to decide when to transmit a format template for the message, wherein the format template contains structural information for use by a destination to add the structure removed by a message source back into the message. Hirsch Cope Shkolnikov Aggarwal The References US 2005/0228865 Al US 2009/0144357 Al US 2010/0011076 Al US 8,020,029 B2 The Rejections Oct. 13, 2005 June 4, 2009 Jan. 14,2010 Sep. 13, 2011 The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 1-5, 7-9, 12, 15-22, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Cope in view of Aggarwal and Hirsch, claims 6, 10, 11, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Cope in viev,r of Aggarwal, Hirsch, and Shkolnikov, and claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non-statutory subject matter. OPINION We reverse the rejections. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 We need address only the independent claims (1, 15, and 16). Those claims require determining the probability that a message will conform to a previously identified format based on identified elements within the message and associated structural information, and using the determined probability to decide when to transmit a format template for the message, wherein the 2 Appeal2014-005397 Application 13/027,041 format template contains structural information of use by a destination to add structure removed by a message source back into the message. Cope "enables applications to exchange messages in two parts; a set of 'template messages', which contain the bulk of the data to be exchanged, which only change content infrequently, or which need to be centrally administered for consistency of formats between applications; and the series of 'field messages', which contain the subset of message data which changes for every message" (i-f 11 ). "By examining the correlation id of the field messages, the appropriate template message is looked up, and a known or will be known algorithm is used to insert the contents of the field message 114 into the specified template message 112 in order to build the complete messages 116 for the recipient to use" (i-f 16; Fig. 1 ). Aggarwal attempts to synchronize delivery of game player movement information at a plurality of receiving game systems by determining an accumulated export error for each of the receiving systems and transmitting current messages toward the receiving systems in a manner adapted to reduce the accumulated export errors (col. 1, 11. 15-17; col. 2, 11. 45-53). "[T]ransmitting the current messages includes determining, using the accumulated export errors, a plurality of transmission probabilities for the receiving systems and transmitting the current messages toward a portion of the receiving game systems using the transmission probabilities" (col. 3, 11. 1---6). A dead-reckoning vector, which "includes information about the position and movement of a player/entity within the game space on the system from which the dead-reckoning vector is sent" (col. 1, 11. 43--46), "is transmitted to a subset of receiving game systems scheduled, according to 3 Appeal2014-005397 Application 13/027,041 respective scheduled transmission times of receiving game systems, to receive the dead-reckoning vector" (col. 21, 11. 23-27). The Examiner asserts that "Aggarwal teaches determining probabilities associated to transmission based on a comparison result and the previous vector which is a previously identified format in this instant case (col. 21, ln. 15-30; determine a transmission probability for each receiving system, the higher the determining value for the receiving system the higher transmit probability would be. The schedule transmission times by which transmission of the vector is controlled are computed with respect to the previous vectors)" (Final Act. 10). That assertion improperly implies that Aggarwal' s disclosure regarding probabilities pertains to dead-reckoning vectors. Aggarwal's only probabilities are transmit probabilities determined using accumulated export errors (col. 3, 11. 1---6; col. 21, 11. 16-23). The dead-reckoning vectors are transmitted according to scheduled transmission times (col. 21, 11. 23-30). The Examiner asserts that "[o]ne of ordinary skill of the art at the time of invention would recognize that the prior art Aggarwal teaches a method and an apparatus for determining a probability of a given subject matter such as vector or template, and using the determined probability in sending the vector or template because it is helpful to have a probability scheme to match and determine when to transmit the best suited, most likely vector or template information associated with previous vector or template" (Ans. 8). The Examiner does not point out, and it is not apparent, where that disclosure appears in Aggarwal. Thus, the Examiner has not set forth a factual basis which is sufficient to support a prima facie case of obviousness of the Appellants' claimed 4 Appeal2014-005397 Application 13/027,041 invention. 1 See Jn re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) ("A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis, and these facts must be interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention from the prior art"). Accordingly, we reverse the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Re} ection under 3 5 U.S. C. § 101 The Examiner asserts that the Appellants' claim 15' s recited computer-readable storage medium in which a program comprising computer-executable instructions is stored is non-statutory subject matter because the Appellants' Specification does not exclude it from being a signal which, according to the majority in In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007), is not a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter and, therefore, is not patentable subject matter (Final Act. 7-8; Ans. 3-5). The Appellants' Specification states that "[ fJor purposes of this description, a computer usable or computer readable medium can be any apparatus that can contain, store, communicate, propagate, or transport the program for use by or in connection with the instruction execution system, apparatus or device" (Spec. i-f 113). The Appellants' claim 15 limits the computer readable medium to a computer readable storage medium which stores a program comprising computer executable instructions. The Examiner does not establish that such a medium which stores a program can be a signal. Hence, we reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 1 The Examiner does not rely upon Hirsch or Shkolnikov for any disclosure that remedies the above-discussed deficiency in Cope and Aggarwal (Final Act. 10-11, 17-18). 5 Appeal2014-005397 Application 13/027,041 DECISION/ORDER The rejections of claims 1-5, 7-9, 12, 15-22, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Cope in view of Aggarwal and Hirsch, claims 6, 10, 11, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Cope in view of Aggarwal, Hirsch, and Shkolnikov, and claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non- statutory subject matter are reversed. It is ordered that the Examiner's decision is reversed. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation