Ex Parte Boubez et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 27, 201309758112 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte TOUFIC BOUBEZ, STEPHEN L. BURBECK, JAMES B. CASLER, STEPHEN G. GRAHAM, and MARYANN HONDO ____________ Appeal 2012-006906 Application 09/758,112 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-006906 Application 09/758,112 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1 to 4, 6 to 14, 16 to 24, and 26 to 30. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method, in a data processing system, of registering services in a taxonomy, comprising: receiving a registration request at the data processing system, the registration request including a service description and an identification of a category within the taxonomy in which the service is to be registered; determining if the service description should be registered in the identified category based on a canonical service description associated with the category; registering the service description in the identified category using the data processing system if the determination is that the service description should be registered in the identified category; and if it is determined that the service description should not be registered in the category, determining whether a request to add a new category is received. Appellants appeal the following rejection: Claims 1 to 4, 6 to 14, 16 to 24, and 26 to 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Yun (US 7,584,120 B1; iss. Sep. l, 2009). ANALYSIS The Appellants argue that Yun does not disclose “receiving a registration request” as required by claim 1. This recited request occurs prior to either determining step. We agree. The Examiner relies on column 6, lines 11 to 60 of Yun for teaching this subject matter (Ans. 10). Appeal 2012-006906 Application 09/758,112 3 We find that Yun discloses a method for defining data of interest usable by non-programmers to enable the extraction of data of interest from web sites (col. 1, ll. 46 to 48). The user identifies a website that has data of interest and decides whether a particular type of information, good, or service available on the website fits into an existing category or subcategory (col. 6, ll. 3 to 18). If the product fits into an existing category, the user specifies the extraction parameters (col. 6, ll. 18 to 20). If the product does not fit into an existing category, the user inputs a new category (col. 6, ll. 21 to 22). There is no disclosure in column 6 of a registration request prior to determining where the registration is to occur. Rather, the user in Yun is extracting data of interest from websites such as stock prices along with information about the stock and information needed for comparison shopping (col. 1, ll. 28 to 31). Yun registers its category in a data structure for describing data of interest, but as Appellants argue, this registration and its implied request is determined by the operator rather than the software, and so the operator must make the determining steps prior to requesting registration. In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain this rejection as it is directed to claim 1 and claims 2 to 4 and 6 to 10 dependent thereon. We will also not sustain this rejection as it is directed to the remaining claims on appeal because each of these claims includes either receiving a registration request or means for receiving a registration request. Appeal 2012-006906 Application 09/758,112 4 DECISION The decision of the Examiner is reversed. REVERSED hh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation