Ex Parte Burris et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 27, 201612826335 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/826,335 06/29/2010 THOMAS J. BURRIS 112978 7590 06/29/2016 Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC 20283 State Road 7, Suite 300 Boca Raton, FL 33498 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. IN920100040US1_8150-0660 3186 EXAMINER GORTAYO, DANGELINO N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2168 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/29/2016 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): ibmptomail@iplawpro.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte THOMAS J. BURRIS, BHA VAN KUMAR KASIV AJJULA, MANISH KATARIA, and ANURAG SRIVASTAVA Appeal2015-001240 Application 12/826,335 Technology Center 2100 Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and DENISE M. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judges. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2015-001240 Application 12/826,335 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-23: Claims 1 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § l 12(b ), or§ 112, second paragraph (pre-AIA1), for being indefinite. Final Act. 2. 2 Claims 1---6 and 8-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Hom (US 7,840,619 B2; issued Nov. 23, 2010). Final Act. 3- 12. Claim 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hom and Thomsen (US 2008/0270462 Al; published Oct. 30, 2008). Final Act. 13-14. Claims 1-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hom and Bator (US 2010/0138420 Al; published June 3, 2010). Final Act. 14--17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We review the appeaied rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). We affirm. 1 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) ("AIA"). 2 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Office Action mailed March 28, 2013 ("Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief filed January 28, 2014 (supplemented March 26, 2014) ("Br."); and (3) the Examiner's Answer mailed August 28, 2014 ("Ans."). 2 Appeal2015-001240 Application 12/826,335 SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION Appellants' invention creates storage-artifact collections, e.g., computer-file collections, using metadata. Spec. i-f 5. Among other advantages, these collections allow the user to perform file-management actions on several files that share a property. Id. Because collection membership can be storage-location independent, these file-management actions on collections provide an efficient way to maintain files in different locations. Id. i-f 6. THE INDEFINITENESS REJECTION Appellants present no arguments against the indefiniteness rejection under§ 112, second paragraph (pre-AIA). See Br. 15. Because claims 1 and 183 stand rejected under§ 112 (Final Act. 2) and Appellants' Brief do not contest this rejection (Br. 15), we summarily sustain the§ 112 rejection without reaching its merits. See Hyatt v. Dudas, 551F.3d1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (explaining that when appellant fails to contest a ground of rejection, the Board may affirm the rejection without considering its substantive merits); see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); MPEP § 1205.02 (9th ed. Rev. 07.2015, Nov. 2015) ("If a ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the appellant's brief, that ground of rejection will be summarily sustained by the Board"). 3 The Examiner rejects only independent claims 1 and 18 without rejecting any corresponding dependent claims. Final Act. 2. This would be appropriate where, for example, the dependent claims resolve the independent claim's indefiniteness. We take no position as to whether that is the case here, and we leave this issue to the Examiner for consideration. 3 Appeal2015-001240 Application 12/826,335 THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION Claims 1, 5, 9--11, 15-19, and 21 Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative: 1. A method for establishing collections of storage artifacts compnsmg: specifying at least one unique collection within metadata of a storage artifact to indicate that the storage artifact is a member of the unique collection, wherein the storage artifact is a discrete object comprising digitally encoded content that is stored in a tangible storage medium, wherein the storage artifact is an original source file, wherein the collection is able be referenced by a plurality of different storage artifacts to form a collection of related storage artifacts, wherein each storage artifact is able to correspond to a plurality of different collections, wherein membership of said collection is independent of a storage path within the tree structure used by the storage artifact that uniquely identifies the storage artifact; and performing a file management action relating to the storage artifact; wherein the file management action is dependent upon the storage artifact being a member of the unique collection. Contentions The Examiner finds that Hom teaches every limitation in claim 1. Final Act. 3--4. According to the Examiner, the metadata of Hom's Metadata Filing System ("MPS") groups objects into collections. Ans. 6 (citing Hom col. 15, 11. 