Ex Parte Leglise et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesNov 30, 200909584520 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 30, 2009) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 1 ____________________ 2 3 BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS 4 AND INTERFERENCES 5 ____________________ 6 7 Ex parte CLAUDE M. LEGLISE and THOMAS C. MILLER 8 ____________________ 9 10 Appeal 2009-003160 11 Application 09/584,520 12 Technology Center 3600 13 ____________________ 14 15 Decided: November 30, 2009 16 ____________________ 17 18 19 Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and ANTON W. 20 FETTING, Administrative Patent Judges. 21 22 CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge. 23 24 25 DECISION ON APPEAL26 Appeal 2009-003160 Application 09/584,520 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from a final rejection 2 of claims 66-85. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). 3 Appellants invented processor-based systems and methods utilized by 4 a consumer that is controlled and managed by a service provider for the 5 benefit of a retail vendor (Abstract). 6 Claim 66 under appeal is further illustrative of the claimed invention 7 as follows: 8 66. A method comprising: 9 providing a customer identifier together with information 10 about the identified customer's preferences to a service 11 provider; 12 receiving a plurality of graphical user interfaces from 13 said service provider, each graphical user interface of said 14 plurality of graphical user interfaces to include content related 15 to the products or services of a particular retail vendor, the 16 content customized, at least in part, based on said information 17 and not to include advertising for another retail vendor; and 18 preventing the identified customer from using Internet 19 services through said service provider without the customer 20 first viewing, in sequence, at least three graphical user 21 interfaces from said plurality. 22 The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on 23 appeal is: 24 Tobin US 6,141,666 Oct. 31, 2000 25 Rangan US 6,412,073 B1 Jun. 25, 2002 26 27 BISYS® Enables Financial Institutions to Bring Direct Internet 28 Access Services to Their Customers (Jan. 10, 2000), 29 http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-30 bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/01-10-31 Appeal 2009-003160 Application 09/584,520 3 2000/000111171 . . . (last visited Jun. 27, 2007) (hereinafter 1 “BISYS”). 2 The Examiner rejected claims 66-70 and 81-85 under 35 U.S.C. § 3 103(a) as being unpatentable over BISYS in view of Rangan; claim 83 under 4 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over BISYS in view of Rangan 5 and further in view of Tobin; and rejected claims 71-80 under 35 U.S.C. § 6 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rangan in view of BISYS. 7 We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 8 9 ISSUES 10 Did the Appellants show the Examiner erred in asserting that a 11 combination of BISYS and Rangan renders obvious “preventing the 12 identified customer from using Internet services through said service 13 provider without the customer first viewing, in sequence, at least three 14 graphical user interfaces from said plurality,” as recited in independent claim 15 66? 16 Did the Appellants show the Examiner erred in asserting that a 17 combination of BISYS and Rangan renders obvious an activity graphical 18 user interface, a selection graphical user interface, and “in response to the 19 selection of an indicator on a sign-in graphical user interface, identifying a 20 current user of the processor-based system, said sign-in graphical user 21 interface having different indicators for each known user of said particular 22 processor-based system,” as recited in independent claim 71? 23 Appeal 2009-003160 Application 09/584,520 4 FINDINGS OF FACT 1 Specification 2 Appellants invented processor-based systems and methods utilized by 3 a consumer that is controlled and managed by a service provider for the 4 benefit of a retail vendor (Abstract). 5 6 Rangan 7 Rangan discloses that many companies offer various subscription 8 services accessible via the Internet. For example, many people now do their 9 banking, stock trading, shopping, and so forth from the comfort of their own 10 homes via Internet access. Typically, a user, through subscription, has 11 access to personalized and secure WEB pages for such functions. By typing 12 in a user name and a password or other personal identification code, a user 13 may obtain information, initiate transactions, buy stock, and accomplish a 14 myriad of other tasks (col. 1, ll. 26-35). 15 Once a user has logged-in at an Internet Portal, the portal may present 16 a secure and personalized page for the user, the personalized page having a 17 list of Internet destinations enabled by hyperlinks, wherein, upon invocation 18 of a hyperlink by the subscriber, the portal invokes a URL for the 19 destination, and upon connection with the destination, transparently provides 20 any required log-on information required for user access at the destination 21 (col. 2, ll. 10-20). 22 The personalized portal page may include an interactive listing of 23 user-subscribed or member WEB pages, identified in this example by URL. 24 Listed in a first column under destination are exemplary destinations 25 LBC.com, MyBank.com, MyStocks.com, Myshopping.com, Mortgage.com, 26 Appeal 2009-003160 Application 09/584,520 5 and Airline.com. In order to view additional listings listed but not 1 immediately viewable from within application 33, a scroll bar 35 is provided 2 and adapted to allow a user to scroll up or down the list to enable viewing as 3 known in the art (col. 5, ll. 18-35). 4 In some instances a particular service may have more than one 5 associated URL. For example, MyBank.com may have more than one URL 6 associated for such as different accounts or businesses associated also with a 7 single subscriber. In this case, there may be a sub-listing for different 8 destinations associated with a single higher-level listing. This expedient is 9 not shown, but given this teaching the mechanism will be apparent to those 10 with skill in the art (col. 5, ll. 45-51). 11 One page may be shared by more than one user, such as a husband 12 and wife sharing a common account and subscription. In another 13 embodiment, a network of individuals, perhaps business owners, authorized 14 co-workers, investment parties, or the like may share one application (col. 5, 15 ll. 53-62). 16 17 PRINCIPLES OF LAW 18 Claim Construction 19 Claim language cannot be mere surplusage. An express limitation 20 cannot be read out of the claim. Texas Instruments Inc. v. United States Int'l 21 Trade Comm'n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1993). 22 Appeal 2009-003160 Application 09/584,520 6 Burden 1 Appellants have the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate 2 error in the Examiner's position. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. 3 Cir. 2006). 4 5 ANALYSIS 6 Three Graphical User Interfaces 7 We are persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by Appellants’ 8 argument that a combination of BISYS and Rangan does not render obvious 9 “preventing the identified customer from using Internet services through said 10 service provider without the customer first viewing, in sequence, at least 11 three graphical user interfaces from said plurality,” as recited in independent 12 claim 66 (App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 1-3). The Examiner asserts that the 13 user login page, the secure and customized page with hyperlinks, and the 14 page rendered based on the hyperlink chosen by the user in Rangan 15 corresponds to the at least three graphical user interfaces (Ex. Ans. 8-11). 16 However, independent claim 66 also recites that the content of each 17 graphical user interface is customized based on user information. The user 18 login page is a generic login page that is not customized. Moreover, the 19 page rendered based on the hyperlink chosen by the user is via the Internet. 20 Accordingly, this page is not viewed prior to Internet access as claimed. 21 By virtue of their dependence on independent claim 66, we also do 22 not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 67-70 under the Examiner’s 23 proffered rationale. 24 Appeal 2009-003160 Application 09/584,520 7 Different Indicators 1 We are persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by Appellants’ 2 argument that a combination of BISYS and Rangan does not render obvious 3 an activity graphical user interface, a selection graphical user interface, and 4 “in response to the selection of an indicator on a sign-in graphical user 5 interface, identifying a current user of the processor-based system, said sign-6 in graphical user interface having different indicators for each known user of 7 said particular processor-based system,” as recited in independent claim 71 8 (App. Br. 14, Reply Br. 3-5). Figure 2 of Rangan most logically 9 corresponds to the selection graphical user interface. To do otherwise would 10 impermissibly read either the sign-in or selection graphical user interface out 11 of the claim. See Texas Instruments Inc. v. United States Int'l Trade 12 Comm'n, 988 F.2d at 1171. Accordingly, a user must sign-in on the sign-in 13 graphical user interface to reach the selection graphical user interface. 14 Rangan discloses that one page 33 may be shared by more than one user, for 15 example, a husband and wife or network of business owners. The Examiner 16 asserts this corresponds to the claimed different indicators. However, just 17 because multiple users share the same page does not mean that each user has 18 their own indicator on the sign-in graphical user interface, which again, is 19 prior to the selection graphical user interface. Indeed, neither Rangan nor 20 BISYS provides any details concerning the specifics of logging in on the 21 sign-in graphical user interface, indicators or otherwise. 22 By virtue of their dependence on independent claim 71, we also do 23 not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 72-80 under the Examiner’s 24 proffered rationale. 25 26 Appeal 2009-003160 Application 09/584,520 8 Independent Claim 81 1 The Appellants have not provided any arguments concerning 2 Examiner error in rejecting independent claim 81. While the headings on 3 page 12 of the Appeal Brief and page 1 of the Reply Brief lump together 4 claims 66-70 with claims 81-85, all of the arguments are directed solely to 5 independent claim 66. Accordingly, in the absence of any arguments 6 concerning Examiner error in rejecting independent claim 81, the rejection 7 of claims 81-85 is affirmed. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d at 985-86. 8 9 CONCLUSION OF LAW 10 On the record before us, Appellants have shown that the Examiner 11 erred in rejecting claims 66-70 and 71-80. 12 On the record before us, Appellants have not shown that the Examiner 13 erred in rejecting claims 81-85. 14 15 DECISION 16 The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 66-70 and 71-80 is 17 reversed. 18 The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 81-85 is affirmed. 19 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with 20 this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2007). 21 22 AFFIRMED-IN-PART 23 24 25 26 Appeal 2009-003160 Application 09/584,520 9 hh 1 2 3 4 5 TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C. 6 1616 S. VOSS ROAD, SUITE 750 7 HOUSTON, TX 77057-2631 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation