Ex Parte Burckart et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 16, 2017

12717837 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2017)

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.
12/717,837 03/04/2010 Erik J. Burckart RSW920100009US1 (609) 3640
46320 7590
CRGO LAW
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, EL 33434
EXAMINER
COULTER, KENNETH R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2445
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/21/2017 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 ERIK J. BURCKART, ANDREW J. IVORY,
TODD E. KAPLINGER, and AARON K. SHOOK
Appeal 2016-002519
Application 12/717,837
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHN D. HAMANN, and ALEX S. YAP,
Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-002519
Application 12/717,837
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1—13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
The claims are directed to direct linked two way forms. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for managing a two-way form over a direct link
comprising:
establishing a communicative link directly between two
communications clients, each communications client separately
executing in memory by a processor of a corresponding one of two
computers;
managing a two-way form rendered as individual instances
of the two-way form each in a corresponding content browser
executing in the corresponding one of two computers, wherein the
two-way form is form based content renderable in two different
content browsers for two, geographically remote end users such
that the user input provided in one field of the two-way form is
visible in the same field of the same two-way form rendered in a
separate content browser by a collaborating end user; and,
exchanging synchronization information for the two-way
form over the communicative link by passing the synchronization
information directly between the two computers, instead of relying
upon the synchronization information being placed in a central
database common to the two computers.
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Bove et al. US 2009/0164581 A1 June 25, 2009
2
Appeal 2016-002519
Application 12/717,837
REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claims 1—13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Bove.
ANALYSIS
Appellants present arguments to claims 1, 6, and 9 as a group. (App.
Br. 5). We find each of the independent claims recites similar limitations,
and we address independent claim 1 as the illustrative claim for the group.
Appellants contend:
Integral to claim 1 (and also claims 6 and 9, which recite
similar operative limitations) is the establishment of a
communicative link directly between two communications
clients and the exchange of synchronization information for a
two-way form over the communicative link by passing the
synchronization information directly between the two
computers, instead of relying upon the synchronization
information being placed in a central database common to the
two computers.
(App. Br. 5—6, footnotes omitted).
The Examiner maintains:
the specification and claim language of the present Application
does not explicitly teach the definition a direct link, particularly
“establishing a communicative link directly between two
communications clients” and “passing the synchronization
information directly between the two computers”. Referenced
Figure 6 of Bove clearly discloses a direct link (item 630)
between two entities, entity one being the combination of items
220 and 210A; and entity two being the combination of items
250 and 240A. The description in Bove of Figure 6 (paragraphs
97, 98) teaches “synchronizing browser changes or events
between browsers 210A and 240A ... and (paragraph 98)
teaches “In step 620, customer browser 210A sends a notification
of the browser change or event to server 220, specifically to co-
3
Appeal 2016-002519
Application 12/717,837
browse servlet 230, along with the customer session ID.” The
vague definition of direct link in the specification and claim
language of the present Application clearly correspond to the
direct link shown in Figure 6 and paragraphs 97, 98 of Bove. In
addition, Examiner points out Bove discloses to “initiate co­
browsing, in step 310, the customer makes contact with the CSR
via a communication channel to consult with the CSR ... Any
known method of communication between two users may be
used to allow the customer to make contact with the CSR in
step 310.” Any known method of communication includes a
direct link between the customer and CSR (customer service
representative).
(Ans. 2-3).
Appellants contend:
Examiner, in part, indicates that Figure 6 of Bove discloses the
passing of synchronization information directly between two
computers, where the two computers are formed by the
combination of items 220 and 210A (entity one) and items 250
and 240A (entity two). Further, Examiner contends that this
exchange of synchronization information is the result of the
direct link (item 630) between the two entities.
(Reply Br. 3). Appellants further contend:
in Examiner’s “entity one” and “entity two,” there are four
computers—the two server computers (220 and 250) and the two
other computers, one for the customer browser (210A) and
another for the CSR browser (240A)— such that “entity one”
includes a server and another computer and “entity two” also
includes a different server and a different computer. As such,
Bove fails to disclose Appellants’ claimed limitation directed to
the passing of synchronization information between the two
computers (communications clients), as the synchronization
information in Bove is first past from a consumer browser to a
servlet, between the servlets, and from a servlet to the CSR
browser, and not directly between the customer browser and the
CSR browser. In others words, for Bove to disclose Appellants’
claimed limitation, Figure 6 of Bove would have had a line
showing communications between the customer browser and the
4
Appeal 2016-002519
Application 12/717,837
CSR browser and not via a server (or other intermediary). As
such, Bove fails to anticipate Appellants’ claimed invention.
(Reply Br. 5—6). Finally, Appellants contend:
If Bove were to disclose Appellants’ claimed limitation, there
would be a link directly between the customer browser and the
CSR browser, which is absent. Instead, Bove describes
communications with intermediaries, such as with a
collaboration manager and servlets on different servers. As such,
Bove fails to disclose the establishment of a communicative link
between two communications clients.
(Reply Br. 10).
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s reasoning with respect to
Figure 6 and the combination of items to form an “entity” fails to disclose
independent claim 1. We find the Examiner’s definition of the plural items as
an entity to overstep the bounds of reasonableness because the Examiner has
neglected to include networks 215 and 245 in the correlation. With these two
intermediary items included in the entity, the Examiner’s correlation is
unreasonable and does not functionally correspond to the invention as recited in
the language of independent claim 1. Consequently, we find the Examiner’s
rejection based upon Figure 6 to be unreasonable and not supported by the
express disclosure of the Bove reference.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—13 based upon anticipation.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1-13.
5
Appeal 2016-002519
Application 12/717,837
REVERSED
6