Ex Parte Szabo et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 18, 2013

10188503 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 18, 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.
10/188,503 07/02/2002 Pamela Szabo STON005US 1561
48746 7590 06/19/2013
HULSEY, P.C.
919 Congress Avenue, Suite 919
AUSTIN, TX 78701
EXAMINER
HUTTON JR, WILLIAM D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/19/2013 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 PAMELA SZABO and DAQUER REVERON

Appeal 2010-011738
Application 10/188,503
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before CARL W.WHITEHEAD, JR, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-3, 7-18, 22-30, 54, 56, and 58-72. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to a method and system for
identifying and managing sources of record. The sources of record may be
any source of information or data that has been sanctioned or otherwise
designated as an approved source. See Specification 24, Abstract of the
Disclosure.
Appeal 2010-011738
Application 10/188,503
2

Claim 1 is illustrative, with key disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A computer based method of managing a plurality of sources of
record, comprising:

retrieving, on a server, a source template, said source template
describing a source of record, said source of record being on a
designated computer system separate from but accessible to the
server, said source of record officially sanctioned as a designated
source from among a plurality of computer systems for a particular
type of data or information for an enterprise said source template
including information regarding said designated computer system
where said data is stored;

defining, on said server, a reference template for said source
template, said reference template describing said source template,
said reference template including information regarding where said
source template may be found;

storing said reference template on said server;

assigning, using said server, one or more selection criteria to said
reference template;

searching, using said server, for said reference template using said
one or more selection criteria;

accessing said reference template on said server using said one or
more selection criteria;

accessing said source template on said server using said reference
template; and

accessing said data on said designated computer system using said
source template.

Appeal 2010-011738
Application 10/188,503
3
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Stevenson US 2003/0014483 A1 Jan. 16, 2003
(Provisional Application filed Apr. 13, 2001)
Britton US 2002/0178170 A1 Nov. 28, 2002
(Provisional Application filed May 15, 2001)

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 7-18, 22-30, 54, 56, and 58-72
under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Stevenson and Britton. Ans.
3-13.1

ISSUES
Based upon our review of the record, the arguments proffered by
Appellants and the findings of the Examiner, we find the following issues to
be dispositive of the claims on appeal:
1. Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by
relying upon the April 13, 2001 filing date of Stevenson’s earlier
provisional application?
2. Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by
finding that Stevenson and Britton disclose a “source of record”?
3. Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by
finding that Stevenson discloses a source template which describes
a source of record which is located on a separate computer system
from the source of record?
4. Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by
finding that Stevenson discloses reference templates?

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed May 18, 2010;
the Examiner’s Answer mailed June 23, 2010; and, the Reply Brief filed
August 18, 2010.
Appeal 2010-011738
Application 10/188,503
4

