Ex Parte Krysiuk et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 30, 2016

12607798 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2016)

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.
12/607,798 10/28/2009 Marek Krysiuk P3468US00 5217
11764 7590
Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C.
44 Canal Center Plaza
Suite 322
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
SAX, STEVEN PAUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/04/2017 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 MAREK KRYSIUK and SYLVAIN GRANDE
Appeal 2016-000478
Application 12/607,798
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC B. CHEN, KEVIN C. TROCK, and SHARON FENICK,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1—20, all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to generating a visual component,
configured to create a visual object to retrieve and present place data stored
in a repository, such that the visual object is embedded within a website.
(Abstract.)
Appeal 2016-000478
Application 12/607,798
Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A method comprising:
generating a visual component that coordinates access to
a shared central repository by a visual object that is configured
to retrieve and present place data stored in the shared central
repository,
wherein the visual object is configured to be embedded
within a website for presentation of the place data;
causing, at least in part, storage of the visual component;
and
authenticating one or more users using authentication
procedures included in the visual component based, at least in
part, on authentication information provided by the website,
wherein the visual object is further configured to
determine whether to retrieve and present content associated
with the place data based, at least in part, on the authenticating
of the one or more users.
Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Stambaugh (US 2008/0109756 Al; May 8, 2008), Shaty (US
2009/0100505 Al; Apr. 16, 2009) and Wang (US 2008/0313648 Al; Dec. 18,
2008).
The Examiner has withdrawn the rejections of claims 1—20 under 35
U.S.C. §§ 101, 112, first and second paragraphs. (Ans. 2—3.)
The Examiner has withdrawn the objection to the Specification under
35 U.S.C. § 132(a). (Ans. 3.)
ANALYSIS
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 25—28; see
also Reply Br. 6) that the combination of Stambaugh, Shaty, and Wang
2
Appeal 2016-000478
Application 12/607,798
would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the
limitation “wherein the visual object is further configured to determine
whether to retrieve and present content associated with the place data based,
at least in part, on the authenticating of the one or more users.”
The Examiner found that the Zeetix of Stambaugh, which can include
geographical information such as human constructs (e.g., a franchise
business, listing locations for a realtor, or police stations), corresponds to the
limitation “wherein the visual object is further configured to determine
whether to retrieve and present content associated with the place data based,
at least in part, on the authenticating of the one or more users.” (Final
Act. 9—10; see also Ans. 4.) We agree with the Examiner.
Stambaugh relates to web-based services, in particular, “to providing
technology for the distributed processing, spatial organization, and web-
based display of information” (| 4) and “the organization of information
around a specific spatial domain” (| 7). Figure 1 of Stambaugh illustrates
Zeetix maps (| 11) and explains that “the term ‘ZeeObject™’ or ‘Zeetix
Object’ will be used to encompass a brand of object that has or may be
associated with one or more defined spatial domains” (1 53) and “the term
‘Zeetix™’ or ‘Zeetix Mashup,’ will be used to encompass a brand of object,
such as a mash-up or similar object, that has one or more spatial domains
(which may be arbitrarily defined) and that may be presented in one or more
visualization layers” (1 55). Stambaugh also explains that “a Zeetix may, in
embodiments, encompass a collection of information organized around a
spatial domain, which may be around a geographical location in a real
geography or a virtual geography, and all human-made constructs on it.”
(1 57.) Similarly, Stambaugh explains that “one common spatial domain is
3
Appeal 2016-000478
Application 12/607,798
geography, such as maps and images of the earth’s surface” and “[a]
geographic Zeetix may show store locations for a franchise business, listing
locations for a realtor, or police stations for a municipality.” (Id. ) In one
embodiment, a customer with a subscription can access the Zeetix using a
mobile device to search for available homes a geographic area. (1115.)
Because Stambaugh explains that the geographical Zeetix includes a
collection of information organized around a spatial domain (e.g., a
geographical location with human-made constructs, accessible via a
subscription), Stambaugh teaches the limitation “wherein the visual object is
further configured to determine whether to retrieve and present content
associated with the place data based, at least in part, on the authenticating of
the one or more users.”
Appellants argue that
Stambaugh fails to teach or even suggest Stambaugh’s particular
object of the Zeetix “brand of object” (the alleged visual object)
is “further configured to determine whether to retrieve and
present content associated with the place data based, at least in
part, on the authenticating of the one or more users”
(App. Br. 26 (emphases omitted).) In particular, Appellants argue that
“Stambaugh’s security settings simply suggest allowing access to
Stambaugh’s particular object of the Zeetix ‘brand of object,’ not any
determin[ation] [by Stambaugh’s particular object of the Zeetix ‘brand of
object’ (the alleged visual object) of] whether to retrieve and present
content, and even less content associated with place data.” (Id. at 27
(emphases omitted).) However, in addition to a “brand of object,”
Stambaugh further explains that the geographical Zeetix “encompass[es] a
collection of information organized around a spatial domain,” such as a
geographical location of human-made constructs. (1 57.)
