Ex Parte Lun et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 30, 201311530250 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/530,250 09/08/2006 Kei-Leung Albert Lun CA920060028US1 (048) 9322 46320 7590 05/01/2013 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG 7900 Glades Road SUITE 520 BOCA RATON, FL 33434 EXAMINER THIAW, CATHERINE B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2493 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/01/2013 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 KEI-LEUNG ALBERT LUN, TINNY MEI CHI NG, LINH DINH NGUYEN, and CHRISTOPHER PAUL PARSONS ____________________ Appeal 2010-011018 Application 11/530,250 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JUSTIN BUSCH, and HUNG H. BUI, Administrative Patent Judges. BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-011018 Application 11/530,250 2 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Introduction Appellants’ invention relates to “enterprise computing and network administration, and more particularly to the analysis of an information architecture of multiple data repositories.” Spec. ¶ [0001]. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Exemplary Claim Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A contextual analysis method for an information architecture comprising: identifying by contextual analysis logic executing in a host computing platform a set of roles accessing information within the information architecture; locating artifacts within the information architecture and determining information systems providing access to the located artifacts; linking the roles in the set with the determined information systems; and, producing a top-down, multi-faceted contextual view of the information architecture with the roles, artifacts and information systems, the view showing a relationship between different aspects of usage of artifacts in the information architecture according to different roles of different users. Appeal 2010-011018 Application 11/530,250 3 References Kulkarni US 5,848,243 Dec. 8, 1998 Salim US 2002/0035593 A1 Mar. 21, 2002 Fischer US 2007/0156649 A1 Jul. 5, 2007 Rejections Claims 9-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Ans. 3-4. Claims 1-14 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Salim, Kulkarni, and Fischer. Ans. 4-17. ISSUES Appellants state that they have filed an amendment to their Specification on January 27, 2010, arguing that the amendment obviates the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. App. Br. 7. Appellants argue claim 1 is not obvious in view of the cited prior art. App. Br. 7-12. Specifically, Appellants argue that the Examiner has not addressed the limitation of “the view showing a relationship between different aspects of usage of artifacts in the information architecture according to different roles of different users,” as recited in independent claims 1, 7, and 9. App. Br. 11. Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 9-14 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter? Issue 2: Has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-14 as being obvious over the combination of Salim, Kulkarni, and Fischer? Appeal 2010-011018 Application 11/530,250 4 ANALYSIS We have only considered those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Appeal Brief. Arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Appeal Brief have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2011). We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. Appellants’ amendment to the Specification filed on January 27, 2010, has not been entered. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 pro forma. 1 The Examiner finds Fischer discloses the disputed limitation. The Examiner points out paragraphs 12 through 14 of the Final Office Action mailed August 27, 2009, apply Fischer to the disputed limitation and provide a basis for the combination of Fischer with Salim and Kulkarni. Ans. 17-18 (paragraph 38). Appellants have not apprised us of error in the Examiner’s application of Fischer to the disputed limitation in paragraph 13, nor in the Examiner’s rationale for combination in paragraph 14. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 7, and 9, as well as dependent claims 2-5, 8, and 10-14, which depend therefrom. 1 We further note that Appellants acknowledge the problem with the claim through their submitted amendment, yet the submitted amendment retains the language covering media that can “transport” the program. Moreover, the “computer usable medium” language used in claims 9-14 is not able to be corrected by merely eliminating language in the Specification. We direct Appellants to Director’s Memo Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010). Appeal 2010-011018 Application 11/530,250 5 DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-14 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 ke Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation