Ex Parte Pittarelli

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 1, 2004

08771885 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 1, 2004)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 34

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte EDWARD J. PITTARELLI
_____________
Appeal No. 2003-0813
Application No. 08/771,885
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before KRASS, JERRY SMITH and FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of claims 21-26, 28 and 29.
The invention is directed to a system for providing public information and
services utilizing stand-alone computers, in public kiosks, and central servers to permit
users to interact with remote information and service providers. Information that is
available at the local kiosk, in local memory, is provided to a user without accessing the
Appeal No. 2003-0813
Application No. 08/771,885
2
centralized server. Information that is not available locally, may be obtained by the user
from a centralized server through a wide area communications network connected
between the centralized server and the public kiosk.
Representative independent claim 21 is reproduced as follows:
21. An information distribution system comprising a plurality of
information systems associated with respective ones of different services,
at least one centralized server, and
a plurality of public kiosks disposed in different public places each
operable using configuration and interface information stored in a locally
accessible associated memory without accessing said centralized server
for interacting with a user to permit the user to select one of said different
services, and operable, responsive to a user entering such a selection, for
unloading from said associated memory information associated with the
selected service and presenting the unloaded information to said user and
operable, responsive to the user entering a particular request, for
establishing a multimedia-video telecommunications connection between
the user and a representative of the selected one of said different
services,
and further operable for forwarding the user's selection to said at
least one centralized server if said information is not stored in said
memory, each of said public kiosks being directly connected to said at
least one centralized server via a wide area communications network, and
wherein
said at least one centralized server being operable for then
downloading via said network information to the kiosk at which said user is
located for storage thereat and presentation to the user and for
periodically downloading to each of said kiosks for storage thereat
changes to user selectable information associated with a respective one
of said different services.
Appeal No. 2003-0813
Application No. 08/771,885
1While the examiner refers to Paper No. 24 for the rejections, and Paper No. 24 states a
rejection of claim 29 over Ahlin and Katz, the answer does not refer to Katz nor does it explicitly
repeat this rejection. However, since reference is made to Paper No. 24, and appellant
apparently agrees that claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Ahlin and Katz
(note pages 3-4 of the brief), we will treat the rejection of claim 29 on this ground as
outstanding on appeal.
2While Kawan is not part of the examiner’s statement of rejection, it is incorporated by
reference in Ahlin, at column 2, lines 1-8, by referring to “Ser. No. 260, 832, filed Oct. 21,
1988," which is a parent application of Kawan. In any event, both appellant and the examiner
understand Kawan as forming part of the rejection and we will treat it as such.
3
The examiner relies on the following references:
Ahlin et al. (Ahlin) 5,321,840 Jun. 14, 1994
Katz1 5,495,284 Feb. 27, 1996
(filed Nov. 17, 1993)
Kawan et al. (Kawan)2 5,572,572 Nov. 05, 1996
(filed Mar. 16, 1994)
Claims 21-26, 28 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103. As evidence of
obviousness, the examiner cites Ahlin with regard to claims 21-26 and 28, adding Katz
with regard to claim 29.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the respective positions of
appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
At the outset, we note that, in accordance with appellant’s grouping of the claims
at page 3 of the brief, all claims will stand or fall together. Accordingly, we will focus on
independent claim 21.
Appeal No. 2003-0813
Application No. 08/771,885
4
In our previous decision of February 6, 2001, we affirmed the examiner’s
decision rejecting claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Ahlin. In the instant case, claim
21 has been amended to include two additional limitations. The claim now recites that
each public kiosk is operable using “configuration and interface information stored in a
locally accessible associated memory without accessing said centralized server.” It
also recites that when desired information is not stored in the local memory, the user’s
selection is forwarded to a centralized server, wherein each of the public kiosks is
directly connected to at least one centralized server via “a wide area communications
network.”
Appellant now argues that neither Ahlin nor Kawan teaches or suggests using
“configuration and interface information stored in a locally accessible associated
memory without accessing said centralized server” because these references need to
download operating software to the local computer, e.g., to the telephone-computer in
Kawan. Appellant reasons that since everything needs to be downloaded, this is in
contrast to the instant claimed invention which recites information being stored in a
locally accessible associated memory “without accessing said centralized server.”
We disagree. While it may be that Ahlin and Kawan download necessary
information, e.g., application program pages, from a centralized server, we note, as did
Appeal No. 2003-0813
Application No. 08/771,885
5
the examiner, that appellant also needs to download information which is not available
in local memory, from a centralized server. Once the application program, in Ahlin and
Kawan, is downloaded, the required information is now in local memory and the
configuration and interface information in the references is now stored in a locally
accessible associated memory “without accessing said centralized server,” as claimed.
It appears to us that interpretation of the instant claim language is a matter of “when”
one is looking at the status of the system. If the required information is already located
at the local memory, then that information is accessible “without accessing said
centralized server.” However, if the information is not available at the local memory,
then the required information must be downloaded from the centralized server. For
example, reference is made to column 7, lines 23-50, of Ahlin, wherein there is a
description of a host computer that downloads a series of application program pages to
a home terminal. Once the home terminal has the program, the program is operated
from the home terminal and it is no longer necessary to download the program.
Appellant further argues that the limitation of a “wide area communications
network” distinguishes over the applied references. In particular, appellant argues that
since Kawan indicates that the telephone-computer therein delivers services “through
an ordinary telephone instrument via conventional telephone lines...” (abstract), such
Appeal No. 2003-0813
Application No. 08/771,885
6
“conventional telephone lines” cannot constitute the claimed direct connection to “a
wide area communications network.” Appellant argues that the “differences between
communication via telephone lines and a WAN are significant, relating to speed,
protocol, etc.” (brief-page 6) and that while many systems can use both types of
communication systems, Kawan “specifically chose not to use WAN” (brief-page 6) in
order to preserve the appearance of a telephone system.
The examiner’s response is to refer us to an office action of June 14, 2001
(Paper No. 21) and to argue that there is no functional difference between the claimed
connection and the reference system connection to a network because Ahlin/Kawan
“performs exactly the same function as the claimed in terms being connected to the
network to perform the claimed function. It was commonly known at the time of
invention that one of ordinary skill in the art can easily connected via phone line or any
other known network connection means” (sic, answer-page 7).
We will sustain the examiner’s position. The examiner should have cited a
specific reference to buttress the finding that the use of a WAN would be a design
choice and/or that the skilled artisan would have known about employing many different
types of interconnection networks, including telephone connections and WAN.
However, under the circumstances, we will not hold the examiner’s lack of a reference
to be reversible error.
Appeal No. 2003-0813
Application No. 08/771,885
7
Basically, the examiner is taking Official notice that the use of WAN for
connecting computers was well known at the time of the instant invention and that its
use in place of telephone connections, or other types of connections, would have been
obvious to the skilled artisan. This appears, to us, to be a reasonable position which
appellant was free to challenge. Yet, appellant does not challenge this finding by the
examiner, arguing merely that Kawan chooses to employ a telephone connection rather
than a WAN, but does not address the question of the obviousness of using a WAN.
Merely because Kawan chooses to use a conventional telephone connection is
not a valid reason, in our view, for appellant to contend that it would not have been
obvious to use a WAN, instead, if the skilled artisan wished to achieve the advantages
afforded by a WAN. Appellant also points out the differences between telephone lines
and WAN, e.g., speed, protocol, etc. but does not dispute that the differences would
have been familiar to the skilled artisan at the time of the instant invention.
Appellant does point out that since Kawan wants to preserve the look of a
telephone system, the artisan would not have chosen to use a WAN in Kawan’s
system. We are unpersuaded by this argument. The preservation of the look of a
normal telephone system would not preclude the use of a WAN, since the specific type
of connection would be invisible to a casual observer. Moreover, we note that
appellant’s argument is directly solely to Kawan, even though Ahlin is also applied in
the rejection and, in fact, is the primary reference applied.
Appeal No. 2003-0813
Application No. 08/771,885
8
Since none of appellant’s arguments are found to overcome what we view as a
prima facie case of obviousness established by the examiner, we will sustain the
rejection of claims 21-26, 28 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. §103.
The examiner’s decision is affirmed.
Appeal No. 2003-0813
Application No. 08/771,885
9
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
EAK/vsh
Appeal No. 2003-0813
Application No. 08/771,885
10
LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES INC.
DOCKET ADMINISTRATOR
101 CRAWFORDS CORNER ROAD - ROOM 3J-219
HOLMDEL, NJ 07733