Ex Parte Kaario et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2016

12567503 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/567,503 0912512009
11764 7590
Ditthavong & Steiner, P,C,
44 Canal Center Plaza
Suite 322
Alexandria, VA 22314
05/02/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Juha Kaario
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.
P3208USOO 4463
EXAMINER
DEBNATH, SUMAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2495
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2016 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):
docket@dcpatent.com
Nokia.IPR@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JURA KAARIO and JUKKA SAARINEN
Appeal2014-009863
Application 12/567 ,503 1
Technology Center 2400
Before HUNG H. BUI, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-22, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants indicate the real party in interest is Nokia Corporation. App.
Br. 1.
Appeal2014-009863
Application 12/567,503
Invention
The claims are directed to embedding requests for news inputs in web
feeds to news input sources. Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 is reproduced below, with disputed limitations
emphasized.
1. A method comprising:
receiving, via at least one processor, a request for news
input in conjunction with a web feed, wherein the request
includes filtering information for targeting news input sources;
and
causing at least in part, via the at least one processor,
transmitting of the web feed with the request for news input
embedded in the web feed to a news input source that satisfies
the filtering information.
Applied Prior Art
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Kahn et al.
Marlow
Rajan
US 2007/0266414 Al
US 2009/0112833 Al
US 2010/0250647 Al
Examiner's Rejections
Nov. 15, 2007
Apr. 30, 2009
Sept. 30, 2010
(1) Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 12, 16-18, 20, and 22 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Marlow and Rajan.
(2) Claims 3-5, 8-10, 13-15, and 19-21 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Marlow, Rajan and Kahn.
2
Appeal2014-009863
Application 12/567,503
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and the evidence of
record in light of Appellants' arguments the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellants' arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our
own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Action
from which this appeal is taken; and (2) the findings and the reasons set
forth in the Examiner's Answer. We concur with the conclusions reached by
the Examiner and further highlight specific findings and argument for
emphasis as follows.
Independent Claims 1, 6, 11, and 17
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims
1, 6, 11, and 17, because the combination of Marlow and Rajan does not
teach or suggest "transmitting of the web feed with the request for news
input embedded in the web feed to a news input source that satisfies the
filtering information," as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 6,
11, and 17. App. Br. 5-7; Reply Br. 2--4.
Appellants argue:
merely because an RSS feed comprises a document does not,
necessarily, mean that that document is "embedded" in the RSS
feed. Even if the document were embedded in the feed, this still
does not correspond to the claimed subject matter, which requires
that a request (not a document that may be the result of the
request) be embedded in the web feed. Moreover, even though
the document in Marlow may comprise data fields that "relate to
a query response," even if the document were embedded in the
RSS feed, a premise with which Appellants do not agree,
embedded data fields that "relate to a query response" do not
correspond to an embedding of the actual request since the claims
require that the request be embedded in the web feed. In contrast
3
Appeal2014-009863
Application 12/567,503
at best, ivfarlow may only be considered to include data fields
relating to a request response in an RSS feed.
App. Br. 6.
The Examiner correctly points out, however, that claim 1 recites
"embedded in the web feed" and not embedded in "the RSS feed" as
Appellants argue. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that:
it is well understood that the underlying communication protocol
for the web is HTTP. The request with a web feed would be
equivalent to "an HTTP search request" shown by Marlow. Thus,
search query embedded in a HTTP search request which, as
admitted by the applicant, is shown by Marlow is equivalent to
Appellant's claimed limitation "embedded in the web feed."
Ans. 3.
In Reply, Appellants admit that claim 1 does not recite embedding a
search query "in a RSS feed." Reply Br. 2. Appellants, however, proffer no
evidence to rebut the Examiner's finding that a request with a web feed
would be equivalent to an HTTP search request as shown by Marlow.2 See
Reply Br. 2--4. Thus, Appellant do not provide sufficient evidence or a
technical line of reasoning to persuade us the Examiner's finding constitutes
error.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's finding
that the combination of Marlow and Rajan teaches or suggests "transmitting
of the web feed with the request for news input embedded in the web feed to
a news input source that satisfies the filtering information," as recited in
independent claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claims 6, 11, and
17.
2 Appellants offer to amend the claims to recite "RSS feed" instead of "web
feed". Reply Br. 2.
4
Appeal2014-009863
Application 12/567,503
Remaining Claims
Appellants have not presented separate, substantive, persuasive
arguments with respect to remaining claims 2--4, 6, 8, 13, 14, and 17. See
App. Br. 9-21. Appellants agree that "the patentability of all dependent
claims stands and falls with their respective independent claims, i.e.,
independent claims 1, 6, 11, and 17." App. Br. 4. Accordingly, we sustain
the Examiner's rejection of these claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-22.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5