Ex Parte Greenberg et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2013

11583657 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MARK L. GREENBERG,
WOJCIECH GRYC, NICOLAS PICARD,
and VIVEK SEKHAR
____________

Appeal 2011-001467
Application 11/583,657
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-001467
Application 11/583,657

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 27-30, which are all the claims remaining in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Representative Claim
27. A suitably configured set of configured device(s)
implementing a data processing system for receiving and
processing collaborative data submitted by a plurality of
participants through collaboration tools, the system comprising:
a set of data storage means device(s)
an extendable hierarchical data structure, stored on the
set of data storage means device(s), a plurality of items
submitted by at least some of the plurality of participants, the
hierarchical data structure comprising a plurality of nodes
organized and associated in a tree format, with the hierarchical
data structure comprising:
a first workspace in the hierarchical data structure,
with the first workspace comprising a first linking node
and all lower level nodes associated to the first linking
node, and
a second workspace in the hierarchical data
structure, with the second workspace comprising a
second linking node and all lower level nodes associated
to the second linking node;
a first collaboration tool; and
a second collaboration tool;
wherein:
the first collaboration tool is assigned to the first
workspace so that the participants can input data to the first
workspace using the first collaboration tool;
Appeal 2011-001467
Application 11/583,657

3
the second collaboration tool is assigned to the second
workspace so that the participants can input data to the second
workspace using the second collaboration tool;
the first workspace, the first collaboration tool, the
second workspace and the second collaboration tool have a
functional relationship, which functional relationship is
improved in granularity, with ways in which the plurality of
participants can access various portions of the extendible
hierarchical data structure because: (i) participants are
selectively allowed ways of access associated with the first
workspace collaboration tool in the first workspace portion of
the extendible hierarchical data structure, but not necessarily
any other portions of the hierarchical data structure, and (ii)
participants are selectively allowed ways of access associated
with the second workspace collaboration tool in the second
workspace portion of the extendible hierarchical data structure,
but not necessarily any other portions of the hierarchical data
structure.

Prior Art
Kurosawa US 6,047,288 Apr. 4, 2000
Lusk US 2005/0097440 Al May 5, 2005
Estrada US 2005/0144232 Al Jun. 30, 2005

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 27-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kurosawa, Lusk, and Estrada.

Appeal 2011-001467
Application 11/583,657

4
ANALYSIS
Section 103 rejection of claims 27, 28, and 30
Appellants contend that the combination of Kurosawa, Lusk, and
Estrada does not teach a hierarchically-organized collaborative data
structure. Br. 12-15. In particular, Appellants contend that Figure 2C of
Lusk does not teach “a first workspace in the hierarchical data structure,
with the first workspace comprising a first linking node and all lower level
nodes associated to the first linking node, and a second workspace in the
hierarchical data structure, with the second workspace comprising a second
linking node and all lower level nodes associated to the second linking
node” as recited in claim 1. According to Appellants, the user account
folder 106 represents an access path, not a parent (or “linking”) node. Br.
14-15, citing Lusk ¶¶ 130-131. However, Appellants have not provided a
definition of “linking node” recited in claim 27 that excludes the user
account folder 106 that links the user’s account to work zones A, B, and C as
shown in Lusk Figure 2C.
Further, the Examiner finds that Figures 13 and 14 of Lusk teach a
hierarchically-organized collaborative data structure. Ans. 13-16. We agree
with the Examiner’s findings. For example, paragraph 130 of Lusk teaches
a work zone structure that makes it easy to organize projects from a single
interface. The work zone structure organizes collaboration tool modules,
such as discussions 1402 and documents 1404, under the parent node labeled
tools 1306, as shown in Figure 14. The discussions tool module 1402
organizes replies in a hierarchy (¶ 203), where each tool module has
associated permissions for accessing that module (¶ 196).
Appeal 2011-001467
Application 11/583,657

5
We agree with the Examiner that Lusk teaches a hierarchically-
organized collaborative data structure within the meaning of claim 27. We
sustain the rejection of claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants do not
present arguments for separate patentability of claims 28 and 30 which fall
with claim 27.

Section 103 rejection of claim 29
Appellants contend that Lusk does not teach “the nodes of the first
workspace do not overlap with the nodes of the second workspace.” Br. 16-
17. Appellants’ contention is based on the premise that Lusk does not teach
hierarchically-organized work zones, which we find unpersuasive as
discussed in our analysis of claim 27.
We sustain the rejection of claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 27-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kurosawa, Lusk, and Estrada 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

msc