Ex Parte Sureshkumar

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 22, 2017

12180650 (P.T.A.B. May. 22, 2017)

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.
12/180,650 07/28/2008 T. Sureshkumar 1565.252US1 1499
45838 7590 05/24/2017
smwfPtMan t t tndrf.ro & wofssnfr/novft t EXAMINER
PO BOX 2938 TRUONG, CAM Y T
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2169
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/24/2017 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):
uspto@slwip.com
SLW @blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte T. SURESHKUMAR
Appeal 2016-006922
Application 12/180,6501
Technology Center 2100
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 and 3-22, which are all the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Novell, Inc.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-006922
Application 12/180,650
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s application relates to a wiki engine integrated with a file
manager to provide a wiki view of files from within the file manager. Spec.
17. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as
follows:
1. A method, comprising:
providing a file manager to manage files stored in a
computer-readable medium, wherein the file manager includes
an application layer configured to provide a directory view of the
files using a hierarchical form of files and folders; and
integrating a content organization engine with the file
manager to extend the application layer to provide a personalized
view of content within the files and folders based on the engine,
wherein the engine is configured to provide a user
interface through which compact formatting syntax is used to
create and edit content and interlink files from within the file
manager, and
wherein the engine is configured to use hyperlinks to files
to provide the personalized view of the interlinked files from
within the file manager beyond the hierarchical form of files and
folders provided by the file manager.
The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-14, 18-20, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kung et al. (US 2006/0184540 Al; Aug. 17,
2006) and Moser et al. (US 2004/0107249 Al; June 3, 2004). Final Act. 2-
10.
Claims 8 and 15-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kung, Moser, and Kraus et al. (US 7,584,268 B2; Sept. 1,
2009). Final Act. 11-13.
2
Appeal 2016-006922
Application 12/180,650
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kung, Moser, and Pennington (US 2008/0133445 Al; June 5, 2008).
Final Act. 13-14.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s
Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following additional
points.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as
unpatentable over Kung and Moser. App. Br. 10-17; Reply Br. 2-6. In
particular, Appellant argues the Examiner fails to clearly identify which
portions of Kung and Moser are relied upon for the “file manager,”
“application layer,” and “content organization engine” limitations. App. Br.
10-17. Appellant argues Kung recites a “virtual folder explorer module”
and “virtual file system manager,” instead of a “file manager” and
“application layer,” as claimed. App. Br. 13. Appellant also argues Moser
does not explicitly recite an application layer or content organization engine.
App. Br. 14.
Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred. The Examiner
explains which portions of Kung and Moser the Examiner finds corresponds
to the recited limitations in the Answer. Ans. 13-24. Appellant’s argument
3
Appeal 2016-006922
Application 12/180,650
that Kung and Moser fail to explicitly recite the precise claim language is
unavailing because the doctrine of obviousness does not require identity of
language. In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 1090 (CCPA 1978) (An ipsissimis
verbis test is not required). Rather, the obviousness inquiry is directed to
whether the cited references would have taught or suggested the claimed
subject matter to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time. KSR Int 7 Co. v.
Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Appellant has not identified
persuasive evidence or provided persuasive argument that the Examiner’s
findings are erroneous.
Appellant further argues Moser does not teach or suggest “the engine
is configured to use hyperlinks to files to provide the personalized view of
the interlinked files from within the file manager beyond the hierarchical
form of files and folders provided by the file manager,” as recited in claim 1.
Reply Br. 3-5. In particular, Appellant argues Moser teaches a portal 11
that includes a resource area 162, which is a “simple hierarchical file
manager.” Reply Br. 3—4 (citing Moser Fig. 4). Appellant argues Moser
does not provide hyperlinks to the resources in the resource area, instead
providing hyperlinks to news headlines in the news feed. Reply Br. 4-5.
Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Kung teaches a virtual file system manager (“file
manager”) that includes a virtual folder explorer (“application layer”) that
enables users to organize and manage a hierarchical structure of nested
folders. Ans. 13 (citing Kung Fig. 5, 68, 76). Kung further teaches a
virtual portfolio manager 106 (“content organization engine”) that serves as
an interface for managing the virtual portfolio system, enabling users to
4
Appeal 2016-006922
Application 12/180,650
publish assets stored in the virtual file system. Ans. 13-14 (citing Kung
Figs. 2, 5, 6,1 69).
The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Moser teaches portal 11
(“file manager”) presents information through a unified visual interface,
including allowing users to add resources to a collaboration area in a
resources view. Ans. 15 (citing Moser Fig. 4, || 18, 21, and 50). The portal
system includes portal displays 24, 26, 28, 30, and 32 (“application layer”)
that present personalized home pages to users. Id. Moser teaches the portal
displays may include tabs that provide hyperlinks to users, allowing the
users to access other sub-pages. Ans. 20 (citing Moser Fig. 1,125).
Appellant argues these hyperlinks are limited to a “news feed.” Reply
Br. 5 (citing Moser | 54). Although Moser teaches news view 186 may be
used in the portal to provide news updates to users, Moser does not restrict
the use of hyperlinks to this view. Moser | 54. Instead, Moser teaches
hyperlinks may be used in portal tabs, which may include all kinds of
information. Moser H 23-26. Users may be able to edit the information in
the tabs, including the hyperlinks, depending on the permissions associated
with their assigned role. Moser || 23-24. Accordingly, Appellant has not
persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding Moser teaches, or at least
suggests, “the engine is configured to use hyperlinks to files to provide the
personalized view of the interlinked files from within the file manager
beyond the hierarchical form of files and folders provided by the file
manager.”
Appellant also argues Moser does not teach using compact formatting
syntax to create and edit content and interlink files from within the resources
view, which displays the hierarchical list of files and folders. Reply Br. 5.
5
Appeal 2016-006922
Application 12/180,650
Appellant has not persuaded us of error. Claim 1 recites “the file
manager includes an application layer configured to provide a directory view
of the files using a hierarchical form of files and folders.” Accordingly, the
“application layer” displays the hierarchical form of files and folders. Claim
1 further recites “integrating a content organization engine with the file
manager . . . wherein the [content organization] engine is configured to
provide a user interface through which compact formatting syntax is used to
create and edit content and interlink files from within the file manager.” The
“content organization engine,” which is integrated with the file manager,
provides a user interface to use “compact formatting syntax ... to create and
edit content and interlink files from within the file manager.” In other
words, the content organization engine uses compact formatting syntax, not
the application layer that displays the hierarchical files and folders.
Appellant’s argument that Moser fails to teach using compact formatting
syntax in the resources view is not commensurate with the scope of the
claim because the application layer that provides hierarchical files and
folders need not use compact formatting syntax to create and edit content
and interlink files.
Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claim 1. We, therefore, sustain the rejection of claim
1, independent claims 5 and 11, which Appellant argues are patentable for
the same reasons (App. Br. 17-19), and dependent claims 3, 4, 6-10, 12-20,
and 22, which are not argued separately (App. Br. 17-19).
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 21 because
modifying Kung would render it unsatisfactory for its intended purpose or
improperly change its principle of operation. App. Br. 19. However,
6
Appeal 2016-006922
Application 12/180,650
Appellant’s argument is conclusory, lacking any explanation as to why the
Examiner’s rejection is allegedly improper for these reasons. Id. In the
absence of a more detailed explanation, we are not persuaded of error on the
part of the Examiner. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections,” citing Ex Parte Frye, 94
USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (“The panel then reviews
the obviousness rejection for error based upon the issues identified by
appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon.”)).
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 and 3-22.
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