Ex Parte Rekimoto

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2017

11712374 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 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.
1946-0256 8189
EXAMINER
ROLAND, GRISELLE CORBO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2158
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/712,374 03/01/2007
142241 7590 01/30/2017
Paratus Law Group, PLLC
1765 Greensboro Station Place
Suite 320
Tysons Corner, VA 22102
Junichi Rekimoto
01/30/2017 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 JUNICHI REKIMOTO
Appeal 2016-000555
Application 11/712,374
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1—9 and 11—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2016-000555
Application 11/712,374
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention is directed to “an information processing
apparatus, an information processing system, an information processing
method, and a computer program that realize improvement of usability of
tags that can be set in association with resources on a network” (Spec. 1:10-
17).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A client apparatus comprising:
a user interface serving as a data input/output unit;
a communicating unit that executes data communication;
and
a data processing unit, executing on a computer processor,
configured to:
browse a Web page and register a URL (Uniform
Resource Locator) of the Web page as a bookmark, the
bookmark stored on an information sharing server with a
plurality of bookmarks, wherein the bookmark includes an
extended tag for indexing the bookmark with an attribute name
and an attribute value,
set the attribute name,
transmit the attribute name via the communication
unit to the information sharing server,
receive data associated with a function associated
with the attribute name from the information sharing server via
the communication unit, wherein the function is selected by the
information sharing server according to the attribute name
transmitted by the client apparatus,
output an execution result of the function to the
user interface for display based on the transmitted attribute
name,
identify a user input received when the user
interface displays the execution result of the function; and
set the attribute value according to the identified
user input and the transmitted attribute name.
2
Appeal 2016-000555
Application 11/712,374
REFERENCES and REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1—9 and 11—20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Duri (US 2002/0156832 Al, published
Oct. 24, 2002) and Hegedus (US 2004/0030490 Al, published Feb. 12,
2004).
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Duri discloses all
the claim limitations except for explicitly disclosing setting the attribute
name, transmitting the attribute name, receiving data associated with a
function associated with the attribute name, outputting an execution result of
the function, identifying a user input, and setting the attribute value
according to the identified user input and transmitted attribute name (App.
Br. 17; Final Act. 5). Appellant further contends Hegedus does not cure the
deficiencies of Duri as the Examiner asserts (Final Act. 5—7). Particularly,
Appellant contends Hegedus does not teach or suggest “a user interface that
prompts a user to input an attribute value after receiving data associated with
the previously submitted attribute name” (App. Br. 18). We do not agree.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own (Final
Act. 4—7; Ans. 2-4). Initially, we note Appellant’s Appeal Brief recites the
paragraphs of Hegedus the Examiner relied on and then states Hegedus does
not teach or suggest “a user interface that prompts a user to input an attribute
value after receiving data associated with the previously submitted attribute
name” (see App. Br. 18, 19, 20, 21, 23). However, as the Examiner finds,
this language/limitation is not found in the claims (Ans. 2). Appellant’s
Reply Brief provides additional explanation, which were waived because
3
Appeal 2016-000555
Application 11/712,374
Appellant could have provided such explanation in the Appeal Brief but
chose not to. Moreover’ Appellant’s argument does not persuade us the
Examiner erred as the claim recites “identify a user input” and “set the
attribute value according to the identified user input” and the attribute value
is part of the extended tag for indexing a bookmark of the URL (see, e.g.,
claim 1).
Appellant further asserts “the claims clearly differentiate between an
‘attribute name’ and an ‘attribute value’” (App. Br. 25—26). We do not
agree with Appellant’s application of these terms. The claim merely recites
“the bookmark includes an extended tag for indexing the bookmark with an
attribute name and an attribute value.” Further, as the Examiner finds, there
is no definition for either of these terms in Appellant’s Specification (Ans.
3—4). We agree with the Examiner’s interpretation of the term “attribute
name” as meaning “a string that identifies an attribute” as it identifies a type
of location associated with a keyword (Ans. 3). The selected type of
category is then sent to a server which returns a list of possible values
(attribute value) associated with the selected category which a user may
chose. This is taught by Hegedus (id.).
Thus, in light of the broad terms recited in the claims and the
arguments presented, Appellant has failed to distinguish clearly the claimed
invention over the prior art relied on by the Examiner. We find the weight
of the evidence supports the Examiner’s ultimate legal conclusion of
obviousness, and therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—9
and 11—20.
4
Appeal 2016-000555
Application 11/712,374
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—9 and 11—20 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5