Ex Parte Chatterjee et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 23, 201310600390 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 10/600,390 06/20/2003 Avijit Chatterjee ROC920030238US1 7557 46797 7590 09/24/2013 IBM CORPORATION, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW DEPT 917, BLDG. 006-1 3605 HIGHWAY 52 NORTH ROCHESTER, MN 55901-7829 EXAMINER HARPER, ELIYAH STONE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2166 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/24/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte AVIJIT CHATTERJEE, BRIAN J. CRAGUN, DOUGLAS R. FISH, WILLIAM C. RAPP, HOA T. TRAN, and DAVID A. WALL ____________________ Appeal 2011-003710 Application 10/600,390 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before ERIC B. CHEN, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-003710 Application 10/600,390 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 9, 11–18, 25, 36, and 37. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 1–8, 10, 19–24, and 26–35 are canceled. We affirm. Illustrative Claim The claims are directed to managing annotations to data objects of different data types made by different type applications. Abstract. Claim 9, reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized and annotated for reference, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 9. A system for sharing information between one or more users engaged in analyzing data, comprising: a data store storing a plurality of data objects; a plurality of different applications for editing the plurality of data objects, wherein each application performs a different type of editing and wherein a relationship is defined between each data object and a respective application for editing the respective data object; an annotation store storing one or more annotations annotating the plurality of data objects edited by the plurality of different applications; [a] an annotation browser configured to access, by operation of one or more computer processors, the annotation store and provide one or more graphical user interfaces for creating and viewing the one or more annotations wherein the annotation browser is configured to display the one or more annotations along with selectable links from each of the one or more annotations [sic, to] at least one of the plurality of data objects annotated by the respective annotation of the one or more annotations; and [b] wherein selecting anyone of the selectable links causes the respective application for editing the respective data object to be invoked according to the defined relationship Appeal 2011-003710 Application 10/600,390 3 between the respective application and the respective data object. References The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Eintracht Davis U.S. 6,687,878 B1 U.S. 7,010,144 B1 Feb. 3, 2004 Mar. 7, 2006 Rejection Claims 9, 11–18, 25, 36, and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Eintracht and Davis. 1 Ans. 4–15. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief. We refer to the Brief and the Answer for the respective positions of Appellants and the Examiner. We disagree with Appellants and highlight the following for emphasis. Contentions Appellants argue all claims as a group (Br. 13–18), setting out specific arguments directed to the rejection of claim 37 (id. at 17–18). Regarding the group generally, Appellants first argue that Davis fails to disclose limitation [a] because “at the time that the user selects from the predefined metadata in Davis, the predefined metadata does not have any association with a graphical image.” Br. 15 (see Br. 13-15, referring to Davis, col. 2, ll. 40–50 and col. 6, ll. 14–24). Appellants further support this argument by asserting 1 Appellants have inadvertently omitted independent claims 36 and 37 from the statement of the rejection. Br. 12. Appeal 2011-003710 Application 10/600,390 4 that Davis “simply does not teach any user interface for viewing annotations that have an association with underlying data objects” (Br. 15) and “fails to teach a second type of application that performs a different type of editing, as required by the claims.” Id. Appellants also argue that Davis fails to teach limitation [b]. Id. at 15–17, referring to Davis, fig. 3 and col. 3, ll. 15– 20. With respect to claim 37 Appellants argue that “Eintracht fails to disclose displaying a first icon to indicate that a document has a single note and displaying a second icon to indicate that a document has multiple notes.” Br. 18 (see Br. 17–18, referring to Eintracht, col. 14, ll. 26–34). Obviousness Rejection of Claim 9 Over Davis and Eintracht Appellants’ arguments regarding limitations [a] and [b] are directed toward the teachings of Davis alone (Br. 13–17) and amount to an attack on a single reference when the rejection is based on the combined teachings of both references. Ans. 4–5. The Examiner cites Eintracht (col. 7, ll. 25–30) for the annotation browser and the plurality of editing applications for editing data objects and associating annotations to them (col. 1, ll. 55–60). Ans. 4. The Examiner cites Davis for annotations specified using an image capture device and for viewing and editing annotations using a personal computer. Ans. 18, citing Davis col. 3, ll. 1–15. The Examiner also cites Davis (col. 3, ll. 15–20) for links connecting annotations to images. Appellants have not persuaded us that the combined teaching of Eintracht and Davis—particularly Davis’ “stegranographic link (e.g., in an image watermark) that associates the image with the desired data items” (col. 3, ll. 19–21)—does not at least suggest to one skilled in the art the claimed Appeal 2011-003710 Application 10/600,390 5 “selectable links from each of the one or more annotations to at least one of the plurality of data objects annotated by the respective annotation.” Regarding limitation [b], the Examiner cites Davis (col. 11, ll. 25–51) as disclosing multiple applications using and reading links and images. Ans. 20. Appellants do not present persuasive evidence or argument that the combined teaching of the references—particularly Davis’ “compliant” and “non-compliant” metadata applications and associated “steganographic encoding” linking an image to its metadata (Davis, col. 11, 26–51)—does not at least suggest to one skilled in the art a selected link invoking an application in accordance with limitation [b]. We are, therefore, unpersuaded that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 is in error. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 9 and of claims 11–18, 25, and 36 argued therewith. Obviousness Rejection of Claim 37 Over Davis and Eintracht We disagree with Appellants arguments (Br. 17–18) and agree with the Examiner that Eintracht at Figure 1B and column 7, lines 1–16. discloses multiple icons, each representing an annotation, such that “the first icon represents one annotation and the second icon indicates the presence of another annotation.” Ans. 21. Appellants’ arguments, therefore, do not persuade us of error, and we sustain the rejection of claim 37. CONCLUSIONS On the record before us, the Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 9, 11–18, 25, 36, and 37 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eintracht and Davis. Appeal 2011-003710 Application 10/600,390 6 DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9, 11–18, 25, 36, and 37 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED ELD Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation