Ex Parte Chakraborty et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 13, 2015

11215913 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte AMIT CHAKRABORTY,
LIANG H. HSU,
ZHIJING LIU,
and
JAN EGGEBRECHT
_____________

Appeal 2012-005980
Application 11/215,913
Technology Center 3600
______________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JAMES A. WORTH, and SCOTT C.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1–26.
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–26 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Adegan (US 2005/0125261 A1;
pub. June 9, 2005) in view of Calloway (US 5,146,404; iss. Sept. 8, 1992)
and claims 15–26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Adegan in view of Calloway and further in view of Rosenfeld (US
Appeal 2012-005980
Application 11/215,913

2

6,901,377 B1; iss. May 31, 2005) in light of Appellants’ arguments that the
Examiner has erred. We concur with Appellants’ contention that the
Examiner erred in finding that Calloway discloses receiving a filter
condition, because:
Calloway merely teaches storing and presenting text
information and graphics concerning the process of assembling
a product. This is explained in more detail in col. 8, lines 36-47
of Calloway, which discloses a training and job aid subsystem
that uses video, audio and text to provide step-by-step
instructions for assembling, disassembling, replacing or testing
a part/subassembly. Using text information and graphics to
provide a user with step-by-step instructions for assembling a
part is clearly not analogous to "receiving . . . a filter condition
corresponding to a maintenance procedure from a client device"
as claimed in Claim 1; the use of text information and graphics
does not teach or suggest how a filter condition may be
implemented. For example, the text information and graphics in
claim 5 of Calloway are simply data that is stored in a system.
This data is presented to the user in the form of step-by-step
instructions when the user requests such instructions. The mere
act of presenting data to a user upon request is unrelated to
implementing a filter condition.
(Br. 10–11).
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1
and claims 2–14 dependent therefrom as being unpatentable over Adegan
and Calloway. We will also not sustain this rejection as it is directed to
claim 15 and claims 16–26 dependent therefrom because claim 15 requires
similar subject matter to claim 1, i.e., receiving a global filter condition
corresponding to a maintenance procedure.

Appeal 2012-005980
Application 11/215,913

3

We will also not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 15–26 as
being unpatentable over Adegan, Calloway, and Rosenfeld because the
Examiner again relies on Calloway for teaching receiving a global filter
condition.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.

REVERSED

hh