Ex Parte Crucs

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 27, 2016

13005209 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/005,209 01112/2011 Kevin M. Crucs
119392 7590 06/01/2016
HAHN LOESER & PARKS LLP/APTERYX/CRUCS
1 Gojo Plaza
Suite 300
Akron, OH 44311
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.
201260.00051 2016
EXAMINER
KIM, PAUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2169
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2016 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):
patents@hahnlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KEVIN M. CRUCS
Appeal2014-009773
Application 13/005,209
Technology Center 2100
Before JASON V. MORGAN, MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Croes Holdings, LLC.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-009773
Application 13/005,209
THE INVENTION
Appellant's invention "provid[ es] a multi-party document revision
capability" whereby "each party associated with [a master electronic
document] has to approve any proposed change before the proposed change
is automatically entered as a formally accepted change[.]" Abst.; see also
Spec. i-f 47. Independent claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below.
1. A non-transitory computer-readable medium having
computer-executable instructions for enabling the performance
of a method of multi-party document revision comprising:
establishing a master electronic document, having an embedded
and unalterable document identification code;
assigning a unique identifier code to each party of a plurality of
parties having permission to edit said master electronic
document, and associating said document identification code
with each of said unique identifier codes;
accessing said master electronic document and making a
proposed edited change to said master electronic document using
one of said unique identifier codes;
accessing said master electronic document and accepting or
rejecting said proposed edited change using one of said unique
identifier codes; and
automatically entering said proposed edited change into said
master electronic document as a formally accepted change only
if each of said unique identifier codes has been used to accept
said proposed edited change.
2
Appeal2014-009773
Application 13/005,209
REFERENCES AND REJECTION
Claims 1-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Alley (US 2003/0078880 Al; April 24, 2003) and Pravetz (US 7,735,144
B2; June 8, 2010).
AT-ISSUE SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant describes at-issue subject matter as follows:
The claimed invention of the present application is
concerned with a plurality of authorized parties being able to
make provisional changes to a master document. However, no
change of those provisional changes become formal, permanent
changes until all parties of the plurality of authorized parties
agree to the change (i.e., formally accept the change).
App. Br. 10. We observe independent claim 1 recites the above restrictions
as follows:
[A ]ssigning a unique identifier code to each party of a plurality
of parties having permission to edit said master electronic
document[;] ... making of a proposed edited change to said
master electronic document using one of said unique identifier
codes; ... and automatically entering said proposed edited
change into said master electronic document as a formally
accepted change only if each of said unique identifier codes has
been used to accept said proposed edited change.
Independent claim 6 recites commensurate subject matter in
means-plus-function terminology. Remaining claims 2-5 and 7-10
respectively depend from claims 1 and 6.
3
Appeal2014-009773
Application 13/005,209
CONTENTIONS
Appellant argues the applied prior art does not teach the above subject
matter, contending:
The Examiner points to paragraph [0079] of Alley as
disclosing the step of automatically entering said proposed edited
change into said master electronic document as a formally
accepted change only if each of said unique identifier codes have
been used to accept the proposed edited change. Applicant
respectfully disagrees. Instead, Alley describes whether a user
may sign a document depending on a signing constraint
associated with a document signing block. In Alley, an
information block includes indicia of a signing constraint
requiring the signing party to have a particular digital certificate,
such as a certificate issued by a certain certification authority, or
a certificate having a certain security or authorization level. If a
signing terminal determines that one accessible digital certificate
satisfies the signing constraint, then the signing terminal will
permit the user at the terminal to proceed to sign the document
using the certificate that satisfied the constraint. This has nothing
to do with the claimed invention of the present application.
App. Br. 11-12.
The Examiner responds:
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to
show certain features of applicant's invention, it is noted that the
features upon which applicant relies (i.e., provisional changes to
a master document such that said provisional changes become
permanent when all parties of the plurality of authorized parties
agree to the change) are not recited in the rejected claim(s).
. . . Specifically, it is noted that the claimed features fail to
provide a method or means wherein "provisional changes" are
made to a master document such that "those provisional changes
become formal, permanent changes until all parties of the
plurality of authorized parties agree to the change." Rather, the
claimed invention only requires that changes are accepted "only
4
Appeal2014-009773
Application 13/005,209
if each of said unique identifier codes has been used to accept
said proposed edited change."
Ans. 4.
And, Appellant replies:
While the Office correctly notes that Appellant paraphrased the
claim language for readability ... , Appellant's conclusion
remains accurate: The claims protect "making a proposed edited
change" which remains proposed until "entering said proposed
edited change into said master electronic document as a formally
accepted change only if each of said unique identifier codes has
been used to accept said proposed edited change" is complete.
As Appellant argued, all of the parties must consent, because
"accepting or rejecting said proposed edited change" is
performed "using one of said unique identifier codes", each of
which must be used to accept before a proposed changed
becomes formally accepted.
Reply Br. 4.
ANALYSTS
Claim 1 requires "assigning a unique identifier code to each party of a
plurality of parties." App. Br. 14. Claim 1 further requires entering a
proposed edited change "only if each of said unique identifier codes has
been used to accept said proposed edited change." Id. Thus, at least a
plurality of unique identifier codes is necessary to enter and accept a
proposed edited change to the document.
The Examiner finds Alley teaches the limitation of entering a
proposed change only if each of said unique identifier codes has been used
to accept said proposed edited change. Final Act. 3 (citing Alley i-f 79); Ans.
6. In particular, the Examiner finds Alley teaches a proposed change in the
form of a signature and entering the change if a valid digital certificate is
5
Appeal2014-009773
Application 13/005,209
used to sign the document. Final Act. 3 ("See Alley, [0079], wherein this
reads over 'where the information block includes indicia of a signing
constraint requiring the signing party to have a particular digital certificate,
such as a certificate issued by a certain certification authority .... "')
We agree, however, with Appellant that Alley teaches allowing a user
to sign the document if one accessible digital certificate satisfies the signing
constraint. App. Br. 12 (citing Alley i-f 79 ("If the signing terminal 203
determines that one accessible digital certificate satisfies the signing
constraint, then the signing terminal will permit the user at the terminal 203
to proceed to sign the document 217 using the certificate that satisfied the
constraint.")). Alley does not describe entering and accepting a proposed
change to a document using a plurality of unique identifier codes, and thus
does not teach "only if each of said unique identifier codes has been used to
accept said proposed edited change," as recited by claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1
and of independent claim 6 which contains substantially the same limitation.
For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the rejection of claims 2-5 and
7-10 which depend from one of claims 1 and 6.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-10 is reversed.
REVERSED
6