4--12). The Examiner further finds that Hom's database actions correspond to the recited file-management actions. Ans. 8. Appellants argue that ( 1) the recited storage artifact is an original source file, and (2) the recited metadata is "of this storage artifact." Br. 16. 4 Appeal2015-001240 Application 12/826,335 In the Appellants' view, Hom maintains some extension in a database, apart from the original source file. Id. Furthermore, Appellants argue that Hom distinguishes between "annotation metadata" and "conventional metadata." Id. at 17. In Appellants' view, Hom's conventional metadata lacks a unique collection within. Id. And further according to Appellants, the Examiner maps conventional metadata to the recited metadata in some instances and annotation metadata in others. Id. Lastly, Appellants contend that Hom's actions are database actions, not file-management actions, as recited. Id. at 19. Appellants further argue that Hom likewise acknowledges a distinction between traditional file- management actions and database actions. Id. at 18. In Appellants' view, the Examiner has only identified database actions. Id. at 19. Hom Issues Has the Examiner established by a preponderance of the evidence that I. specifies "at least one unique collection within metadata of a storage artifact," as recited in claim 1? II. performs a file-management action, as recited in claim 1? Analysis I The first issue turns on the meaning of the claim language a ''unique collection within metadata of a storage artifact." To this end, we first look 5 Appeal2015-001240 Application 12/826,335 to the Specification because it is "always highly relevant" and the "single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term." In re Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., 696 F.3d 1142, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane)). Here, the Specification describes that metadata is additional data about a storage artifact. See Spec. i-f 43. In particular, Appellants' metadata can be stored and managed in two ways: (1) within a database or (2) within a storage artifact's "special location." Id. Although these examples inform our construction, nothing in the Specification confines the limitation at issue to either example. Turning to the claim language, the recited unique collection must be "within the metadata." But the claim does not recite that the metadata is within the artifact. Rather, claim 1 only requires that the metadata is "of a storage artifact." According to a general purpose dictionary, one commonly accepted meaning for the claim term "of' is as foiiows: "beionging to; as, the ieaves of the book, the square root of a number." Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary 1241 (2nd Ed. 1983). So just as a square root can be said to be "of a number" or a rejection can be said to be "of a claim," metadata can be said to be "of a storage artifact" (emphasis added) when it belongs to, or has some relationship to, that storage artifact. For an example consistent with the Specification (see Spec. i-f 43), metadata could be said to be "of a file," when the metadata describes a file, yet is stored in a database rather than a "special location" within the described file. Given this interpretation, the Examiner did not err by finding that Hom specifies "at least one unique collection within metadata of a storage 6 Appeal2015-001240 Application 12/826,335 artifact," as recited in claim 1. The Examiner's finding (Final Act. 3--4) is reasonable because Hom's metadata belongs to the corresponding storage artifact, as described next. Specifically, Hom's Metadata Filing System (MPS) comprises software and databases. Hom col. 11, 11. 60-65. The MPS organizes file- system files or external data, like web pages. Id. col. 12, 11. 15-19. The MPS stores some information one-for-one. Id. col. 12, 11. 20-21. For example, the MPS internally represents a text file as a single file. Id. Likewise, the MPS internally mirrors external data as reference objects. Id. col. 12, 11. 30-33. The MPS extracts a file's properties and stores them as metadata. Id. col. 13, 11. 11-14. Hom's stored metadata---or "MPS metadata"- includes user-defined "annotation metadata." Id. col. 3, 11. 43--46; col. 4, 11. 44--4 7. Stored metadata also includes "link metadata" that organizes reference objects in coiiections. Id. coi. 4, ii. 25-'28. Generaiiy, Hom's collections group objects together. Id. col. 15, 11. 9-12. To be sure, Hom stores MPS metadata in a separate location from the corresponding file. See Hom col. 13, 11. 21-24; accord Br. 16-17 (discussing Hom's catalog). But as explained above, the claim does not require that the metadata is stored within the file. Rather, we agree that Hom's MPS metadata belongs to---or is about-the corresponding file and, thus, meets the limitation "metadata of a storage artifact." See Ans. 7 (citing Hom col. 4, 11. 28-33). That is, Hom's MPS metadata belongs to the corresponding original source file, even though it is not stored within the original source file. 7 Appeal2015-001240 Application 12/826,335 We are unpersuaded by Appellants' argument based on the distinction between Hom's annotated metadata and extracted-conventional metadata (Br. 15-17). Notably, this argument (id.) does not address the rejection squarely. That is, the Examiner does not rely solely on Hom's conventional metadata stored within the source file. See Final Act. 3. Instead, the Examiner cites the MPS-stored metadata, including the annotated metadata. See id. (citing Hom col. 12, 11. 46-58); see also Ans. 7 (citing Hom col. 4, 11. 28-33). So even if the conventional metadata lacks collections, as argued (Br. 17), Hom's MPS metadata organizes reference objects into collections, as discussed previously. See Final Act. 3 (citing Hom col. 15, 11. 4--19). Accordingly, we are unpersuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner erred in finding that Hom specifies "at least one unique collection within metadata of a storage artifact," as recited in claim 1. II The second issue turns on the meaning of the claim ianguage "fiie system actions." Unlike its treatment of other terms, 4 the Specification does not provide a definition for "file system actions." "It is not enough for a patentee to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all embodiments, the patentee must clearly express an intent to redefine the term." Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm 't Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). In one embodiment, the Specification describes that operations- e.g., file management actions-"include, but are not limited to," add-, remove-, view-, edit, or other similar operations. Spec. i-f 28 (emphasis 4 See, e.g., Spec. i-f 41 (defining "a journaling file system"). 8 Appeal2015-001240 Application 12/826,335 added). For example, the add operation adds a storage artifact to a collection. Id. i-f 33. Likewise, the remove operation removes an object from a collection. Id. i-f 35. Although these examples inform our construction, the Specification makes reasonably clear that Appellants do not intend to limit the invention to these embodiments. See id. i-f 23. So consistent with these examples (id. i-f 28), a broad, but reasonable, interpretation of the phrase "file system actions" includes actions performed on a file system's files, such as adding files to a collection or removing them (id. ,-r,-r 33, 35). Similarly, MPS manages and organizes a file system's files. See generally Hom col. 18, 11. 63---64, cited in Final Act. 4. Like Appellants' add operation (id. i-f 33), MPS can add a file system's files to a collection. Hom col. 20, 11. 25-35, cited in Final Act. 4. Moreover, Hom's database queries help manage and organize files and these coiiections. For exampie, Hom can seiect fiies for a coiiection using a query. Hom col. 20, 11. 37---67, cited in Final Act. 4. And selected files can be re-categorized---e.g., added to or removed from collections. Hom col. 20, 11. 30-35. Nothing in the claims or examples in the Specification above preclude using a database, or database queries, to manage and organize a file system's files or collections in this way. Although Hom's MPS is queried like a database (see id. col. 16, 11. 34--41), we are unpersuaded by Appellants' argument about Hom's distinction between database and file-management actions (Br. 18-19). Here, the Examiner has not mapped the queries alone to the actions. See Final Act. 4. Rather, the Examiner cites database actions that support Hom's above-described file-management operations. See id. Accordingly, 9 Appeal2015-001240 Application 12/826,335 we agree that the claimed file-management actions read on Hom's cited MPS-based file management. Id.; see also Ans. 7-8. For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of that claim, of dependent claims 5, 9-11, 15-1 7, and 21, and of independent claims 18 and 19, which are not argued separately (see Br. 26). Claim 2 Claim 2 recites, in part, "updating the metadata" and "responsive to the updating ... , excluding the storage artifact from file management actions .... " Appellants argue in relation to claim 2 that Hom does not update the stored artifact's metadata, as recited. Id. 20. Like the arguments presented for claim 1, Appeiiants contend that Hom distinguishes between the MPS and a file system. Id. (citing Hom col. 21, 11. 