Ex Parte Crolene et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 26, 201613571465 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/571,465 08/10/2012 26890 7590 08/30/2016 JAMES M. STOVER TERADATA US, INC. 10000 INNOVATION DRIVE DAYTON, OH 45342 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR David Crolene 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. 12272.DOl 1013 EXAMINER PHAM, MICHAEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2167 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/30/2016 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): michelle. boldman @teradata.com jam es.stover@teradata.com td.uspto@outlook.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DAVID CROLENE, GEORGE HITCHCOCK, MIKE KLINKENBERG, RANDY MATTHEWS, and ERIC FELICE Appeal2015-003004 Application 13/571,465 Technology Center 2100 Before ELENI MANTIS-MERCADER, JOHN A. EV ANS, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. Opinion for the Board filed by Administrative Patent Judge JOli1...J A. EV ANS, Dissenting Opinion filed by Administrative Patent Judge ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2015-003004 Application 13/571,465 Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Rejection of Claims 1-10. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We REVERSE.2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims relate to a method for aggregating structured content. App. Br. 3. The Invention Claims 1 and 10 are independent. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary Claim 1, which is reproduced below with some formatting added: 1. A method for aggregating structured content, comprising: accessing at least one of a plurality of structured content systems using a conversion module; selecting a structured content object contained in the at least one of the plurality of structured content systems; retrieving parameters that define the selected structured content object; and storing the parameters in a metadata repository. 1 The Appeal Brief identifies Teradata US, Incorporated, as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed June 23, 2014, "App. Br."), the Examiner's Answer (mailed Nov. 7, 2014, "Ans."), the Final Action (mailed Dec. 27, 2013, "Final Act."), and the Specification (filed Aug. 10, 2012, "Spec.") for their respective details. 2 Appeal2015-003004 Application 13/571,465 References and Re} ection The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows: Claims 1-10 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Wu et al. ("Wu", US 6,959,339 Bl; Oct. 25, 2005), (priority Nov. 6, 1998). Final Act. 2-7. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1-10 in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. We agree with Appellants' conclusions. We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 5-10. INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 1AND10: ANTICIPATION BY WU A plurality of structured content systems. The Examiner finds that \Vu discloses the claimed "accessing at least one of a plurality of structured content systems." Final Act. 2 (citing Wu, Figure 1, elements 100, 104, and 106). Appellants contend that Wu fails to disclose the claimed "plurality of structured content systems." App. Br. 5 (citing Wu, col. 3, 11. 29--40). Appellants argue Wu discloses elements 100, 104, and 106 as a client computer, a server computer, and a data storage, respectively. Id. The Examiner's Answer finds element 100 is a structured content system because it typically executes a web browser; element 104 is a structured content system because it executes a data storage interface; and element 106 is a structured content system because it stores structured content. Ans. 2. 3 Appeal2015-003004 Application 13/571,465 Appellants' Specification defines "structured content." Spec., i-f 5 ("[s]tructured content is data transformed through a series of business rules, programming logic, and organizational constructs as defined by an authoring application"). Wu defines element 100 as "a client computer"; element 104 as "a server computer"; and element 106 as "data storage." Wu, col. 3, 11. 16, 17, and 20. The Examiner points to no disclosure in Wu that characterizes the data handled by any of these various systems as "data transformed through a series of business rules," nor does the Examiner find that the data so handled must inherently be "transformed through a series of business rules," as claimed. We are persuaded of error and decline to sustain the rejection of independent Claims 1 and 10. DEPENDENT CLAIMS 2-9: ANTICIPATION BY Wu For the foregoing reasons, \'l.;e similarly decline to sustain the rejections of the dependent claims. DECISION The rejection of Claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is REVERSED. REVERSED 4 Appeal2015-003004 Application 13/571,465 MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge, dissenting. I respectfully dissent from the majority's opinion reversing the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-10. I respectfully disagree with the majority's claim construction of the terms "structured content." Contrary to the majority's opinion, stating that "nor does the Examiner find that the data so handled must inherently be 'transformed through a series of business rules,' as claimed", nothing in claim 1 recites such a limitation. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, the majority opinion inappropriately imports the limitation of "data transformed through a series of business rules," from Appellants' Specification into claim 1. Our reviewing Court determined that although claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). During ex parte prosecution, claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allo\'l/ since 1A:\.pplicants have the po\'l/er during the administrative process to amend the claims to avoid the prior art. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Furthermore, Appellants' Specification states "structured content is often a virtual, logical representation of content" (Spec. i-f 5). Thus, it is unclear why the Examiner's finding of "a file object" (Final Act. 3) which constitutes a virtual and logical representation of content does not constitute structured content under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the majority's opinion reversing the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-10. 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation