Ex Parte Cowan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 11, 2014

11297676 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 11, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SCOTT D. COWAN, KIM D. LETKEMAN, and
MOHAMMED M. MOSTAFA
___________

Appeal 2011-006586
Application 11/297,676
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, TRENTON A. WARD, and
GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING

Appeal 2011-006586
Application 11/297,676

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is a decision on Appellants’ Request for Rehearing of our
Decision mailed March 20, 2014, wherein we affirmed the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
We have reconsidered our decision of March 20, 2014, in light of
Appellants’ comments in the request for rehearing, and we find no error
therein. We, therefore, decline to make any changes in our prior decision for
the reasons which follow.

Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the recited invention, and is
reproduced below (emphasis added):
1. A method for compositing deltas for artifacts, the method
comprising:

generating a plurality of deltas for a contributor artifact of
an ancestor artifact;

identifying interrelated ones of the deltas; and,

grouping the interrelated ones of the deltas into a
composited set of deltas.

Appellants’ Contentions
At page 3 of the Request for Rehearing, Appellants contend that the
Board erred because “the Board appears to have misapprehended the
statements of Appellants at the second page of the Reply Brief,” where
“Appellants had characterized Examiner’s construction of ‘deltas’ and
Appellants did not advance the claim construction of Examiner.” According
Appeal 2011-006586
Application 11/297,676

3
to Appellants, the “Examiner had not found a teaching of a delta for
interrelated deltas for different artifacts—a contributor artifact and an
ancestor artifact.” Id. at 3.
Along the same line, Appellants contend the Board erred because the
“Board concedes Rational XDE reference teaches a delta for different
versions of the same artifact” and “the Board has concluded that the Rational
XDE reference only teaches different versions of the same artifact—a single
artifact.” Id. at 3-4.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that the Board has erred because the term “delta”
should be the construed so as to “account for two different artifacts—a
contributor artifact and an ancestor artifact.” Request 4. We disagree with
Appellants’ overall contention of error, because Appellants have failed to
address the broadest reasonable interpretation of “delta” consistent with the
Specification.
The issues raised in Appellants’ Request for Rehearing requires us to
interpret claims giving the claim terms thereof the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification. See, e.g., In re Suitco
Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting In re ICON
Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing In re
Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004))). In this
respect, we consult the Specification to determine the meaning of the claim
terms, but do not limit claims to the specific embodiments and language
disclosed in the Specification when the claim terms can reasonably be
interpreted to have a broader meaning. See, e.g., Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d
Appeal 2011-006586
Application 11/297,676

4
1181, 1184-185 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed.
Cir. 1989).
In our Decision, we agreed with the Examiner’s finding that the claim
term “deltas” should be construed to mean “changes and differences.” Dec.
4 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 5, 21). Furthermore, similar to our analysis in the
Decision, Appellants’ construction that “deltas” “must account for two
different artifacts—a contributor artifact and an ancestor artifact” (Request
4)—is not supported by the broad scope of the claims as currently written.
See Dec. 4.
Moreover, the plain language of the claims, as currently written, does
not support Appellants’ construction of “deltas.” Independent claim 1 recite
“a plurality of deltas for a contributor artifact of an ancestor artifact,” it does
not recite “a plurality of deltas for a contributor artifact and an ancestor
artifact.”
Based upon a construction of “deltas” to mean “changes or
differences,” we are not persuaded of error in our determination that Ahmed
discloses the claim element of “deltas for a contributor artifact of an ancestor
artifact.” See Dec. 4. That is, Ahmed meets the claim limitation, because,
even if different parties make changes to the same artifact, both the original
version (ancestor) and a changed version (artifact version) exists and a user
can tell the difference (the change or delta) between the versions as shown in
the merge session (illustrated in Figure 8 of Ahmed). Id.
Therefore, we disagree with Appellants’ contention that the Board
erred when determining that the Examiner properly relied on Ahmed to
disclose the disputed claim limitation.

Appeal 2011-006586
Application 11/297,676

5
DECISION
In view of the foregoing discussion, we grant Appellants’ Request for
Rehearing to the extent of reconsidering our decision, but we deny
Appellants’ request with respect to making any change thereto.
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)(v).

REQUEST FOR REHEARING DENIED

msc