Ex Parte Fletcher

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 28, 2014

12139178 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte BENJAMIN JOSEPH FLETCHER
_____________

Appeal 2012-006317
Application 12/139,178
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, and
CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 3, 5 through 14, 16, 17 and 19 through 22. Claims 4, 15,
and 18 have been canceled.
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a system for providing source information
of data being published. Abstract of Appellant’s Specification. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A method for providing source information of data being published,
comprising:
Appeal 2012-006317
Application 12/139,178
2

making available in a subscriber application executing in
memory of a computer, source information for a message, the source
information including:
a message topic; and
any source topics the message topic is derived from; and,
subscribing to source information for a message topic;
wherein the message indicates a live status on the source topics.

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 3, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14, 16, 19,
and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Collison (US
2004/0139166 A1; July 15, 2004) and O’Neill (US 2008/0104258 A1; May
1, 2008). Answer 4–11.1
The Examiner has rejected claims 9, 10, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Collison, O’Neill and Mikhailov (US
2006/0168101 A1; July 27, 2006). Answer 11–13
The Examiner has rejected claims 7, 11, 12, and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Collison, O’Neill and Bedi (US 2006/0047666
A1; Mar. 2, 2006). Answer 13–15.
ISSUES
Appellant’s arguments on pages 5 through 10 of the Appeal Brief
directed to the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Collison and O’Neill present us with two issues:
a) Did the Examiner provide a proper rationale to combine Collison
and O’Neill?

1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated September 19,
2011 and the Examiner’s Answer mailed on December 5, 2011.
Appeal 2012-006317
Application 12/139,178
3

b) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Collison and
O’Neill teaches a message with a live status on a source topic from
which a message topic of a message is derived as recited in claim
1?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to the Appellant’s
arguments. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusion that the Examiner
erred in finding that claims 1 through 3, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14, 16, 19, and 22 are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Collison and O’Neill.
The Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to each of
Appellant’s arguments on pages 15 through 18 of the Answer. With respect
to the first issue, the Examiner has provided a comprehensive rationale to
support combining Collison and O’Neillthe . Answer 16. We have
reviewed the Examiner’s rationale and we concur with, and adopt as our
own, the Examiner’s factual findings of a teaching, suggestion, or
motivation for that combination within O’Neill, as well as the legal
conclusion of obviousness resulting from that combination. We note that
Appellant’s arguments directed to this issue are predicated upon the
combined teachings of Collison and O’Neill not teaching a message with a
live status on a source topic from which a message topic of a message is
derived (the second issue). As discussed infra, we are not persuaded by
Appellant’s arguments directed to this second issue.
With respect to the second issue, Appellant asserts the teachings of
O’Neill cited by the Examiner, paragraphs 31 and 39, do not teach the
claimed live status. Brief 8–10. In response, the Examiner finds O’Neill
teaches that the topic information may include topics and sub-topics
Appeal 2012-006317
Application 12/139,178
4

organized in a hierarchical fashion. Answer 17. Further, the Examiner finds
O’Neill teaches topic/sub-topic information, which meets the live status
limitation. Answer 17–18. We have reviewed the evidence cited by the
Examiner and we concur with the Examiner’s finding. We note the
hierarchal relationship demonstrates that one is derived from the other. This
interpretation of the term “derived from” is consistent with Appellant’s
Specification on page 7 and Appellant’s Figure 2, which depicts a message
topic and the source topic it is derived from as being in a hierarchical
relationship. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through
3, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14, 16, 19, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Collison and O’Neill.
Appellant asserts the rejections of claims 7, 9 through 12, 17, 20, and
21 are in error for the same reason as discussed with respect to the rejection
of claim 1.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 3, 5 through
14, 16, 17, and 19 through 22 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

tj