Ex Parte Kumar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 24, 2013

11634000 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 2013)

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.
11/634,000 12/04/2006 Amar Kumar 6741P103 4264
8791 7590 01/24/2013
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN
1279 Oakmead Parkway
Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040
EXAMINER
ZAHR, ASHRAF A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2175
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/24/2013 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 AMAR KUMAR and WOLFGANG E. WALTER

Appeal 2010-007877
Application 11/634,000
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before CARL W.WHITEHEAD, JR, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 and 4-18. Claims 2 and 3 have been cancelled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to a method and apparatus for
producing a chart from data and parameters supplied by a client through a
generic interface. See Spec. 11, Abstract of the Disclosure.

Appeal 2010-007877
Application 11/634,000
2
Claims 1 and 17 are illustrative, with key disputed limitations emphasized:
l. A method comprising:

supplying source data to a chart producer through a generic interface,
the source data to be used to create a chart;

receiving a Uniform Resource Locator ("URL") through the generic
interface, the URL corresponding to the chart created, wherein the generic
interface is independent of the source data supplier and the chart producer;

retrieving a representation of the chart created;

displaying the representation of the chart;

supplying updated source data to the chart producer through the
generic interface;

retrieving a representation of an updated chart at the URL; and

displaying the representation of the updated chart.

17. A system comprising:

means for receiving data and parameters from a client according to a
generic protocol;

means for interacting with a plurality of chart producers, wherein a
first chart producer uses a first interaction protocol and a second chart
producer uses a second, different interaction protocol; and

means for publishing a chart created by one of the chart producers
according to the data and parameters from the client.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Watts US 6,614,433 B1 Sep. 2, 2003
Jiang US 2007/0250764 A1 Oct. 25, 2007
(Filed Apr, 20, 2006)

Appeal 2010-007877
Application 11/634,000
3
THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4-15, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§102(b) as anticipated by Watts. Ans. 3-8.1
2. The Examiner rejected claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
unpatentable over Watts and Jiang. Ans. 9.
ISSUES
Based upon our review of the record, the arguments proffered by
Appellants and the findings of the Examiner, we find the following issues to
be dispositive of the claims on appeal:
1. Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 4-15,
17, and 18 by finding that Watts anticipates independent claims 1
and 8 by showing the retrieval of an “updated chart at the URL” as
set forth in Claim 1; and, “updating the chart associated with the
URL” as set forth in claim 8?
2. Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 17 by
finding that Watts anticipates independent claim 17 by showing
“means for interacting with a plurality of chart producers, wherein
a first chart producer uses a first interaction protocol and a second
chart producer uses a second, different interaction protocol” as set
forth in claim 17?

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed November 30,
2009; the Examiner’s Answer mailed March 5, 2010; and, the Reply Brief
filed April 20, 2010.
Appeal 2010-007877
Application 11/634,000
4
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that Watts
anticipates independent claims 1 and 8 because although Watt discloses
“requesting and generating a chart,” Watts “is silent regarding updating a
chart.” Appellants point out that independent claim 1 recites “retrieving a
representation of an updated chart at the URL” while independent claim 8
recites “updating the chart associated with the URL responsive to receipt of
additional data from the chart client.” App. Br. 6, Reply Br. 2-3.
Specifically, Appellants urge that by reciting “at the URL” their
claims require the updated chart and the original chart to be associated with
the same “URL.” App. Br. 6.
The Examiner finds that updated data is equivalent to new data and
that an updated chart is equivalent to a new chart. Consequently, as Watts
discloses the creation of a new chart, based upon new data, Watts anticipates
the claimed aspect of updating a chart. Ans. 9-10.
Further, the Examiner finds that the graphics server of Watts is
associated with a URL and consequently, any and all charts requested will
be located at that URL. Id. at 10.
We find the Examiners arguments with respect to claims 1 and 8 to be
persuasive. We find that a chart created with some new data is, necessarily,
an updated chart. Further, nothing within Appellants’ claims prohibits the
recited “URL” from being associated with the chart producer, and
consequently associated with each chart produced thereby.
Appellants argue claim 17 is not anticipated by Watts in view of the
recited feature of “means for interacting with a plurality of chart producers,
wherein a first chart producer uses a first interaction protocol and a second
chart producer uses a second, different interaction protocol” and Watts
Appeal 2010-007877
Application 11/634,000
5
alleged failure to disclose a “plurality of chart producers”. App. Br. 7-8,
Reply Br. 3-4.
The Examiner finds that “chart producer” is not defined in Appellants’
specification and interprets “chart producer” as an algorithm that produces a
chart. Ans. 10. The Examiner finds that Watts clearly discloses multiple
algorithms for producing charts, in view of the multiple types of charts that
Watts can produce, citing Watts at Column 4, lines 20-25. Id. at 11.
"[T]he PTO gives claims their 'broadest reasonable interpretation.'" In
re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324, (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211
F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). We find the Examiner’s interpretation of
“chart producer,” while broad, is not unreasonable. We therefor find that
Watts does anticipate the claimed “plurality of chart producers.”
The Examiner also finds that each of the multiple types of charts
necessarily requires a separate algorithm, which the Examiner finds
anticipates the claimed different interaction protocols. Ans. 11.
We concur with the Examiner’s finding with regard to claim 17. We
find that Watts discloses the creation of multiple diverse types of charts,
which each necessarily require a separate algorithm.
Finally, Appellants argue, with respect to claims 4 and 9, that Watts
fails to anticipate the use of two different chart producers, as set forth in
claim 4, or the adaption of data and parameters to a second format for a
second chart producer, as set forth in claim 9. App. Br. 8-10, Reply Br. 4-5.
For essentially the same reasons we set forth above, with respect to
claim 17, we find the Examiner did not err in the rejection of claims 4 and 9
as anticipated by Watts.
Appeal 2010-007877
Application 11/634,000
6
We therefore find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1,
4, 8, 9, and 17, as well as claims 5-7, 10-16, and 18, not argued separately
with particularity.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 4-15, 17, and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 4-18 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

tkl