Ex Parte Dettinger et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 5, 2018

12128133 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 5, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/128, 133 05/28/2008
46797 7590 10/10/2018
Patterson & Sheridan, LLP
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Richard D. Dettinger
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.
ROC920070637US 1 9753
EXAMINER
ROSTAMI, MOHAMMAD S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2154
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/10/2018 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):
Pair_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com
IBM@P ATTERSONSHERIDAN.COM
rociplaw@us.ibm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICHARD D. DETTINGER, FREDERICK A. KULACK,
BRIAN E. OLSON, and ERIC W. WILL
Appeal2017-006466
Application 12/128, 133
Technology Center 2100
Before STEPHEN C. SIU, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
BRETT C. MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SIU, Administrative Patent Judge
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-24. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b ).
The disclosed invention relates generally to enforcing compliance
with publishing rules. Spec ,r 1. Independent claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A method for providing feedback to a content
author regarding publication requirements for content being
authored, comprising:
identifying, while the content author is authoring the
content, a portion of the content being authored subject to a
workflow associated with a publishing rule, wherein the
Appeal2017-006466
Application 12/128, 133
workflow specifies a sequence of steps to perform to evaluate
the content prior to publication of the content to comply with
the publishing rule, wherein the identified portion comprises a
text sentence that references an organization specified by the
publishing rule;
querying an audit log storing one or more metrics related
to prior instances of performing the workflow; and
generating a graphical user interface to display the
metrics related to prior instances of performing the workflow to
the content author.
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3-5, and 7-24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Kim (US 2009/0299998 Al, published
December 3, 2009), English (US 2005/0216555 Al, published September
29, 2005), and Chamock (US 2006/0271526 Al, published November 30,
2006) and claims 2 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Kim, English, Chamock, and Daniel (US 2003/0163784 Al, published
August 28, 2003).
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-24?
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites identifying a portion of content being authored subject
to a workflow associated with a publishing rule, wherein the identified
portion comprises a text sentence that references an organization specified
by the publishing rule. Claims 9 and 1 7 recite a similar feature.
The Examiner finds that Kim discloses a "search engine optimization
and search engine" that "collect[ s] ... keywords" and "allow[ s[ a user to
define a rule set by which a new keyword may be grouped with a keyword
group," that Chamock discloses "subpoena cut-off indicators [325, 328] ...
2
Appeal2017-006466
Application 12/128, 133
used in conjunction with workflow rules that provide a warning to the user
that a review decision may be inappropriate on the basis of timeline," and
that English discloses "event information published by ... respective agency
systems" and "stor[ing] ... rules and workflow definitions to push
information to agency systems" and "providing other central administrative
functions." Final. Rej. 3--4. The Examiner also finds that Kim discloses a
"search engine ... development tool" that provides "keyword discovery"
and "text authoring tools" such that a user "could browse keywords" or
"graph a distribution of keywords." Final Rej. 6-7.
Hence, the Examiner finds that Kim discloses a search engine that
groups keywords into groups and a user browsing and/ or graphing the
keywords, Charnock discloses a warning that a decision may be
inappropriate, and English discloses storing rules at an agency and
publishing event information from the agency. We agree with Appellants
that the Examiner has not sufficiently explained how Kim discloses the
disputed claim limitations. See, e.g., App. Br. 10-15. For example,
although the Examiner states that Kim discloses a search engine and
grouping and graphing keywords, the Examiner does not explain sufficiently
how Kim also discloses an identified portion of text that comprises a text
sentence that references an organization specified by the publishing rule.
In clarifying, the Examiner states that Kim discloses "browsing
keyword distributions," "defin[ing] different relative weightings for different
actions," "determin[ing] the overall importance of different keywords,"
"collecting a data set of ... keywords," and "allowing a user to define a rule
set by which a new keyword may be grouped." Ans. 3--4. The Examiner
also re-iterates that Charnock discloses data that "provide[s] a warning to the
user that a review decision may be inappropriate" and that English discloses
3
Appeal2017-006466
Application 12/128, 133
receiving information published by an agency system and storing
information to push information to agency systems. Ans. 4--5.
We do not find the Examiner's further explanation sufficient to
demonstrate that Kim ( or any of Chamock or English), in fact, discloses the
disputed claim limitation because the Examiner does not explain
persuasively how Kim discloses an identified text sentence that references
an organization specified by the publishing rule, as recited in claim 1.
Instead, the Examiner merely states that Kim discloses a search engine that
groups keywords into groups and a user browsing and/ or graphing the
keywords, none of which appears to relate to an identified text sentence that
references an organization specified by the publishing rule.
SUMMARY
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-5, and 7-24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kim, English, and Chamock and
claims 2 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kim, English,
Chamock, and Daniel.
REVERSED
4