Ex Parte Ronen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 6, 2013

11534120 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 6, 2013)

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