Ex Parte KISLANKO

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 31, 2002

08962428 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 31, 2002)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not binding precedent of the
Board.
Paper No. 15
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte JAMES P. KISLANKO
__________
Appeal No. 2000-2220
Application 08/962,428
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before JERRY SMITH, FLEMING and GROSS, Administrative Patent
Judges.
JERRY SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-17, 19 and
20. Claims 5, 12 and 18 have been indicated to contain allowable
subject matter. An amendment after final rejection was filed on
September 13, 1999 and was entered by the examiner.
The disclosed invention pertains to a computer-based
system for inferring an output date expressed in a format having
a four-digit calendar year from a historical input date expressed
Appeal No. 2000-2220
Application 08/962,428
2
in a format having a two-digit calendar year and the current date
expressed in a format having a four-digit calendar year.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A computer-based system for inferring an output date
expressed in a format having a four-digit calendar year from a
historical input date expressed in a format having a two-digit
calendar year, comprising:
an application program operable to communicate an input
date parameter corresponding to the input date, the input date
parameter specifying a two-digit input year value;
an operating system operable to communicate a current
system date recognizable in a format having a four-digit calendar
year, the first two digits of the four-digit calendar year for
the current system date having a current century value and the
last two digits of the four-digit calendar year for the current
system date having a current two-digit value; and
a converter coupled to the application program and to
the operating system, the converter operable to receive the input
date parameter and the current system date and to recognize the
four-digit calendar year for the current system date, the
converter operable to compare the input year value with the
current two-digit value and, if the input year value is less than
or equal to the current two-digit value, to infer the first two
digits of the four-digit calendar year of the output date to be
the current century value.
The examiner relies on the following reference:
Connor 5,806,067 Sep. 08, 1998
(filed Oct. 21, 1996)
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-17, 19 and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by the disclosure of
Connor.
Appeal No. 2000-2220
Application 08/962,428
3
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejection advanced by the examiner and the evidence
of anticipation relied upon by the examiner as support for the
rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellant’s
arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner’s
rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal
set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the evidence relied upon does not support the rejection
made by the examiner. Accordingly, we reverse.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention as well
as disclosing structure which is capable of performing the
recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital
Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.
Cir.); cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L. Gore and
Appeal No. 2000-2220
Application 08/962,428
4
Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ
303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
The examiner has indicated how he reads the claimed
invention on the disclosure of Connor [final rejection, pages 2-
5, incorporated into the examiner’s answer]. With respect to
each of independent claims 1, 8 and 14, appellant argues that
neither the background system of Connor nor the inventive system
discloses, teaches or suggests the function of the converter
recited in the last four lines of representative claim 1. More
particularly, appellant argues that Connor does not disclose,
teach or suggest any of the steps which recite the use of a
current system date in a four-digit format as claimed [brief].
The examiner responds that computers inherently have an operating
system which routinely use current date information [answer,
pages 3-4]. Appellant responds that the fact that there are
operating systems in most data processing systems, and that these
operating systems typically use the current date, is irrelevant
to the patentability of the claimed invention. Specifically,
appellant responds that Connor still does not disclose the steps
performed by the converter of representative claim 1 [reply
brief].
Appeal No. 2000-2220
Application 08/962,428
5
We agree with the position argued by appellant. Although
Connor is attempting to solve the same problem as appellant’s
invention, Connor solves this problem in an entirely different
way from the claimed invention. As argued by appellant, even if
Connor is presumed to have an operating system as claimed, there
is no disclosure in Connor of using a current system date in
combination with a two-digit historical date to obtain an
unambiguous representation of the historical date. The system of
Connor makes this determination based on a base year previously
selected by the user. Thus, Connor does not use the current
system date in his determination as required by the independent
claims on appeal.
Since Connor does not fully meet the invention of
independent claims 1, 8 and 14, the anticipation rejection of
these claims cannot be sustained. Since the rejection of
independent claims 1, 8 and 14 has not been sustained, we also do
Appeal No. 2000-2220
Application 08/962,428
6
not sustain the rejection of any of the dependent claims on
appeal. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner rejecting
claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-17, 19 and 20 is reversed.
REVERSED
)
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2000-2220
Application 08/962,428
7
DAVID G. WILLE
BAKER BOTTS, L.L.P.
2001 ROSS AVENUE, SUITE 600
DALLAS, TX 75201-2980
JS:caw