Ex Parte Kataoka

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 27, 2011

10632178 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 27, 2011)

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.
10/632,178 07/31/2003 Katsuhisa Kataoka JP920020135US1 (294) 9826
46320 7590 06/27/2011
CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & PAUL, LLP
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
950 PENINSULA CORPORATE CIRCLE
SUITE 2022
BOCA RATON, FL 33487
EXAMINER
CAO, DIEM K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2196
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte KATSUHISA KATAOKA
____________________

Appeal 2009-011118
Application 10/632,178
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ALLEN R. MacDONALD and DAVID M.
KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges.

MACDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-011118
Application 10/632,178

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
19-29 and 31-35. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1

Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claims 19 and 20 under appeal read as follows:
19. An interface apparatus for a first structured document, comprising:
a first processor for
receiving a processing request from a first application
program, as a processing requester, for a first structured
document, and
performing a lexical analysis of the first structured
document to obtain a series of events related to the first
structured document in order;
store means for
associating the series of events, as event set information,
with the first structured document,
storing the event set information into a cache; and
first notification means for notifying the first application program of
the series of events related to the first structured document in order from the
event set information in the cache upon the event set information being in
the cache with respect to the structured document prior to the processing
request being received.

20. The interface apparatus for the first structured document according to
claim 19, further comprising:
a second processor for performing a lexical analysis of a second
structured document having event set information not in the cache, and
second notification means for notifying a second application program
as a processing requester of a series of events relating to the second
structured document in order, wherein

1
All references by the Examiner and Appellant to the rejection and appeal of
cancelled claim 30 are deemed to be mistaken.
Appeal 2009-011118
Application 10/632,178

3
the store means associates the series of events, notified to the second
application program by the second notification means as the event set
information, with the second structured document to store the information
into the cache.

§ 103 Rejections on Appeal
2

The Examiner rejected claims 19-21, 25-27, and 31-33 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ayyagari
(US 7,020,681 B1) and Patel (US 2002/0107881 A1).
The Examiner rejected claims 22-24, 28-29, and 34-36 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ayyagari,
Patel, and Coulouris.
3

Appellant’s Contentions
1. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because “Ayyagari fails to teach the „event set
information‟ ” (App. Br. 7) and Patel‟s stylesheet “would also not be
comparable to the claimed „event set information‟ ” (App. Br. 8).
2. Appellant further contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because “absent from [the Examiner cited
Ayyagari] passage, however, is a teaching of a first processing means and a
second processing means and a control means for determining . . . as
claimed”. (App. Br. 10).
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 19 as being obvious because
the references fail to teach or suggest the claim limitations at issue?

2
Separate patentability is not argued for claims 20-29 and 31-35.
3
George Coulouris et al., “Distributed Systems, Concepts and Design,”
Second Edition, Addison-Wesley, pp. 222-233, 1994.
Appeal 2009-011118
Application 10/632,178

4
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiners‟ rejections in light of Appellant‟s
numerous arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has
erred.
We disagree with Appellant‟s 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 reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the Examiner‟s Answer in response to Appellant‟s Appeal Brief. We
concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner.
As to Appellant‟s above first contention that the prior art fails to teach
“event set information”, this contention is contradicted by Appellant‟s own
admission that a “series of events” was known in the prior art (Spec.
¶ [0003].
As to Appellant‟s above second contention, Appellant provides no
analysis as to the claim construction of the first processing means, second
processing means, or control means. A review of Appellant‟s Specification
finds that these structures are merely disclosed as “first processing means”, “
second processing means”, and “control means” respectively (Fig. 6)
without limitation of these means to any particular structure. We see no
basis for Appellant‟s blanket argument that these means are not taught by
the passage cited by the Examiner when Appellant does not dispute that the
Examiner has correctly found that the cited passage sets forth a system for
performing the functions performed by Appellant‟s claimed means.
Appeal 2009-011118
Application 10/632,178

5
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 19-29 and 31-35
as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) Claims 19-29 and 31-35 are not patentable.

DECISION
The Examiner‟s rejections of claims 19-29 and 31-35 are 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

ELD