Ex Parte Gschiermeister et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 18, 2014

10562380 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 18, 2014)

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.
10/562,380 12/23/2005 Claus Gschiermeister 6741P089 1914
8791 7590 02/18/2014
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN
1279 Oakmead Parkway
Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040
EXAMINER
VERDI, KIMBLEANN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2196
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/18/2014 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 CLAUS GSCHIERMEISTER, GABRIEL ALVAREZ,
DOMINIC POETSCHKE, and GREGOR RIEKEN
____________

Appeal 2011-009541
Application 10/562,380
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-009541
Application 10/562,380

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-28, which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Representative Claim
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a notification regarding a data object indicating a change to
the data object;
upon each receipt of the notification, requesting, by an agent
executing in a computer system, changed data from the data object;
checking, by the agent, a plurality of entries representative of a
plurality of applications maintained by the agent to determine whether the
changed data is relevant for each application in the plurality of applications,
notifying, by the agent, an application about the changed data if the
change is relevant for that application; and
transmitting, by the agent, the changed data to the application.

Prior Art
Brodsky US 5,991,536 Nov. 23, 1999
Chow US 6,029,175 Feb. 22, 2000
Reed US 6,044,205 Mar. 28, 2000
Attwood US 2005/0015441 A1 Jan. 20, 2005

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 23, and 28 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brodsky and Chow.
Claims 6, 8, 13, 20, 22, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Brodsky, Chow, and Attwood.
Appeal 2011-009541
Application 10/562,380

3
Claims 2, 3, 10-12, 16, 17, and 24-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Brodsky, Chow, and Reed.

ANALYSIS
Section 103 rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 9, 14, 18, 19, 23, and 28
Claim 1 recites “requesting, by an agent executing in a computer
system, changed data from the data object.” The Examiner finds Chow
teaches receiving a change notification, then determining changes in the
object by comparing the new version of the object with the old version.
Ans. 6, 28-29. Appellants contend comparing the new version with the old
version as taught by Chow does not teach requesting changed data. App. Br.
6-8. In particular, Appellants contend that comparing the entire new object
with the entire old object to determine changes in the new object is somehow
different than requesting changed data from the data object. Reply Br. 2-5.
Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence or argument to
distinguish “requesting . . . changed data from the data object” from
determining changes in the object by comparing new and old versions of the
object as taught by Chow. We agree with the Examiner that the combination
of Brodsky and Chow teaches “requesting, by an agent executing in a
computer system, changed data from the data object.”
Appellants contend the Examiner has not provided motivation to
modify the teachings of Brodsky with the teachings of Chow. App. Br. 8-9;
Reply Br. 5-6. Chow teaches determining changes to an object by
comparing the new version with the old version. Col. 30, ll. 43-47. Brodsky
teaches notifying observer objects of changes made to observed objects.
Col. 3, ll. 56-63. Determining changes to an object as taught by Chow, then
Appeal 2011-009541
Application 10/562,380

4
notifying observer objects of the changes as taught by Brodsky, represents
the combination of familiar elements according to known methods that does
no more than yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
We agree with the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 for the reasons
given by the Examiner in the Final Rejection and Examiner’s Answer. We
sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants do not
present arguments for separate patentability of claims 4, 5, 9, 14, 18, 19, 23,
and 28, which fall with claim 1.

Section 103 rejection of claims 7 and 21
Claim 7 recites “filtering out data from the changed data not to be
communicated to the application, prior to transmitting the changed data to
the application.” The Examiner finds that removing a deleted observed
object from the object hierarchy, so that changed data of the deleted object is
not sent as taught by Brodsky, teaches filtering out data from the changed
data. Ans. 9, 48-50. Appellants contend that deleting observed objects in an
object hierarchy does not teach filtering out data from the changed data.
Reply Br. 6-9.
Appellants have not provided a definition of “filtering out data from
the changed data” that excludes removing a deleted observed object from the
object hierarchy, so that changed data of the deleted object is not sent.
Cumulative to the Examiner’s findings, we find Chow teaches
evaluating a change in the object, and if the change is not significant, then
the revision manager processor is finished responding to the change
notification (col. 30, ll. 43-47), which teaches “filtering out data from the
Appeal 2011-009541
Application 10/562,380

5
changed data not to be communicated to the application, prior to
transmitting the changed data to the application” within the meaning of
claim 7. We agree with the Examiner that the combination of Brodsky and
Chow teaches “filtering out data from the changed data not to be
communicated to the application, prior to transmitting the changed data to
the application.”
We sustain the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants
do not present arguments for separate patentability of claim 21, which falls
with claim 7.

Section 103 rejection of claim 15
Claim 15 recites “the agent generates a first input interface to allow
for registering the entry representative of the data object, and the agent
generates a second input interface to allow for registering the entry
representative of the application.” Appellants contend Brodsky teaches a
number of different views to allow a user to construct an object hierarchy or
its component parts, such as an observer object, which is somehow different
from generating a view for a registered object and generating a different
view for a registered object. App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 9-10. The Examiner
finds that the user interfaces shown in Figure 2 of Brodsky teach the first
and second input interfaces. Ans. 12, 58.
We agree with the Examiner for the reasons given by the Examiner in
the Final Rejection and Examiner’s Answer. Cumulative to the Examiner’s
findings, we find Figures 6A-6D of Brodsky teach displaying an interface
for changing an attribute of an observed object and displaying the change in
the observer object.
Appeal 2011-009541
Application 10/562,380

6
We sustain the rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Section 103 rejection of claims 6, 8, 13, 20, 22, and 27
Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of
claims 6, 8, 13, 20, 22, and 27, which fall with claim 1.

Section 103 rejection of claims 2, 3, 10-12, 16, 17, and 24-26
Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of
claims 2, 3, 10-12, 16, 17, and 24-26, which fall with claim 1.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 23, and 28
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brodsky and Chow is
affirmed.
The rejection of claims 6, 8, 13, 20, 22, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Brodsky, Chow, and Attwood is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 2, 3, 10-12, 16, 17, and 24-26 under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Brodsky, Chow, and Reed 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

bab