Ex Parte Leglise et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 30, 2009

09584520 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 30, 2009)

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