Ex Parte Rosenshein et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 16, 2016

13473382 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/473,382 05/16/2012 Norman Rosenshein
4372 7590 06/20/2016
ARENT FOX LLP
1717 K Street, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20006-5344
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.
0003 81. 00009 3815
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, TUAN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2171
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/20/2016 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):
IPMatters@arentfox.com
patentdocket@arentfox.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NORMAN ROSENSHEIN, ROBERT M. ZWEIMAN, JOSEPH
ZOLDAN,WARRENS.DOLNY
Appeal2014-008935
Application 13/473,382
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN P. PINKERTON, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and JOHN D.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the Examiner's non-final
rejection of claims 39---61. Claims 1-38 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction
over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Jewish War Veterans, USA National Memorial, Inc. as
the real party in interest. (Br. 5.)
Appeal2014-008935
Application 13/473,382
THE INVENTION
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention is directed to providing
an electronic Yahrzeit display, including electronically displaying identified
Y ahrzeit entries in a rotating manner. (Abstract.) "Y ahrzeit" refers to the
anniversary of the death of a relative. (Spec. i-f 3.) Claim 39, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
39. A method of providing an electronic Yahrzeit display
corresponding to the current date, the method comprising:
determining a current date, wherein the current date is
determined in a first calendar;
performing a search in a database storing a plurality of
Y ahrzeit entries to identify all the Y ahrzeit entries having an
anniversary of the death date corresponding to the current date;
calculating a conversion date for the current date in a
second calendar, wherein performing the search includes
identifying all the Y ahrzeit entries having an anniversary of the
death date corresponding to the current date in the first calendar
and the conversion date in the second calendar; and
presenting all the identified Y ahrzeit entries in a rotating
manner, wherein each of the identified Yahrzeit entries are
displayed for a predetermined amount of time.
(Br. 21.)
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 39--47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cookson, JR. et al. (US 2005/0149497 Al, pub.
July 7, 2005), Feinberg et al. (US 7,349,920 Bl, issued Mar. 25, 2008), and
King et al. (US 2003/0083109 Al, pub. May 1, 2003). (Non-Final Act. 3-
9.)
2
Appeal2014-008935
Application 13/473,382
The Examiner rejected claims 48-52 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cookson, Feinberg, King, and Meinig (US
2003/0167253 Al, pub. Sept. 4, 2003). (Non-Final Act. 9-12.)
The Examiner rejected claims 53-56 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cookson, Feinberg, King, Meinig, and Bogart et al.
US 2003/0126180 Al, pub. July 3, 2003). (Non-Final Act. 11-15.)
The Examiner rejected claims 57 and 58 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cookson, Feinberg, King, Meinig, Bogart, and
Xiong et al. (US 2007/0233736 Al, pub. Oct. 4, 2007). (Non-Final Act. 14--
16.)
The Examiner rejected claims 59---61 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cookson, Feinberg, King, and Lee (US
2004/0210420 Al, pub. Oct 21, 2004). (Non-Final Act. 15-19.)
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
issue:2
Whether the combination of Cookson, Feinberg, and King teaches or
suggests the independent claim 39 limitation, "performing the search
includes identifying all the Y ahrzeit entries having an anniversary of the
death date corresponding to the current date in the first calendar and the
conversion date in the second calendar." (Br. 10-18.)
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Mar. 28, 2014); the Non-Final
Office Action (mailed Oct. 29, 2013); and the Examiner's Answer (mailed
June 5, 2014) for the respective details.
3
Appeal2014-008935
Application 13/473,382
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants' arguments
and we adopt as our own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Non-Final Act. 3-
19); and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer
in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 20-24). We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner, and emphasize the following.
In finding Cookson, Feinberg, and King teach or suggest the claim
limitation at issue, the Examiner relies on the disclosures in Cookson of
database searching of genealogical databases, including searching on death
date fields. Non-Final Act. 3--4; Cookson Fig. 3K, i-fi-15, 35, 49.) The
Examiner further relies on the disclosure in Feinberg of date conversion
between a standard calendar system and, for example, the Jewish calendar
system. (Non-Final Act. 4; Feinberg Fig. 6, col. 1, 11. 37-39.) In addition,
the Examiner relies on the disclosure in King of periodically rotating items
for display. (Non-Final Act. 4--5; King Figs. 11, 16, i154.)
Appellants argue,
[T]he mere fact that Cookson discloses that birth and death
data is maintained in a database does not having anything to do
with performing a search of a database to identify all the entries
having a death date corresponding to the current date in a first
calendar and a current conversion date in a second calendar.
(Br. 13-14.)
Appellants further argue Cookson does not teach the aspect of the
claim involving "the conversion date in the second calendar," and argue the
4
Appeal2014-008935
Application 13/473,382
Examiner's reliance on Feinberg for this aspect is erroneous because
"Feinberg has nothing to do with a Yahrzeit display and is therefore non-
analogous art." (Br. 17.) Appellants make the same argument as to the
Examiner's reliance on King as teaching "presenting all the identified entries
in a rotating manner" - i.e., King is non-analogous art. (Br. 17-18.)
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive because they address each
reference individually, whereas the Examiner's rejection is based on the
combination of Cookson, Feinberg, and King. (Ans. 3.) See In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding:
Performing a search to retrieve database records is well-known
in database art that can retrieve all matched record associated
with the searching keywords. Therefore, Cookson reference is
used to teach the concept of searching any public database
records using keyword and the database record of Cookson
having the core keyword data as a birth or death dates.
(Ans. 21.) ivioreover, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in relying on
Feinberg and King. In an obviousness analysis,
[ t ]wo separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1)
whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of
the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the
field of the inventor's endeavor, whether the reference still is
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the
inventor is involved.
In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Bigio, 381
F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (emphases added). Appellants have not
shown Feinberg or King fail to satisfy at least the second test for analogous
art- "[a] reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a
different field from that of the inventor's endeavor, it is one which, because
5
Appeal2014-008935
Application 13/473,382
of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to
an inventor's attention in considering his problem." Klein, 647 F.3d at 1348
(quoting In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992)).
In sum, we are not persuaded by Appellants that the Examiner erred in
finding the combination of Cookson, Feinberg, and King teaches or suggests
the claimed subject matter. (Non-Final Act. 3-5.) Further, Appellants do
not point to any evidence of record that the resulting arrangements were
"uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" or
"represented an unobvious step over the prior art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int'!
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418-19 (2007). The Examiner's findings
are reasonable because the skilled artisan would "be able to fit the teachings
of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle" because the skilled
artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR, 550 U.S.
at 420-21.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, we sustain the obviousness rejection
of claim 39 over Cookson, Feinberg, and King.
We also sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 40-47 over
Cookson, Feinberg, and King; of claims 48-52 over Cookson, Feinberg,
King, and Meinig; of claims 53-56 over Cookson, Feinberg, King, Meinig,
and Bogart; of claims 57 and 58 over Cookson, Feinberg, King, Meinig,
Bogart, and Xiong; and of claims 59-61 over Cookson, Feinberg, King, and
Lee, which rejections are not argued separately with particularity. (Br. 18-
19.)
6
Appeal2014-008935
Application 13/473,382
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 39---61.
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
7