Ex parte Stein et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 16, 2000

08280343 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 16, 2000)

THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 24
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte MICHAEL V. STEIN, PAUL R. WENKER,
MARK A. NEUBIESER and JON D. BUTAH
____________
Appeal No. 1997-2989
Application No. 08/280,343
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before HAIRSTON, GROSS, and LALL, Administrative Patent
Judges.
LALL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 1997-2989
Application No. 08/280,343
This is an appeal from the last final rejection [paper1
no. 14]. An amendment after the final rejection was filed as
paper no. 15 and was entered in the record for the purposes of
the appeal [paper no. 16].
2
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1 to 10, 12 to 15,1
17 to 19 and 21, all the other claims having been canceled.

Appeal No. 1997-2989
Application No. 08/280,343
3
The disclosed invention relates to a network of computer
workstations that interact with a master workstation. For
example, the workstations might be used by students in a
learning environment, and the master workstation can be under
the control of a teacher. The invention facilitates the
teacher’s observation and assistance of students in their
learning by prioritizing, displaying and removing requests for
attention that are sent by the students to the teacher. The
invention is further illustrated by the following claim.
1. In an interactive computer network of a
type including at least one master workstation
and a plurality of other workstations, a method
for communicating requests for attention from
the other workstations and displaying said
requests at the master workstation, comprising
the steps of:
generating requests for attention at
respective ones of said plurality of other
workstations;
transmitting each of said requests to said
master workstation;
storing each of said requests to said
master workstation;
assigning a priority to each of the stored
requests;
displaying an identification of at least
some of said other workstations at said master
workstation, in a predetermined order that is
independent of any priority assigned to pending
requests;and
displaying an indicator in association with
each of said other workstations that has a
Appeal No. 1997-2989
Application No. 08/280,343
4
pending request at the master workstation in a
manner such that the indicator associated with
the workstation whose request has a highest
priority is distinguished from the indicators
associated with all other workstations with
pending requests.
Appeal No. 1997-2989
Application No. 08/280,343
The Examiner withdrew the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §2
112 [answer, page 2].
A reply brief was filed as paper no. 22 and was approved3
for entry by the Examiner without further response [paper
no. 23].
5
The Examiner’s rejection relies on the following
reference:
Lewis et al. (Lewis) 5,303,042 Apr. 12,
1994

Claims 1 to 10, 12 to 15, 17 to 19, and 21 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Lewis. 2
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for3
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have considered the rejections advanced by the
Examiner and the supporting arguments. We have, likewise,
reviewed the Appellants’ arguments set forth in the briefs.
It is our view that claims 1 to 10, 12 to 15, 17 to 19
and 21 are not anticipated by Lewis. Accordingly, we reverse.
In our analysis, we are guided by the requirements of
anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Anticipation under 35
Appeal No. 1997-2989
Application No. 08/280,343
6
U.S.C. § 102 is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, either expressly or under the principles
of inherency,
Appeal No. 1997-2989
Application No. 08/280,343
7
each and every element of a claimed invention. See RCA Corp.
V. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444,
221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Analysis
We take the claims in the order they are discussed in the
brief.
Claims 1, 9, 10 and 15
We consider claim 1. Appellants argue [brief, page 7]
that "[c]laim 1 further recites the step of ’displaying an
indicator in association with each of said other workstations
that has a pending request at the master work station . . .
.’" Appellants further advocate that Lewis does not show this
feature [id. at page 8 and reply brief, pages 2 to 3]. The
Examiner points [answer, pages 11 to 13] to icon 242, fig. 4B
of Lewis, as showing a plurality of the pending requests.
However, we agree with Appellants that icon 242 does not show
each of the pending requests, it only shows the total number
of pending requests.
We note that, in fig. 3 of Lewis, the host (teacher) has
monitors 130 and 132 which display two callers (students)
calling for the attention of the host, and using buttons 134
Appeal No. 1997-2989
Application No. 08/280,343
8
and 136 the host can activate either one (col. 7, lines 7 to
16). There is no provision in Lewis of displaying each of the
pending requests for attention of the host.
The same, or a corresponding, limitation appears in the
other claims of this group. Therefore, we do not sustain the
anticipation rejection of claims 1, 9, 10 and 15 and their
dependent claims 2 to 8, 12 to 14 and 17 to 19 over Lewis.
Claims 4, 14, 19 and 21
We take claim 21 of this group since it does not contain
the limitation discussed above. However, claim 21 recites the
means for "determining whether a communication is occurring
from the master workstation to one of said other
workstations", "determining whether said other workstation has
a request pending at the master workstation" and "removing
said pending request from the workstation." We agree with
Appellants [brief, pages 8 to 9 and reply brief, pages 3 to 4]
that this concept is missing
from Lewis. In Lewis, there is no provision for the host to
communicate with a remote station that has not sent a call to
the host. Also missing in Lewis is any provision for checking
to see if such remote station has a pending call in the queue
Appeal No. 1997-2989
Application No. 08/280,343
9
and removing the call (request) from that remote station from
the queue of the pending calls. Lewis communicates only with
the remote station whose call (request) has been activated by
the host (col. 7) and there is no communication between the
host and a remote prior to this activation. Thus, we do not
sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 21 and its grouped
claims 4, 14, 19 over Lewis.
In conclusion, the decision of the Examiner rejecting
claims 1 to 10, 12 to 15, 17 to 19 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. §
102 is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
Appeal No. 1997-2989
Application No. 08/280,343
10
PARSHOTAM S. LALL )
Administrative Patent Judge )
PSL/sld
Appeal No. 1997-2989
Application No. 08/280,343
11
JAMES W. PETERSON
BURNS, DOANE, SWECKER & MATHIS
P.O. BOX 1404
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313-1404
Shereece
Appeal No. 1997-2989
Application No. 08/280,343
APJ LALL
APJ KEYBOARD()
APJ KEYBOARD()
REVERSED
Prepared: January 22, 2002