Ex Parte RonenDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 6, 201311534120 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 6, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 11/534,120 09/21/2006 Benzi Ronen 2006P00331US (S20.039) 5430 52025 7590 08/06/2013 SAP AG c/o BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC 50 LOCUST AVENUE NEW CANAAN, CT 06840 EXAMINER RUIZ, ANGELICA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2158 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/06/2013 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 BENZI RONEN ____________ Appeal 2010-005383 Application 11/534,120 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2010-005383 Application 11/534,120 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant’s invention relates to a dynamic content navigation system and method for allowing a user in a portal environment to obtain content relevant to the user in resolving and investigating alerts. Abstract; Spec. ¶ 11. The system provides the user with navigation links to content related to the alert and the user. In one embodiment, the system ranks the navigable data paths to determine a recommended data path. Abstract; Spec. ¶ 11. Claims 1, 9, and 15 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention (disputed limitations in italics): 1. A method in a portal environment of dynamically assessing and providing navigational links to applications and data relevant to a user in resolving alerts, the method comprising: receiving a set of user attributes; receiving an alert associated with the user; performing a query in a portal environment using the set of user attributes and alert attributes associated with the alert to locate content relevant to the user; based on the set of user attributes and the alert attributes, determining a plurality of navigable data paths to content that allows the user to respond to at least a portion of the alert; receiving from the user a request for a recommend [sic] data path; ranking the plurality of navigable data paths to determine the recommended data path for the user; and Appeal 2010-005383 Application 11/534,120 3 in response to the received request, displaying an indication of the recommended data path. Rejections on Appeal The Examiner has rejected claims 1-8 and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Polizzi (US 6,643,661 B2, Nov. 4, 2003), Alexander (US 2004/0243611 A1, Dec. 2, 2004), and Forman (US 2003/0139901 A1, July 24, 2003). Ans. 3-11. The Examiner has rejected claims 9-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Alexander, Polizzi, and Forman. Ans. 11-15. ISSUES (1) Does the combination of Polizzi, Alexander, and Forman teach or suggest “performing a query in a portal environment using the . . . alert attributes associated with the alert to locate content relevant to the user,” as recited in claim 1? (2) Does the combination of Polizzi, Alexander, and Forman teach or suggest “based on the set of user attributes . . . , determining a plurality of navigable data paths to content that allows the user to respond to at least a portion of the alert,” as recited in claim 1? (3) Does the combination of Polizzi, Alexander, and Forman teach or suggest “receiving from the user a request for a recommend [sic] data path,” as recited in claim 1? (4) Has the Examiner provided sufficient rationale for combining the references? Appeal 2010-005383 Application 11/534,120 4 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasoning set forth in the Examiner’s Answer. We highlight and address the following findings and arguments for emphasis. With respect to the first issue on appeal, the Examiner finds that Polizzi teaches or suggests the first three limitations of claim 1, including “performing a query in a portal environment using the . . . alert attributes associated with the alert to locate content relevant to the user.” Ans. 3-4. The Examiner relies on Polizzi’s teaching of an event server in a portal computer system that runs jobs such as “searches to be conducted in the knowledge server” that are “associated with certain time events,” which control when jobs run. Ans. 4 (citing Polizzi, col. 25, ll. 37-43, 54-57). In particular, the Examiner finds that Polizzi’s “time event” corresponds to an “alert” as recited in claim 1. Ans. 4, 16. Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that a “time event” in Polizzi corresponds to an “alert” as recited in claim 1. Specifically, Appellant alleges that “[t]he time events described in Polizzi are merely jobs that are executed according to a pre-determined schedule” and that “these types of jobs are not ‘alerts’ as the term is used in claim 1.” App. Br. 6. Appellant, however, is misinterpreting Polizzi, which describes a time event as defining the timetable for running a job, not as the job itself. See Polizzi, col. 16, ll. 33-34; col. 25, ll. 37-43. Thus, Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding that an “alert” as recited in claim 1 encompasses a “time event” as taught in Polizzi. Appellant also Appeal 2010-005383 Application 11/534,120 5 points out that “claim 1 later specifically refers to ‘content that allows the user to respond to at least a portion of the alert.’” App. Br. 6. The Examiner, however, relies on Alexander to teach this limitation, so it is immaterial whether Polizzi teaches allowing a user to respond to an alert. See Ans. 16-17. With respect to the second issue on appeal, Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that Alexander teaches determining a plurality of data paths “based on the set of user attributes,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 6. We disagree. Appellant broadly describes “user attribute data” as “data having context associated with the user such as the user’s personal profile, business role, . . . association with tasks, association with alerts, association with events, . . . and the like.” Spec. ¶ 40. As shown in Figures 6A and 6B and described in paragraph 48 of Alexander, different links (“navigable data paths”) allowing a user to respond to an alert are determined based on whether or not a user has a sales meeting planned with a customer. Ans. 17-18. In view of these teachings in Alexander, Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding that Alexander teaches or suggests determining navigable data paths based on user attributes. With respect to the third issue on appeal, Appellant argues that nothing in Forman teaches or suggests receiving from the user a request for a recommended data path, as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 6-7. In response, the Examiner cites paragraphs 24 and 29 and Figure 1 of Forman. Ans. 5, 18-21. As correctly found by the Examiner, the cited portions of Forman teach determining a recommended path in response to choices made by the Appeal 2010-005383 Application 11/534,120 6 user. Ans. 5, 19-21. Thus, Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred. In the Reply Brief, Appellant further argues that Forman does not teach or suggest “a request for a recommended data path ‘to content that allows a user to respond to an alert.’” Reply Br. 2. Because the Examiner relies on Alexander, not Forman, for teaching paths to content that allows the user to respond to an alert, Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive. See Ans. 5, 17-18. Appellant cannot establish nonobviousness by attacking references individually when the rejection is based on a combination of references. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Finally, with respect to the fourth issue on appeal, Appellant contends that the Examiner has not provided sufficient reasoning for combining the references. App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 2. We disagree. The Examiner has provided articulated reasoning with rational underpinning for combining the references, including ample citations to the references themselves, to support the prima facie case of obviousness. Ans. 6, 21-22; see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In addition, we conclude that Appellant’s claimed invention is simply the combination of familiar elements according to known methods to yield predictable results that would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of independent claim 1 as well as independent claims 9 and 15, which recite similar limitations. We also sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of Appeal 2010-005383 Application 11/534,120 7 dependent claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20, for which Appellant has not made separate, detailed arguments. See App. Br. 8. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED ke Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation