Ex Parte Ritter et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2016

11544303 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111544,303 10/06/2006
41552 7590 09/28/2016
MCDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY LLP
The McDermott Building
500 North Capitol Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Greg Ritter
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
072575-0086 6998
EXAMINER
BLACK, LINH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2016 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):
mweipdocket@mwe.com
SIP _Docket@mwe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GREG RITTER, KAREN GAGE, and
SUNDARA CHINTALURI
Appeal2013-003664
Application 11/544,303
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
JOHN A. HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1,
3-19, and 21-32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to sharing bookmarks among a
community of academic system users. The bookmarks are tagged with user-
specified labels as well as academic institution-related metadata such as a
course identifier and/or discipline identifier. As a result, other users can
search through the bookmarks to locate relevant bookmarks and other
related information. See Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for collecting a plurality of bookmarks comprising
the steps of:
authenticating a user of an academic system;
receiving a bookmark from the user, the bookmark
compnsmg a name;
receiving a tag related to the bookmark; and
storing the tag and the bookmark in a computer-readable
community bookmark repository,
wherein the tag is automatically selected based on
information from the academic system specific to the
user.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Thenthiruperai US 7,251,604 Bl July 31, 2007
Appeal2013-003664
Application 11/544,303
Gillette
Rojer
US 2005/0277102 Al
US 2007/0043745 Al
THE REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Dec. 15, 2005
Feb.22,2007
Claims 1, 3-19, and 21-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gillette in view of Rojer and further in view of
Thenthiruperai.
ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Gillette and Rojer teaches or suggests the limitation
"wherein the tag is automatically selected based on information from the
academic system specific to the user," as recited in claim 1.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions as our own, and
we add the following primarily for emphasis.
Appellants argue that Gillette and Rojer, alone or in combination, do
not teach or suggest the limitation of "wherein the tag is automatically
selected based on information from the academic system specific to the
user," as recited in claim 1.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Rojer teaches tagging
bookmarks to classify different sets of bookmarks (para. 9; Ans. 4). We
further agree with the Examiner that Rojer teaches a bookmark manager to
provide an automatic determination of topics for classification of web
resources from natural language descriptions that are integrated into the
3
Appeal2013-003664
Application 11/544,303
user's portfolio (paras. 12, 50-51; Ans. 5). Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that Rojer teaches that based on the user's portfolio/interest, the
user bookmarks are automatically classified or grouped under labels/tags.
We further agree with the Examiner's finding that Gillette teaches
information related to a student is automatically selected and displayed to
the user including bookmarks (paras. 67-70; Ans. 4). More specifically,
Gillette teaches that "the routine may retrieve indications of bookmarks" for
a student (para. 69). In other words, we agree that Rojer teaches
automatically selecting tags based on the user's profile, and Gillette teaches
automatic selection of bookmarks for a student (i.e., in an academic system).
Based on these teachings, one skilled in the art at the time of the invention
would have recognized that tags could be selected automatically in an
academic system because student information would be part of the user's
profile. An artisan is presumed to possess both skill and common sense.
See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) ("A person of
ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.").
Therefore, the combination teaches "wherein the tag is automatically
selected based on information from the academic system specific to the
user," as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and, for
the same reasons, the rejections of claims 3-19 and 21-32 (see App. Br. 13-
14) which were not argued separately.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Gillette
and Rojer teaches or suggests the limitation "wherein the tag is
4
Appeal2013-003664
Application 11/544,303
automatically selected based on information from the academic system
specific to the user," as recited in claim 1.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-19, and
21-32 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