Ex Parte O et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2017

13614167 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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.
13/614,167 09/13/2012 William G. OEarrell CA920060081US2 1495
(057CON)
66912 7590
CRGO LAW
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, EL 33434
06/02/2017 EXAMINER
BOURZIK, BRAHIM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2191
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docketing@crgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILLIAM G. O’FARRELL, MARIANO CONSENS,
and JOHN (WEN SHENG) LIU
Appeal 2016-006342
Application 13/614,167
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appeal 2016-006342
Application 13/614,167
Appellants filed a Request for Rehearing under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.52(a)(1) for reconsideration of our Decision of March 20, 2017
(“Decision”). The Decision affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—
3, 6—12, and 15—17 as unpatentable over Nakamura and Lauzon under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—3, 6—12, and
15—17 under the non-statutory doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting
over US Patent 8,321,8457 Decision 6.
We have reconsidered our Decision in light of Appellants’ arguments
in the Request, and we are not persuaded that we misapprehended or
overlooked any points in rendering our Decision. We decline to change our
prior Decision for the reasons discussed below.
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the combination of Nakamura and Lauzon fails to
disclose the claim 1 limitation of “visually emphasizing each portion of the
XML document corresponding to a result set resulting from the application
of each of the sub-expressions to the XML document.” Request 3—5.
Appellants assert this point was argued “at pages 7 through 14 of the Appeal
Brief, but the Board appears to have overlooked these arguments in so far as
the Board has not addressed all of the arguments presented at pages 7
through 14 of the Appeal Brief as summarized herein.” Request 6.
We disagree with Appellants because the Board’s Decision squarely
addresses the argued limitation:
1 Appellants only request reconsideration of the Decision with respect to the
obviousness rejection over Nakamura and Lauzon. See Request 2—6.
2
Appeal 2016-006342
Application 13/614,167
[W]e find Nakamura discloses decomposing an XPATH
expression into subexpressions .... As the Examiner
concedes, however, Nakamura does not disclose a GUI for
visually differentiating portions of an XML document
corresponding to evaluated XPATH sub-expressions (see Final
Act. 9).
. . . [W]e find Lauzon discloses a visual debugger, i.e., a GUI
that allows a user to select a particular XPATH expression in an
XSL stylesheet in order to be shown a visual emphasis of the
result of evaluating the XPATH expression with respect to a
source XML document.
We agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that, in light of
Lauzon’s visual debugger, one of ordinary skill in the art would
have been motivated to provide visual debugging of
Nakamura’s evaluated XPATH sub-expressions (see Final Act.
11).
Decision 4—5. Accordingly, the Board did not overlook the issue of whether
the combination of Nakamura and Lauzon discloses “visually emphasizing
each portion of the XML document corresponding to a result set resulting
from the application of each of the sub-expressions to the XML document,”
as recited in claim 1.
To the extent Appellants assert other points were overlooked, we
decline to address them because Appellants’ statement that “the Board has
not addressed all of the arguments presented at pages 7 through 14 of the
Appeal Brief’ (Request 6) fails to “state with particularity the points
believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.79(b)(1).
3
Appeal 2016-006342
Application 13/614,167
CONCLUSION
We have considered the arguments raised by Appellants in the
Request for Rehearing, but Appellants have not persuaded us that we
misapprehended or overlooked any points in rendering our Decision.
DECISION
We have granted Appellants’ Request for Rehearing to the extent that
we have reconsidered our Decision, but we deny the Request with respect to
making any changes thereto.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
REQUEST FOR REHEARING DENIED
4