Ex Parte Marchese

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 16, 2012

09613980 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 16, 2012)

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.
09/613,980 07/11/2000 Leonard E. Marchese 11590/9-1268 1815
7590 07/17/2012
William J SaponE, (REG. NO. 32,518)
COLEMAN SUDOL SAPONE, P.C.
714 COLORADO AVENUE
BRIDGEPORT,, CT 06605-1601
EXAMINER
DINH, KHANH Q
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2451
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/17/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte LEONARD E. MARCHESE

Appeal 2010-005874
Application 09/613,980
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and LARRY J. HUME,
Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-005874
Application 09/613980

2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 21, 22, 24 through 30, 32, 34 through 37.
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed a system for creating an electronic space to
promote creative thinking. See Specification page 4. Claim 32 is
representative of the claimed invention under appeal and reproduced below:

32. A method for use of a computer based data processing
system to enhance creating thinking comprising:
providing a computer based data processing system;
using the computer based data processing system to
generate an electronic space represented as a computer
generated image of a room viewed on a computer display
device;
configuring the electronic space to contain activatable
links represented as icons within the room, the icons linked to a
plurality of data resources, human resources and software
applications;
selecting at least one activatable icon and linking to the
resource selected by the user;
and using the resource within the electronic room space;
providing an intelligent agent application programmed
for interaction with the user within the electronic room space;
using the intelligent agent to view and select the activatable
links for incorporation in the electronic room space, and
providing access to a dispatcher for locating resources
and tools for the user.

Appeal 2010-005874
Application 09/613980

3

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 21, 22, 24 through 30, 32, 34
through 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Kirk (US 6,175,842
B1, Jan. 16. 2001). Answer 3-9.1
ISSUE
Appellant argues on pages 11 through 13 of the Brief that independent
claims 21, 26 and 32 recite an intelligent agent which is not taught by Kirk.2
As Appellant’s arguments group all of the claims rejected together we select
claim 32 as representative of the group.
These, contentions present us with the issue: did the Examiner error in
finding that Kirk teaches an intelligent agent programmed for interaction
with user within the electronic room space?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner’s response to each of the independent claims argued.
We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions. We adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in

1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed on
June 25, 2009.
2 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appellant’s Substitute Brief dated
December 2, 2009, and the Reply Brief filed August 24, 2009.
Appeal 2010-005874
Application 09/613980

4

the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur
with the conclusion reached by the Examiner.
Specifically, the Examiner has found that Kirk’s teaching of a cospace
server, item 409 in figure 4, which interacts with the user via the cospace
client software, meets the claimed intelligent agent application. Answer 9.
We concur with the Examiner, and note that Appellant has admitted that this
teaching of “Kirk only supports indirect interaction.” Brief 12. While there
may be a difference in interaction between the cospace server of Kirk and
the intelligent agent disclosed in Appellant’s Specification, representative
claim 32 merely recites the intelligent agent is programmed for interaction,
there is no distinction claimed between directed and indirect interaction.
Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us that the
Examiner erred in finding that Kirk teaches an intelligent agent programmed
for interaction with user within the electronic room space as claimed.
Further, Appellant states, that the cospace server has no means for
engaging a dispatcher for locating tools or resources for the user, rather it
“merely supports a multiuser virtual environment.” Brief 13. In as much as
Appellant has presented an additional basis for determining error in the
Examiner’s rejection; we are not persuaded of error by this statement. The
Examiner has made explicit findings directed to this limitation and
Appellant has not addressed the Examiner’s findings nor identified an error
in the Examiner’s findings. In additional to the Examiner’s findings, we
note that Appellant’s Specification identifies the system monitor/facilitation
as a human presence (a person), and that the system monitor may also be a
dispatcher (person). Specification page 5, and 17. Thus, providing a
Appeal 2010-005874
Application 09/613980

5

dispatcher is merely providing access to another person, i.e. a multiuser
environment, which is what Appellant states is taught by Kirk.
For the forgoing reasons Appellant has not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 32 and claims 21, 22, 24 through 30, 34
through 37 grouped with claim 32.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner has not erred in rejecting 21, 22, 24 through 30, 32, 34
through 37 under 35 U.S.C. §102.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 21, 22, 24 through 30, 32, 34
through 37 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