11-21 ). Appellants further contend that the Examiner cites the database's operations and metadata. Br. 20 (citing Hom col. 24, 1. 31---col. 25, 1. 45). In Appellants' view, the Examiner's position must be that the file system's file is updated when the MPS database is updated. Br. 20. Furthermore, Appellants argue that Hom does not respond to this updating in the manner recited. Id. 20-21. In Appellants' view, the Examiner must be referring to some database-to-file-system synchronization. Id. But Appellants mischaracterize the rejection. Here, the Examiner finds that the recited metadata covers Hom's MPS metadata, including the 10 Appeal2015-001240 Application 12/826,335 database's annotated metadata. See Final Act. 3 (citing Hom col. 12, 11. 46- 58); see also Ans. 7 (citing Hom col. 4, 11. 28-33). For the same reasons discussed above, "updating of the metadata of the stored artifact" (emphasis added) is not limited to updating metadata within the stored artifact. So, showing that Hom performs the recited actions on the database's metadata, as the Examiner has (Final Act. 4--5), is sufficient to address the disputed limitations. Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claim 2. Claim 3 Appellants' arguments regarding claim 3 again rely on the distinction between database queries and file-management actions. See Br. 21. Specifically, Appellants argue that Hom's MFS 5 query is not a file- management action. Id. For the reasons found in part II of our discussion of claim 1, we disagree that Hom lacks file-management actions and are unpersuaded by Appellants' characterization of Hom's queries. In particular, we find nothing in the claims or examples in the Specification above (id. i-fi-128, 33, 35) that would preclude using a database, or database queries, to manage and organize files as described in Hom (see Hom col. 20, 11. 37-67, cited in Final Act. 4). 5 Appellants refer to MFC. Br. 21. But Hom does not mention an MFC. So we understand Appellants' reference to MFC to mean Hom's MPS. 11 Appeal2015-001240 Application 12/826,335 Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claim 3. Claim 4 Claim 4 recites, in part, "wherein the at least one file management action is at least one of a delete action, a copy action, and a move action." The Examiner finds that Hom performs a file-management operation when the user performs collection operations, for example removing an object from a collection. Ans. 12-13 (discussing removing an object from the collection); see also Final Act. 5 (citing Hom col. 20, 11. 25-35). Appellants argue that Hom's MPS does not perform the file- management actions of delete, copy, or move. Br. 21-22 (citing Hom col. 12, 11. 15-20, 34--45). According to Appellants, Hom's MPS requires the user to install an internal client. Id. at 21. In Appellants' view, this means that Hom's MPS is different from a fiie system. Id. Appellants' remarks concerning claim 4 do not squarely address, let alone persuasively rebut, the Examiner's rejection. Br. 21-22. That is, the Examiner relies on the MFS's collection operations (see Ans. 12-13; Final Act. 5), not an external file system's actions (see Br. 21-22). For the reasons discussed above, we agree that Hom's MPS collection operations are file-management actions, as recited in claim 1. And as further noted by the Examiner, Hom's collection operations include removing objects. Ans. 12-13 (citing Hom col. 25, 11. 35-39); see also Final Act. 5 (citing Hom col. 20, 11. 25-35 (discussing removing objects from the collection)). On this record, we are unpersuaded that the Examiner erred by 12 Appeal2015-001240 Application 12/826,335 finding that Hom's removing objects from a collection corresponds to a delete action, as recited in claim 4 (Final Act. 5; Ans. 12-13). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 4. Claim 6 Appellants argue that claim 6 's limitations are neither taught by Hom nor possible under Hom's disclosure. Br. 22-23. In Appellants' view, Hom's database actions and corresponding query interface are different from the claimed limitations. Id. We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments for the reasons previously discussed. Additionally, apart from citing the language of claim 6, Appellants do not provide a persuasive explanation to support the argument that Hom's database actions are different from the claimed actions. See Br. 22-33. Furthermore, Appeiiants reiterate the argument that the MPS is not notified of file-management actions (compare id. at 22 with id. at 21 ), which we found unpersuasive as discussed above in connection with claim 3. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 6. Claim 8 Claim 8 recites, in part, "wherein said unique collection is associated with a collection specific file that is stored on the tangible storage." Appellants argue that Hom does not store a unique collection in a collection-specific file. Id. at 23-25. According to Appellants, Hom's collection data is annotation metadata stored in the MPS. Id. at 24. 13 Appeal2015-001240 Application 12/826,335 To the extent that Appellants rely on previously presented arguments concerning annotation data (see id. at 16-17), we are unpersuaded for the reasons discussed above in connection with claim 1. Appellants provide no additional arguments to distinguish Hom's collection from Appellants' unique collection. See id. at 23-26. To the extent Appellants intend to argue that Hom lacks a file that stores the collection, the Examiner's findings on this issue (Final Act. 6) are reasonable. For example, the Examiner has identified files in Hom's disclosure. Id. (citing Hom col. 12, 11. 5--45). As described in the cited passages, Hom's MPS stores information in files, including database records. See, e.g., Hom col. 12, 11. 19-25. And here, Appellants have not distinguished Hom's file from the recited collection specific file. Br. 24. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in this regard. Furthermore, Appellants reiterate the argument that the MPS is not notified of file-management actions. Compare id. at 25 with id. at 21. We found this argument unpersuasive, as discussed above in connection with claim 3. But regardless, this argument is not relevant to the language of claim 8. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 8. Claim 12 Claim 12 recites, in part, "wherein the unique collection is referenced by a plurality of different storage artifacts .... " Appellants argue that Hom's database referencing files is the opposite of claim 12, which requires that files reference the unique collection. Id. at 25-26. 14 Appeal2015-001240 Application 12/826,335 The Examiner finds that ( 1) Hom's collections are stored as metadata and (2) collections group multiple objects. Ans. 16-18. The Examiner's findings regarding claim 12 (id. at 16-18) are reasonable. Specifically, Hom's metadata values are stored in the MFS. See, e.g., Hom col. 13, 11. 21-23, cited in Final Act. 7. And as discussed above with respect to claim 1, we agree that Hom's MFS metadata organizes reference objects (e.g., different storage artifacts) in collections. See Final Act. 3 (citing Hom col. 15, 11. 4--19). We further agree with the Examiner's finding that these collections have multiple files (Ans. 16). For example, in Figure 14, window 1403 contains multiple collected files. See Hom col. 15, 11. 20-35. Although Hom's metadata may not be stored within the files (see, e.g., id. col. 13, 11. 21-24 ), we see nothing in the claim that precludes files from referencing the collection through metadata that is stored elsewhere in the MPS. On this record, we are unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that Hom lacks the recited different storage artifacts referencing the collection (Final Act. 7; Ans. 16-18). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 12. Claim 13 Regarding claim 13, Appellants have not pointed out particular errors in the Examiner's reasoning. Br. 26. Rather, Appellants argue that claim 13 's rejection should not be sustained for the same reason as claim 12 's rejection. Id. We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed previously. 15 Appeal2015-001240 Application 12/826,335 Claim 14 Claim 14, recites in part, "specifying a collection ... without explicitly specifying each storage artifact of the collection .... " Appellants argue that Hom cannot specify a collection without explicitly specifying each storage artifact. Id. According to Appellants, Hom can only specify a collection using the MPS database. Id. The Examiner finds that Hom collects text files that contain key phrases that match user queries. Ans. 18 (citing Hom col. 15, 11. 42--47). According to the Examiner, Hom searches the file's metadata. Ans. 18. Appellants provide no rebuttal to these findings. And on this record, the Examiner's findings (id.) are reasonable. Specifically, by querying metadata, a user can retrieve files, or more generally, objects. Hom col. 13, 11. 19--21; id. col. 4, 11. 48-55 (explaining that objects are information, including files). For example, the user provides a coiiection name or some other metadata query, and in response, Hom's system returns objects that satisfy the query. Id. col. 15, 11. 20--41; see also id. Fig. 14 (showing windows for the metadata query and results). Similarly, in the section relied upon by the Examiner, we agree that Hom creates a collection using metadata queries. Ans. 18 (citing Hom col. 15, 11. 42--47). For the reasons discussed above, and contrary to Appellants' argument (Br. 26), Hom's database queries are not precluded by the claim. Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claim 14. 16 Appeal2015-001240 Application 12/826,335 Claim 20 Appellants argue that Hom lacks the recited graphical user interface (GUI). Br. 26-27. In particular, Appellants contend that Hom's MPS GUI is different from a file-management-system GUI. Id. According to Appellants, Hom's GUI lacks (1) the recited organization of files and (2) a way to initiate file-management actions. Id. at 27 (citing Hom Fig. 4). For the recited GUI and file organization, the Examiner cites Hom's hierarchical list of folders and files. Final Act. 12 (citing Hom col. 14, 1. 50-col. 15, 1. 41). In the Answer, the Examiner further explains that Hom's MPS workspace view in Figure 26 corresponds to the recited GUI. Ans. 20. In particular, the Examiner finds that Hom's GUI provides a file listing corresponding to a file organization. Id. at 21. According to the Examiner, Hom's folder hierarchy corresponds to the recited tree structure. Ans. 21. The Examiner finds that Hom's items 2602, 2604, and 2601 correspond to the fiie name, object property, and coiiection, respectiveiy. Id. (citing Hom Fig. 26). Appellants provide no rebuttal to the Examiner's findings regarding Figure 26. See Br. 26-27. Rather, Appellants' arguments discuss the GUI in Hom's Figure 4. Id. at 27. Accordingly, these arguments are unpersuasive. Moreover, the Examiner's finding that Hom's folder hierarchy corresponds to the recited tree structure (Ans. 21) is reasonable. Like Appellants' Figure 2, which shows files nested in folders, Hom likewise discloses a hierarchical list of folders and files. Hom col. 14, 1. 50-col. 15, 1. 41, cited in Final Act. 12. As described above, we agree that adding items to the collection are file-management actions. And in the Examiner's 17 Appeal2015-001240 Application 12/826,335 citations to Hom (Final Act. 12), Hom describes how a user runs queries through the GUI to add items to the collection. Hom col. 15, 11. 20-41; see also Hom Fig. 14. Accordingly, we disagree with Appellants' argument that Hom's GUI does not allow the user to initiate file-management actions (Br. 27). Moreover, Appellants' arguments about external sources that do not communicate with Hom's MPS (id. at 26-27) are not persuasive for the reasons discussed in connection with claim 2. Notably, these arguments are not germane to the Examiner's rejection, which relies upon the MPS, not external file systems. See e.g., Final Act. 12 (citing Hom col. 14, 1. 50- col. 15, 1. 41). Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claim 20. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER HORN AND THOMSEN Claim 7 We sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 7 over Hom and Thomsen (Final Act. 13-14). Appellants provide no additional analysis of claim 7's rejection, mentioning claim 7 only in summary. Br. 29. Accordingly, we summarily sustain the§ 103(a) rejection of claim 7 without reaching its merits. See Hyatt, 551 F.3d at 1314; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); MPEP § 1205.02. Furthermore, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments about parent claim 1 's rejection (Br. 11-19) for the reasons discussed above. 18 Appeal2015-001240 Application 12/826,335 THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER HORN AND BATOR Claims 1-21 Although the Examiner rejects claims 1-23 as obvious over Hom and Bator, the Examiner substantively analyzes only claims 22 and 23 under § 103(a), but does not discuss or analyze claims 1-21. See Final Act. 14--17. Appellants acknowledge the rejection of claims 1-23 as unpatentable over Hom and Bator (Br. 10), but Appellants provide no substantive arguments in relation to the combination of Hom and Bator in connection with claims 1- 21 (see id. at 11-29). Regardless, as noted above, the Examiner alternatively finds that Hom alone anticipates claims 1-6 and 8-21. Final Act. 3-12. It is well established that obviousness rejections can be based on references that happen to anticipate the claimed subject matter. See In re Meyer, 599 F .2d 1026, 1031 (CCPA 1979). So although the Examiner did not discuss Bator in connection with claims 1---6 and 8----21 (see Final Act. 14---17), we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-6 and 8-21 over Hom and Bator under § 103(a) for the same reasons that we sustain the anticipation rejection. Moreover, because claims 1-21 stand rejected under§ 103(a) (see Ans. 2 (maintaining every ground of rejection); Final Act. 14--17), and because Appellants' Brief does not contest this rejection, we summarily sustain the§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1-21 without reaching its merits. See Hyatt, 551 F.3d at 1314; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); MPEP § 1205.02. 