Ex Parte GoelzerDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 24, 201311769524 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/769,524 06/27/2007 Andreas P. Goelzer CAM920070101US1 (193) 4959 46321 7590 09/25/2013 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG 7900 Glades Road SUITE 520 BOCA RATON, FL 33434 EXAMINER VO, CECILE H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2169 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/25/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte ANDREAS P. GOELZER ____________________ Appeal 2011-004774 Application 11/769,524 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before JAMES B. ARPIN, GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, and PATRICK M. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-004774 Application 11/769,524 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Illustrative Claim The claimed subject matter relates to element identification in a collaborative computing environment (Spec. ¶1). Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized: 1. A method for locating an unstructured element in a collaborative computing environment comprises: receiving in element naming logic executing in memory by a processor of a host server, a request for an unstructured element in the collaborative environment; extracting a hierarchy of unique identifiers from the request; locating a last folder referenced by the hierarchy of unique identifiers; and, returning a reference to the folder as a location of the unstructured element. References The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Burd US 7,013,340 B1 Mar. 14, 2006 Appeal 2011-004774 Application 11/769,524 3 Rejections The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 11–16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to nonstatutory subject matter (Ans. 3). Claims 1–16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as anticipated by Burd (Ans. 4–8). ANALYSIS § 101 Rejection Because Appellant presents no arguments regarding the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11–16 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, we summarily sustain these rejections. See MPEP § 1205.02, Rev. 9, August 2012 (“If a ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the appellant’s brief, that ground of rejection will be summarily sustained by the Board”). § 102 Rejection The issue presented by Appellant’s arguments is whether the Examiner erred in finding that Burd discloses “locating a last folder referenced by the hierarchy of unique identifiers,” as recited in claim 1.1 1 Appellant indicates that claims 2–6 stand or fall together with claim 1, that claims 8–10 stand or fall together with claim 7, and that claims 12–16 stand or fall together with claim 11 (Br. 5). In addition, Appellant asserts that “[e]ach of claims 1, 7 and 11 recite similar limitations” (Br. 5), presenting arguments collectively for those claims. In considering the § 102 rejection, we accordingly treat claim 1 as representative of all pending claims. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appeal 2011-004774 Application 11/769,524 4 Burd relates to “server-side control objects that handle postback input received from a client” (Burd, col. 1, ll. 22–23). The Examiner finds that Burd discloses the disputed limitation in Burd’s description of server-side operations for locating a server-side control object in a control object hierarchy (Ans. 5, citing Burd, col. 22, ll. 11–37). In particular, the Examiner identifies the “leaf node” described in the following disclosure as corresponding to the “last folder” recited in claim 1: Each level of the identifier is referred to as a “node level identifier”. The lowest level of an ID identifies a control object that is a leaf node of the ID. For example, given an ID of “/Pagel1/List2/ListRow1”, the top node level identifier of the ID is “Page1”, “List2” and “ListRow1” are node level identifiers, and “ListRow1” represents a leaf node of the ID. (Burd, col. 22, ll. 20–26). We agree with the Examiner’s reasoning. Appellant contends that the Examiner is inconsistent in construing the term “last folder” because the Examiner construes the term as meaning both “leaf node of the ID” and as meaning “‘lowest level of an ID’ identifying a ‘control object’” (Br. 6–7). We do not find this contention persuasive because it mischaracterizes the Examiner’s construction. As the Examiner correctly observes, neither the Specification nor the claims provide any clear definition of “last folder” (Ans. 10). Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, the Examiner construes “last folder” as “a location in the control object hierarchy for processing given data” (Ans. 10), finding that the leaf node of the ID described by Burd corresponds to such a last folder (see Ans. 5). We agree. Appellant also contends that, because a hierarchical path to a control object may include a last identifier that specifies the control object, “[t]he Appeal 2011-004774 Application 11/769,524 5 actual ‘leaf node’ of the hierarchical path of Burd is the control object itself” (Br. 8). Appellant accordingly reasons that “a proper claim construction of ‘last folder’ in respect to Burd would have been the second to last node of the hierarchical path” (Br. 8). We disagree with this reasoning because it does not apply the broadest reasonable interpretation of “last folder” consistent with the Specification. We accordingly sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under § 102(e), as well as the rejection of claims 7 and 11, which recite similar limitations and which are not argued separately with particularity, and of the various dependent claims, which fall with their respective, independent claims. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–16 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 ke Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation