Ex Parte Lee

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 4, 2016

10101749 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 4, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
10/101,749 03/21/2002
23400 7590 02/08/2016
POSZ LAW GROUP, PLC
12040 SOUTH LAKES DRIVE
SUITE 101
RESTON, VA 20191
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Eugene M. Lee
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
113708.128 2001
EXAMINER
ROBINSON, GRETA LEE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2169
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/08/2016 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):
mailbox@poszlaw.com
dposz@poszlaw.com
tvarndell @poszlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EUGENE M. LEE
Appeal2013-010361
Application 1Oil01, 7 49 1
Technology Center 2100
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9-15, 17-22, and 24--26. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 2, 5, 8, 16, 23, and 27 are
cancelled. 2
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellant, the Real Party in Interest is Eugene M. Lee. App.
Br. 4.
2 Amendment filed Aug. 16, 2007, 15; Amendment filed June 12, 2009, 1.
Appeal2013-010361
Application 10/101,749
Invention
The claims are directed to an apparatus and method of analyzing
intellectual property by linking information regarding intellectual property,
items of trade, and analysis. Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 is reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized:
1. A method of associating intellectual property information with
an item of trade (IOT), the method comprising the steps of:
(a) storing intellectual property information in a plurality of IP
data records respectively corresponding to individual intellectual
property;
(b) storing IOT information concerning a plurality of items of
trade (IOT) in a plurality of product data records, wherein the
IOT information includes information regarding at least one of
products and services;
( c) associating stored intellectual property information with
stored IOT information by linking from at least one of the IP data
records to at least one of the product data records, and by linking
from the at least one of the product data records to the at least
one IP data records;
( d) assigning a level of view to the product data records, the level
of views including a top level of view that depicts a first JOT as
a constructed product and at least one other level of view that
depicts component parts as products that are used in
constructing the product at a higher level of the first JOT,
wherein a level of view is associated with the at least one of the
product data records, and wherein the first IOT has a plurality of
levels of view; and
( e) changing a view from one of the levels of view of the first JOT
that depicts, on a user interface, the first JOT as the constructed
product and displays product data records associated with the
2
Appeal2013-010361
Application 10/101,749
one of the levels of view and intellectual property information to
a different level of view of the first JOT in which one of the
component parts is depicted on the user interface and different
product data records and different intellectual property
information associated with the different level of view of the first
JOT are displayed and become accessible to the user,
wherein any of the IP data records can link to any of the product
data records,
wherein any of the product data records can link to any of the IP
data records.
Applied Prior Art
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Rivette et al.
Isensee et al.
Frank et al.
us 5,991,751
US 6,823,344B1
US 2008/0201211 Al
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Nov. 23, 1999
Nov. 23, 2004
Aug. 21, 2008
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 12-15, 17-22, and 24--26 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Frank and Isensee.
Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Frank, Isensee, and Rivette.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and the evidence of
record in light of Appellant's arguments that the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellant's arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our
own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action
3
Appeal2013-010361
Application 10/101,749
from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-21 (mailed Aug.28, 2012)), (2)
the findings and reasons set forth in the Advisory Action (Adv. Act. 2
(mailed Jan. 8, 2013)), and (3) the findings and the reasons set forth in the
Examiner's Answer (Ans. 21-23). We concur with the conclusions reached
by the Examiner and further highlight specific findings and arguments for
emphasis as follows.
"a top level of view"
Appellant argues Frank does not teach "a top level of view that
depicts a first IOT [item of trade] as a constructed product and at least one
other level of view that depicts component parts as products that are used in
constructing the product at a higher level of the first IOT," as recited in
claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 7, 12, and 22. App. Br. 19-25; Reply
Br. 2--4. Specifically, Appellant argues Frank "teaches nothing about
'depicting' anything as a constructed product [at a top level] or as a product
used to construct another product [at another level]" (App. Br. 20; see also
Reply Br. 2) and instead "discloses a listing of 'all' product data records" or
"listing data fields of the product data record" (App Br. 23-24).
The Examiner finds Frank teaches a hierarchical IP Inventory
software product having a GUI that displays top-level modules which are
constructed of sub-modules, those sub-modules themselves constructed of
linked data types. Ans. 21-22 (citing Frank i-fi-1278-279, Fig. 51); Adv. Act.
2; see Final Act. 6. That is, the Examiner finds Frank's top-level modules
are constructed of software products which are constructed of sub-module
component products. See Ans. 21-22; Adv. Act. 2; Final Act. 6. Similarly,
the Examiner finds those sub-module component products are also
constructed software products which are constructed of linked data
4
Appeal2013-010361
Application 10/101,749
component products. See id. For example, the Examiner finds Frank
teaches the IP Inventory top-level module shown in Figure 51 depicts three
links to sub-modules constructing the IP Inventory top-level module, those
sub-modules "includ[ing] a link to create a new trade secret[] ... a link to
view inventory ... and/or a link to []search inventory." Ans. 21-22 (citing
Frank i-fi-1278-279, Fig. 51); Adv. Act. 2. Further, when Frank's view
inventory sub-module is selected, "patent-related IP data records," which
construct the view inventory sub-module, are displayed. Frank i1284, Fig.
57.
Appellant's arguments do not persuade us that Frank's top-level
module is excluded from being a software product constructed of sub-
module component products. Nor do they persuade us that Frank's sub-
modules are excluded from being software products constructed of linked
data component products. While Appellant describes Frank's GUI
components and argues those GUI components do not teach constructed
products or component parts used in constructing products, Appellant fails to
sufficiently explain why those components are not constructed products or
components of constructed products. See App. Br. 19-25. Furthermore,
Frank's top-level modules, sub-modules, and data records are not excluded
from being within the meaning of constructed products or components
constructing a product based on any definition provided by the Appellant's
arguments (see App. Br. 18-25; see also Reply Br. 2) or Appellant's
Specification.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
Frank teaches "a top level of view that depicts a first IOT as a constructed
product and at least one other level of view that depicts component parts as
5
Appeal2013-010361
Application 10/101,749
products that are used in constructing the product at a higher level of the first
IOT" within the meaning of claim 1, and similarly independent claims 7, 12,
and 22.
"changing a view"
Appellant argues the combination of Frank and Isensee does not
render obvious "changing a view from one of the levels of view of the first
IOT that depicts, on a user interface, the first IOT as the constructed
product ... to a different level of view of the first in which one of the
component parts is depicted on the user interface and different product data
records and different intellectual property information associated with the
different level of view of the first IOT are displayed" as recited in claim 1,
and similarly recited in independent claims 7, 12, and 22. App. Br. 26-28.
Specifically, Appellant argues Frank does not teach depicting and "changing
views, between the recited levels of view of the first IOT and its component
parts as constructed products." App. Br. 26-27.
The Examiner finds Frank teaches the viewing of top-level modules.
Ans. 22 (citing Frank i-f 27 6, Fig. 50). Additionally, the Examiner finds top-
level modules include links to sub-modules and selecting a sub-module
changes the view to depict the selected sub-module. Adv. Act. 2 (citing
Frank i-f 311 ). Furthermore, the Examiner finds those sub-modules include
links to data and selecting the linked data changes the view to depict the
selected data. Ans. 22 (citing Frank i-f 284, Fig. 57). For example, figure 69
of Frank teaches a "Product Inventory" top-level module GUI with links to a
"view product" sub-module GUI (Ans. 22 (citing Frank i-f 300)); selecting
the link to the "view product" sub-module GUI changes the view to the
6
Appeal2013-010361
Application 10/101,749
corresponding "view product" sub-module view, as shown in figure 70. Ans.
22 (citing Frank i-fi-1 300, 310, 311 ). Further, selecting a displayed product
data record from the "view products" sub-module changes the view to the
corresponding product data record view. Frank i1 301.
Appellant's argument, that Frank's "display [of] information about a
contract/agreement data record and display [of] information about one or
more IP data records" fails to disclose the disputed limitation (App. Br. 26-
27), does not address the Examiner's finding that Frank's sub-modules are
depicted at a changed view level from a top-level module and further that
linked data is depicted at a changed view level from a sub-module.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Frank does not teach "changing a
view from one of the levels of view of the first IOT that depicts, on a user
interface, the first IOT as the constructed product ... to a different level of
view of the first in which one of the component parts is depicted on the user
interface and different product data records and different intellectual
property information associated with the different level of view of the first
IOT are displayed," as recited by claim 1, and similarly independent claims
7, 12, and 22.
Appellant additionally argues "the [E]xaminer has not provided the
required articulation of a reason" to combine Frank and Isensee. App. Br.
28; Reply Br. 3. However, we find the Examiner does articulate a reason
with a rational underpinning to combine the references. Indeed, the
Examiner states the combination is obvious because "both references are
directed to efficient viewing of objects" and using a known technique to
improve similar devices-i.e., improving hierarchical navigation in GUis-
7
Appeal2013-010361
Application 10/101,749
is obvious. Final Act. 8. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred by combining Frank and Isensee.
Dependent Claims
Appellant has not presented separate, substantive arguments with
respect to dependent claims 3, 4, 6, 9-11, 13-15, 17-21, and 24--26. See
App. Br. 28. For the reasons set forth above, therefore, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred in rejecting these claims. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's rejections of these claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)
(2012).
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9-15,
17-22, and 24--26.
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) (2009).
AFFIRMED
mp
8