19 Appeal2015-001240 Application 12/826,335 Claim 22 Claim 22 recites, in part, "a pop-up window selectively presented upon having selected any of the icons, wherein the pop-up window includes a collection option and an edit option ... wherein said collection option enables editing values of metadata elements of the storage artifact." The Examiner finds that Hom teaches every limitation of claim 22 except for editing metadata, but turns to Bator in concluding that this feature would have been obvious. Final Act. 14--16. In particular, the Examiner finds that Hom's user receives a pop-up window when the user selects a link. Ans. 21-22 (citing Hom col. 15, 11. 53---63). According to the Examiner, Hom's pop-up window displays collection information and allows the user to take various actions. Ans. 22. Appellants argue that Hom lacks the recited pop-up window. Br. 28- 29. According to Appellants, claim 22 requires a pop-up window selectively presented upon icon seiection. Id. In Appeiiants' view, the Examiner-cited passages only describe displaying results in window 1503 and discuss a database collection. Id. We disagree with Appellants' arguments because Hom expressly states that the user is provided with a pop-up. Hom col. 15, 11. 59---61, cited in Ans. 21. Specifically, Hom's user selects text in a window to activate this window. Hom col. 15, 11. 59---61. To the extent that Appellants argue Hom lacks an icon (see Br. 28- 29), we disagree. The Specification describes that an icon represents a tree- structured repository's storage artifact. Spec. i-f 7. Although this exemplary embodiment informs our construction, we find no definition in the 20 Appeal2015-001240 Application 12/826,335 Specification, nor do Appellants point to one, that would exclude Hom's text from the scope of the claimed "icon." In fact, Hom's user selects a GUI element that is visually similar to the element selected by Appellants' user. Compare, e.g., Hom, Fig. 36, with Spec. i-f 49; Fig. 2. For example, Appellants' pop-up is responsive to the selection of FileF 222. Id. i-f 49. As shown below, Appellants' Figure 2 shows that FileF is a text element. ~""""'"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'~""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" illllll File Tvfamtgernent Interface 210 Appellants' Figure 2 showing a File Management Interface 210. See Fig. 2. On this record, the Examiner's finding that Hom discloses "a pop-up window selectively presented upon having selected any of the icons" (Ans. 21-22) is reasonable. To the extent Appellants argue that Hom's pop-up lacks the recited functions, e.g., the edit option (see Br. 28-29), the Examiner cites Bator- not Hom-to teach this feature. See Final Act. 16. And Appellants have not provided substantive and persuasive arguments against the Bator reference. See Br. 28-29. 21 Appeal2015-001240 Application 12/826,335 Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 22. Claim 23 Appellants argue that Hom's MPS system is directly opposed to claim 23. Br. 29. According to Appellants, Hom "requires use of [an] MPS client installed on these devices." Id. Because we agree that the claimed file-management actions read on Hom's cited MPS-based file management (see Final Act. 16), as discussed previously, Appellants' argument (id.) is unpersuasive. Moreover, Hom's use of something other than the file system itself to carry out these actions (Hom col. 12, 11. 33--45) is not precluded by the claim language, for the reasons discussed in connection with the second issue of claim 1. Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's obviousness rejection of ciaim 23. CONCLUSIONS Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1---6 and 8-21under35 U.S.C. §§ 102(e) and 103(a) or in rejecting claims 7, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-23 is affirmed. 22 Appeal2015-001240 Application 12/826,335 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l ). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 23 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation