Ex Parte Kloiber et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 30, 201612870497 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 82248437 9934 EXAMINER HUYNH, THU V ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2177 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/870,497 08/27/2010 109422 7590 12/30/2016 Sprinkle IP Law Group/OPEN 1301 W. 25th Street, Suite 408 Austin, TX 78705 Daniel J. Kloiber 12/30/2016 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 DANIEL J. KLOIBER, DAVIS L. MARKSBURY, CHRISTOPHER J. HEINZ, ROBERT C. GUCKENBERGER, RONALD L. HEINEY, and KENNETH E. GIBBS Appeal 2015-006783 Application 12/870,4971 Technology Center 2100 Before JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, AMBER L. HAGY, and SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges. FENICK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 5—11, 13—19, and 22—27. Claims 1—4, 12, 20, and 21 are cancelled. (Appeal Br. 28, 31, 33.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1). We affirm-in-part. 1 Appellants identify Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP. as the real party in interest. (Appeal Br. 3.) Appeal 2015-006783 Application 12/870,497 Invention Appellants’ invention relates to processing an interactive document which changes and adjusts as information is inserted by a user, and which is used in an interactive way by end users. (Abstract, Spec. 11:11—15, 8—19.) A user may interact with the interactive document to trigger utilization processes. (Spec. 10:9-12,21:9-21) Exemplary Claims Claims 5 and 8, reproduced below, are exemplary: 5. A computer program product comprising: a non-transitory computer readable medium storing processor-executable instructions to: provide an interactive document, via a document manipulation process within a thick client computing environment, including: at least one component for providing user- perceptible information relating to a content of the interactive document; and at least one interactive interview component; receive user input via interaction of a user with the at least one interactive interview component of the interactive document in which the user is queried to select the content or supply the content; in response to the received user input that is related to information stored in an external source, retrieve predetermined external data from the external data source, wherein the external data source is separate and independent of the interactive document; in response to a predetermined condition, retrieve live information from an asynchronous data source including obtaining the live information via a live, verbal person-to- person interaction; 2 Appeal 2015-006783 Application 12/870,497 modify the interactive document utilizing composite information that includes the received user input, the obtained live information, and the external data; and store updated information from the live-information- based interactive document in the external data source to cause updating of the predetermined external data in the external data source. 8. A computer program product comprising: a non-transitory computer readable medium storing computer-executable instructions to: provide an interactive document, via a document manipulation process within a thick client computing environment, including: a user interface including at least one interactive interview component providing user selectable content choices and user selectable format choices; receive user input via interaction of a user with the at least one interactive interview component of the interactive document, wherein the user interaction includes capturing live information based on a live person-to-person interaction; in response to the received user input that is related to information stored in an external data source, retrieve predetermined external data from the external data source; modify the interactive document utilizing aggregate information aggregated from the received live information and the external data to produce a live-information-based interactive document; and automatically spawn, via the modified live-information- based interactive document, at least one of a plurality of utilization processes with each respective utilization process based on the aggregate information and including use of at least some content from the user selectable content choices from the live-information-based interactive document, wherein at least some of the utilization processes include causing a physical action related to goods or services, external to the interactive 3 Appeal 2015-006783 Application 12/870,497 document, and based on the live information from the live- information-based interactive document. Rejections The Examiner rejects claims 5,7, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chowdhry et al. (US 2003/0167315 Al; pub. Sep. 4, 2003) (“Chowdhry”), Sample et al. (US 2007/0276816 Al; pub. Nov. 29, 2007) (“Sample”), Takakura et al. (US 2002/0091770 Al; pub. July 11, 2002) (“Takakura”), and Reynolds et al. (US 2004/0049539 Al; pub. Mar. 11, 2004) (“Reynolds”). (Final Action 3—6.) The Examiner rejects claims 8—11 and 24—25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chowdhry, Sample, and Takakura. (Final Action 6—10.) The Examiner rejects claims 13—19 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chowdhry, Takakura, and Reynolds. (Final Action 11— 15.) The Examiner rejects claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chowdhry, Sample, Takakura, Reynolds, Diamond et al. (US 2006/0282762 Al; pub. Dec. 14, 2006) (“Diamond”), and Bernardo et al. (US 6,684,369 Bl; iss. Jan. 27, 2004) (“Bernardo”). (Final Action 16.) The Examiner rejects claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chowdhry, Sample, Takakura, and Reynolds. (Final Action 17.) The Examiner rejects claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chowdhry, Takakura, Reynolds, and Sample. (Final Action 17—18.) 4 Appeal 2015-006783 Application 12/870,497 CLAIM 8 Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Chowdhry and Takakura, in combination with other references, teach or suggest “a user interface including at least one interactive interview component” and receipt of “user input via interaction of a user with the at least one interactive interview component of the interactive document, wherein the user interaction includes capturing live information based on a live person-to-person interaction,” as recited in claim 8? Chowdhry relates to the fast creation of custom web portals. (Chowdhry, Abstract.) Modules of information (“portlets” in Chowdhry) are selected by a user for display on a customized portal site. {Id. 1 5.) The portlets displayed on a portal may be refreshed in order to ensure that the portlet data is timely, according to a refresh interval assigned by the creator of the portlet. {Id. Tflf 81—82, 94—98.) Some portlets may include stock market information. {Id. Fig. 3, 23.) Takakura relates to a user home page which can be updated. (Takakura, Abstract.) Takakura includes disclosure that users may talk to each other in chat rooms or send individual messages. {Id. Tflf 56, 57, 73, 149-151.) The Examiner finds that Chowdhry’s user creation of a portal includes user-selectable choices regarding content and format of the portal, choices received via a user interface, and thus teaches or suggests, providing “an interactive document. . . including a user interface including at least one interactive interview component providing user selectable content choices and user selectable format choices.” (Final Action 7.) 5 Appeal 2015-006783 Application 12/870,497 The language of claim 8 requires the receipt of user input via the interaction of a user with the interactive interview component, “wherein the user interaction includes capturing live information based on a live person- to-person interaction.” (Claim 8.) The Examiner finds this to be taught or suggested by the combination of prior art, specifically by Chowdhry’s teaching that portlets can be set to refresh displayed information, with the refresh interval being set by the user. (Final Action 8; Answer 19—20.) Additionally, the Examiner finds that live information being “based on a live person-to-person interaction” is taught or suggested by Takakura’s chat room and individual message functions. (Final Action 9; Answer 23.) The Examiner finds that Takakura and Chowdhry’s teachings, combined teach or suggest “a portal page having information captured from different web pages, such as Chowdhry's stock information as well as Takakura's text or chat messages. The combination would have allowed the users to create their desired/specific content portal pages.” (Answer 23.) Appellants argue that the live (updated) information displayed in portlets according to a refresh schedule is performed in the background, and that this information does not relate to the user interaction as shown in Chowdhry. (Appeal Br. 13—14) Appellants argue that the “live information” teachings the Examiner points to in Chowdhry do not relate to and are not used by the portlet creation functionality which the Examiner uses to teach or suggest the claimed interactive interview component, and that the Examiner has not shown how the combination of Chowdhry and Takakura would have taught or suggested the use of live information in the creation of an interactive document. {Id. at 13—14, 17—18; Reply Br. 5—6.) 6 Appeal 2015-006783 Application 12/870,497 We agree with the Appellants that the Examiner has not explained how the live information of Chowdhry or Takakura (the refresh parameters, refreshed information, stock market information displayed, chat room information, or instant messages) are captured in a user interaction with the interactive interview component taught by Chowdhry’s portlet creation functionality. The result of portlet creation in Chowdhry may be a portlet which displays live information, including Takakura’s chat room or instant message information, however the claim requires that the live information be captured by the user interaction with the interactive interview component, which the Examiner maps to the portlet creation functionality of Chowdhry. Thus, a missing piece is a finding that the combination teaches or suggests live information captured and used in portlet creation (as opposed to in the operation of a resulting portlet.) Therefore, we find Appellants’ arguments regarding the disputed limitation to be persuasive. Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants’ other arguments with respect to claims including this disputed limitation. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 8, of independent claim 13 rejected and argued on substantially the same basis (Final Action 11—13; Appeal Br. 22—23), and of their dependent claims 9-11, 14—19, and 23—27. 7 Appeal 2015-006783 Application 12/870,497 CLAIM 5 Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Chowdhry, Sample, Takakura, and Reynolds teaches or suggests the subject matter of claim 5? Appellants argue that claim 5 is patentable based on arguments regarding Chowdhry, Sample, and Takakura relating to claims 8 and 10 without specifying which arguments are referred to. As claim 5 contains substantially different claim limitations, it is unclear which arguments are being referenced or their application to the limitations of claim 5, with the exception of arguments relating to the “interactive interview component.” The Examiner finds that Chowdhry teaches the claimed interactive interview component. (Final Action 7.) The Examiner finds that Chowdhry provides a user creating a customized portal with choices regarding the addition, rearrangement, and content of portlets, and that this teaches or suggests the interactive interview component. (Final Action 7; Answer 17— 18.) While the Appellants urge a narrower meaning for “interview” than is taught by the interactive components of Chowdhry (Appeal Br. 12; Reply Br. 2—5), we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s finding that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language includes the Chowdhry portal creation process. Therefore, on this issue, we are not convinced that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 5 and dependent claims 7 and 22. Other arguments advanced by the Appellants with regard to Claims 8 and 10 do not appear to be relevant to the claim limitations of claim 5. We therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 7, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable. 8 Appeal 2015-006783 Application 12/870,497 CLAIM 6 Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Chowdhry, Sample, Takakura, Reynolds, Diamond, and Bernardo teaches or suggests the subject matter of claim 6? Appellants argue that Diamonds’ teaching refers to documents without “the transformative nature of the interactive document,” recited in claim 6. (Appeal Br. 24.) Additionally, Appellants argue a distinction between the relationship of a creator of a website to the website (as in Bernardo) and the relationship of a “customer having an identity related to the contents of the live-information-based interactive document” (as in claim 6) to the document. (Id.) We find neither distinction compelling. While Diamond may not teach a document with a transformative nature, there is no argument that convinces us of error in the Examiner’s application of Diamond to any document, including one with a transformative nature. Additionally, Appellants argue that Bernardo’s teachings are not “fairly comparable” to the claim limitation, but do not explain why. Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in the rejection of claim 6, and we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of this claim. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 8—11, 13—19, and 23-27. We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 5—7 and 22. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv), no time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended. 9 Appeal 2015-006783 Application 12/870,497 AFFIRMED-IN-PART 10 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation