Ex Parte Nanja

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 8, 2008

09778565 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 8, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MURTHI NANJA
____________

Appeal 2006-3300
Application 09/778,565
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: January 8, 2008
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MACDONALD, and JOHN A.
JEFFEREY, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-8, 12-19, and 23-25, which are all of the claims pending in this
application as claims 9-11 and 20-22 have been canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2006-3300
Application 09/778,565

2
Appellant has invented a method and an apparatus for aggregating on
a local system data from various web servers (Specification 6) and
forwarding the aggregated data to a wireless device in a single connection
session (Specification 7-9).
Claim 1, which is representative of the claims on appeal, reads as
follows:
1. A method comprising:

aggregating information from two or more web sites on a client;

detecting the occurrence of a predetermined time; and

automatically transferring information to a wireless device at the
predetermined time, from said two or more web sites in a single connection
session.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Ohashi US 6,172,699 B1 Jan. 9, 2001
Khan US 6,438,575 B1 Aug. 20, 2002
(filed effectively Jun. 7, 2000)

The Examiner rejected claims 1-8, 12-19, and 23-25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Khan and Ohashi.
We affirm.

ISSUE
The issue is whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellant argues that the
combination is improper since Kahn does not transfer multiple Web pages at
Appeal 2006-3300
Application 09/778,565

3
a predetermined time in a single connection session (Br. 10) while Ohashi
merely transfers multiple pages of image data in one communication session
without explaining its benefits (Reply Br. 2). Additionally, Appellant argues
that Kahn does not aggregate the Web pages in a client and instead, does so
in a server (Br. 10, Reply Br. 1). Therefore, the issue turns on whether there
is a legally sufficient justification for combining the disclosures of Kahn and
Ohashi and if so, whether the combination of these references teaches the
claimed subject matter related to aggregating information from Web pages
on a client and transferring the information in a single connection session.

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following findings of fact (FF) are relevant to the issue involved
in the appeal and are supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
1. Appellant’s Figure 1 shows the client as the system 103 which
may be any processor based system which acts as an intermediary or an
“information hub” for the wireless devices 101 and provides aggregated web
information to each wireless device (Specification 5:1-11).
2. Kahn relates to selecting and formatting web content for remote
viewing. User-defined information is received and used to retrieve content
from one or more web sites which is aggregated and formatted at a network
server for display on a wireless device. The formatted content is transmitted
to a wireless device for display on the wireless device (Abstract).
3. Kahn further discloses that the content is aggregated on a portal
page unique to the user, which displays the content that the user has
specified and can include the interface that allows the user to specify the
information. This portal page is fully customizable by the user and can be
Appeal 2006-3300
Application 09/778,565

4
accessed by any device, whether wireless or hardwired. As an option other
than a real time aggregation, the retrieved content can be updated after a
predetermined amount of time has expired. The content would then be
retrieved, formatted, and transmitted to the wireless device (col. 2, ll. 39-48;
col. 10, ll. 27-59; col. 11, ll. 9-22; Figure 2).
4. Figure 3 of Kahn shows a portable wireless device 302 in
connection with a host computer system 304 which, in turn, is connected to
remote sources of data information on the Internet 306 (col. 11, ll. 37-41).
Kahn discloses that the host computer system includes a peripheral interface
adapter that provides for the bi-directional transfer of the data via an
interconnect line 308 to an external transceiver 310 that supports wireless
communications with one or more wireless devices (col. 11, ll. 42-46).
5. Ohashi relates to a thermal printing unit wherein a data packet
of the printing data is sent to and stored in the printer to be used for printing
when a controller determines the temperature of the printing head to be
within a set range (Abstract).
6. Ohashi controls the multi-receiving function, wherein a
plurality of pages of image data is received in one communication
connection session (col. 7, ll. 55-59), so that the temperature of the printing
head can be maintained within a range suitable for proper printing (col. 7, l.
59 through col. 8, l. 3).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
To reach a conclusion of obviousness under § 103, the Examiner bears
the burden of producing factual basis supported by teaching in a prior art
reference or shown to be common knowledge of unquestionable
Appeal 2006-3300
Application 09/778,565

5
demonstration. Our reviewing court requires this evidence in order to
establish a prima facie case. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72 (Fed.
Cir. 1984).
Furthermore, the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art.
See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-88 (Fed. Cir. 2006), In re Young, 927
F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981).
“Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains.’” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,
1734 (2007).
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
Leapfrog Enter., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir.
2007) (quoting KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1739). “One of the ways in which a
patent's subject matter can be proved obvious is by noting that there existed
at the time of invention a known problem for which there was an obvious
solution encompassed by the patent's claims.” KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1742.

ANALYSIS
The Examiner characterizes the host computer system 304 of Kahn as
the claimed client wherein the information data from one or more web sites
are aggregated (Answer 7-8). The Examiner further finds Kahn’s network
Appeal 2006-3300
Application 09/778,565

6
server to be the same as Appellant’s processor-based system 103, depicted in
Appellant’s Figure 1, where data is aggregated before transferring to the
wireless devices 101 (id.).
Appellant argues that the network server of Kahn is not a client
associated with the wireless device and relies on the disclosed description of
such client on page 11 of the Specification (Br. 10). Appellant further
asserts that the claimed client cannot merely be any processor-based system
and therefore, the Examiner’s position is erroneous (Reply Br. 1).
We disagree with Appellant that the host computer system 304 of
Kahn is not a client and is different from the client disclosed in the
Specification. Although Kahn does not call the system 304 a client, it
performs all the functions of a client described in Appellant’s Specification
such as aggregating the information from websites requested by the wireless
device and transferring the aggregated information to the wireless device
(FF 1-4). Additionally, the claims do not require any specific association
between the client and the wireless device, as argued by Appellant, and
merely define the client by the functions of aggregating and transferring
data.
We also note that Kahn provides for the option of updating the
retrieved data after passing a predetermined time when the data is retrieved,
formatted, and transmitted to the wireless device (FF 3). The aggregated
information is then transmitted to the wireless device via an interconnect line
308 and an external transceiver 310 (FF 4). In that regard, the fact that the
data transfer is not performed in real time supports the Examiner’s rationale
for looking into Ohashi for single connection data transfer.
Appeal 2006-3300
Application 09/778,565

7
Therefore, contrary to Appellant’s assertion that Kahn teaches away
because Kahn presents data to the wireless device as they develop (Br. 10),
Kahn does not teach away from transferring data in a single connection
session since the data aggregation in Kahn is not done in real time. In fact,
Kahn allows for user interaction with the content in a different embodiment
that relates to the real time data aggregation and is different from updating
the content after a predetermined time and transferring the content after it is
aggregated.
We also disagree with Appellant that the Examiner’s proposed
combination of the references is void of any reason or rationale (Br. 11) and
find that Ohashi’s multi-receiving function and control of the duration of
printer data transfer, or printing strobe time-width, for controlling the printer
head temperature (FF 6) suggests transferring data in a single connection
session. Ohashi sends the print data in one communication connection
session, a multi-receiving function, in order to allow the printer head to
achieve and maintain a preset temperature and be ready for printing the
pages included in the image data (FF 6). In other words, transferring the
print data in a single connection session in Ohashi provides an obvious
solution to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the references for
controlling the performance of the receiving devices such as the wireless
devices in Kahn that are to receive the aggregated web information data.
See KSR, supra.

Appeal 2006-3300
Application 09/778,565

8
CONCLUSION
Because Appellant has failed to point to any error in the Examiner’s
position, we sustain the § 103 rejection of claim 1 and also with respect to
claims 2-8, 12-19, and 23-25, which are argued together and fall with claim
1 (Br. 10-11). Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims
1-8, 12-19, and 23-25 over Kahn and Ohashi.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-8, 12-19, and 23-25
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

KIS

TROP PRUNER & HU, P.C.
1616 S. VOSS ROAD, SUITE 750
HOUSTON, TX 77057-2631