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 11-18) and the Reply Brief (Reply
Br. 2-7) that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Ans. 3-13), and
(2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 14-21). We highlight and
amplify certain teachings and suggestions of the references as follows.
Appellants argue that the Examiner has improperly relied upon the
Stevenson provisional application filed April 13, 2001 to qualify as prior art
under §102(e). Appellants argue that the Examiner has failed to show that
the Stevenson provisional application “discloses” not merely “supports” the
teachings relied upon. Specifically, Appellants argue the Stevenson
provisional application fails to disclose the claimed “plurality of sources”,
“source of record”, “source template”, and “reference template”. App. Br.
13-14.
The Examiner agrees that the Stevenson provisional application must
disclose the claimed features in order to qualify as a reference under §102(e)
and notes that the provisional application discloses every feature which was
challenged by Appellants. The Examiner acknowledges that the Stevenson
provisional application does not use the same terms as Appellants; however,
the Examiner finds that the provisional application discloses templates
utilized for queries (query templates) and which are translated into a specific
form for a repository (repository templates) which the Examiner finds to be
suggestive of “source templates” and “reference templates”. Further, the
Appeal 2010-011738
Application 10/188,503
5
Examiner finds that the Stevenson provisional application discloses data
sources, citing page 2 thereof which states “any other dynamic or static data
source can be connected to content distribution using eContent factory” in
the fourth full paragraph thereof. Ans. 14-15.
A patent that claims priority to a provisional application has the same
patent-defeating effect as though it had been filed on the date of the
provisional. See In re Giacomini, 612 F.3d 1380, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
However, “[a]n important limitation is that the provisional application must
provide written description support for the claimed invention” or subject
matter relied upon in the granted patent. Giacomini, 612 F.3d. at 1383.
We find that the Stevenson provisional application provides written
description support for the disputed terms, as pointed out by the Examiner. It
is well settled that even anticipation “is not an 'ipsissimis verbis' test." In re
Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832-33, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
(citing Akzo N.V. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 808 F.2d 1471, 1479
& n.11, 1 USPQ2d 1241, 1245 & n.11 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). Consequently, we
find the Examiner did not err in relying upon the Stevenson provisional
application as prior art under §102(e).
Appellants also argue that the Examiner has improperly construed the
term “source of record”, pointing out that Appellants define that term as
“[a]n approved information source is a source of information that has been
sanctioned or otherwise sanctioned or otherwise designated as the official
source for a particular type of information or data.” Spec. p. 1, ll. 17-19.
Consequently, Appellants argue that the prior art (Stevenson and
Britton) must disclose: i) a plurality of sources; ii) the sources must all
provide the same type of data or information; and, iii) one of the sources is
officially sanctioned. App. Br. 13.
Appeal 2010-011738
Application 10/188,503
6
Specifically, Appellants argue that Repositories 38R of Stevenson are
not “sources” but merely store content which “did not originate there.” App.
Br. 15. Further, Appellants argue that Content Sources 24 fail to provide the
same type of data or information, noting that Stevenson, at Paragraph [0041]
notes "Content 14 from a plurality of Content Sources 24, each of which
may provide Content 14 with a different type or in a different format".
Reply Br. 5, (emphasis omitted).
We find that Appellants’ reliance on their definition of “source” to be
misplaced. No matter where a particular item of data originates, when that
item is retrieved from that particular location, that particular location may
reasonably be described as the “source” of the item. Further, the fact that
each of a plurality of Content Sources 24 “may provide Content 14 with a
different type or in a different format” (id., emphasis omitted) does not
imply that Content Sources 24 must provide different versions of Content
14.
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred by finding that Stevenson
and Britton render the claimed invention unpatentable for failing to disclose
that the “source” is located on a computer system that is separate from the
system/server where the “source template” is located. App. Br. 16-17.
The Examiner finds that Stevenson states that the repositories may be
resident with the repository system or remote from the repository system and
that the associated repository connectors include mechanisms for
communicating with the repositories through a network, citing Paragraph
[0060].
We concur with the Examiner’s finding.
Finally, Appellants argue that Stevenson and Britton fail to disclose
the claimed “reference templates”. The Appellants urge that the Query
Appeal 2010-011738
Application 10/188,503
7
Templates and Repository Templates of Stevenson are misinterpreted by the
Examiner and fail to disclose the features claimed in Claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Stevenson teaches, at Paragraphs [0068-72]
that each request query is parsed and deconstructed to identify the elements,
parameters, and requirements of the request. The query engine then extracts
the information from the request and identifies a query template for forming
a query to be sent to the repository manager which meets the limitation,
accessing the reference template on a server using selection criterion. In
order to access the proper repository it is inherent that the location of that
repository be known.
We find the Examiner therefore did not err in finding that Stevenson
teaches both query templates and reference templates that work together to
access desired data in the manner set forth in claim 1.
Appellants do not offer separate arguments for the patentability of
independent claims 16 and 58, or dependent claims 2, 3, 7-15, 17, 18, 22-30,
54, 56, and 59-72. Consequently, we find the Examiner did not err in
rejecting claims 1-3, 7-18, 22-30, 54, 56, and 58-72 as unpatentable over
Stevenson and Britton under 35 U.S.C. §103.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-3, 7-18, 22-30, 54, 56,
and 58-72 under § 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3, 7-18, 22-30, 54, 56,
and 58-72 is affirmed.
Appeal 2010-011738
Application 10/188,503
8
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

tkl