4
Appeal 2016-000478
Application 12/607,798
Appellants further argue that
such disclosure allowing arbitrary definitions [from paragraph 55
of Stambaugh] would not teach one or ordinary skill in the art the
respective claimed subject matter, for example, “wherein the
visual object is further configured to determine whether to
retrieve and present content associated with the place data based,
at least in part, on the authenticating of the one or more users.”
(Reply Br. 6.) However, Appellants merely provide a conclusory statement
that Stambaugh does not teach the limitation “wherein the visual object is
further configured to determine whether to retrieve and present content
associated with the place data based, at least in part, on the authenticating of
the one or more users” without a sufficient explanation why this limitation is
distinguishable over Stambaugh.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Stambaugh,
Shaty, and Wang would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which
includes the limitation “wherein the visual object is further configured to
determine whether to retrieve and present content associated with the place
data based, at least in part, on the authenticating of the one or more users.”
We are also unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 28—31;
see also Reply Br. 7—9) that the combination of Stambaugh, Shaty, and
Wang would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes
the limitation “generating a visual component that coordinates access to a
shared central repository by a visual object that is configured to retrieve and
present place data stored in the shared central repository.”
The Examiner further found that the ZeeObject of Stambaugh, which
can access various data facilities as illustrated in Figure 2 (e.g., Other
Information Sources or User’s Own data), corresponds to the limitation
“generating a visual component that coordinates access to a shared central
5
Appeal 2016-000478
Application 12/607,798
repository by a visual object that is configured to retrieve and present place
data stored in the shared central repository.” (Final Act. 9—10; see also
Ans. 6.) We agree with the Examiner.
Stambaugh explains that “[a] ZeeObject may be stored in a data
storage facility, termed a Zeetix object store . . . which may consist of a
repository of ZeeObjects, optionally referenced by ZeeTickets.” (170.)
Figure 2 of Stambaugh illustrates “relationships among such internal and
external system components and entities” (| 12), including a ZeeTix Engine
and a ZeeObject 79—80; see also Fig. 2). Figure 2 further illustrates that
“Zeetix Object” accesses “Data Facilities,” such as Other Information
Sources 226, User’s Own Data 228, and other ZeeStores 230. (195.)
Because Stambaugh explains that the ZeeObject may be stored in a data
storage facility (e.g., Other Information Sources 226, User’s Own Data 228,
and other ZeeStores 230), as illustrated in Figure 2, Stambaugh teaches the
limitation “generating a visual component that coordinates access to a shared
central repository by a visual object that is configured to retrieve and present
place data stored in the shared central repository.”
Appellants argue that “the Examiner misinterprets Wang at FIGS. 1—2
and the related text at the cited paragraphs [0031] and [0044]” and when
properly interpreted, “Wang does not teach ‘generating a visual component
that coordinates access to a shared central repository’ and further ‘by a
visual object that is configured to retrieve and present place data stored in
the shared central repository.’” (App. Br. 29 (emphases omitted).)
Similarly, Appellants argue that “the combination of Stambaugh and Shaty
does not disclose or suggest, ‘generating a visual component that coordinates
access to a shared central repository by a visual object that is configured to
6
Appeal 2016-000478
Application 12/607,798
retrieve and present place data stored in the shared central repository.’”
(App. Br. 30.) However, the Examiner also cites to Figure 2 of Stambaugh
for teaching the limitation “shared central repository” and Appellants have
not presented any persuasive arguments rebutting the Examiner’s findings.
Appellants further argue that: (i) “[w]ith respect to the user’s own
data 228, one of ordinary skill in the art would not consider the . . . data
facilities that have only the user’s own data 228 discloses or suggests a
shared central repository” (App. Br. 30; see also Reply Br. 9); (ii) “[w]ith
respect to the other ZeeStores 230, one of ordinary skill in the art would not
consider that the other ZeeStores 230 disclose or suggest a shared central
repository” (App. Br. 31; see also Reply Br. 9); and (iii) “[w]ith respect to
the other information sources 226 (224), Stambaugh provides little
information regarding the other information sources 226 (224)” (id.).
However, Appellants merely provide conclusory statements that Stambaugh
does not teach the limitation “shared central repository” without a sufficient
explanation why this limitation is distinguishable over Stambaugh.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Stambaugh,
Shaty, and Wang would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which
includes the limitation “generating a visual component that coordinates
access to a shared central repository by a visual object that is configured to
retrieve and present place data stored in the shared central repository.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 2—7 depend from claim 1, and Appellants have not
presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims.
See In reLovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[T]he Board
reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in
7
Appeal 2016-000478
Application 12/607,798
an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked
assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”).
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2—7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a),
for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1.
Independent claims 8 and 15 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellants have not
presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims.
We sustain the rejection of claims 8 and 15, as well as dependent claims 9—
14 and 16—20, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8