Ex Parte Dinger et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 14, 201411428333 (P.T.A.B. May. 14, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte THOMAS J. DINGER, HUSSAM EID, and JONATHAN THOMAS ZEMPEL ____________________ Appeal 2012-000404 Application 11/428,333 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-000404 Application 11/428,333 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 3-7 and 24-31. Claims 2 and 8-23 are canceled. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse and enter a new ground of rejection. THE INVENTION The claims are directed to a content management system. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter with a dispositive disputed limitation in italics: 1. A method of operating a content management system, the content management system including a central server and a plurality of content servers connected to the central server, each content server associated with a respective location, comprising: receiving data at the central server for distribution to at least one of the content servers; accessing, by the central server responsive to said receiving data at the central server for distribution to the at least one of the content servers, user information relating to one or more users at one or more locations, wherein the user information contains the locations and job titles of users located at each one of the respective locations of the content servers; determining, responsive to the accessing of the user information, and based on the user locations and job titles contained in the accessed user information, on the received data, and on locations of the content servers, whether the received data is needed by users located at individual ones of the respective locations of the content servers; and selectively transmitting the data from the central server to one or more content servers responsive to the determining whether the data is needed by users at the respective locations of the content servers, such that the data is only transmitted to Appeal 2012-000404 Application 11/428,333 3 at least one of the content servers where the data is needed by users at the same location. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Defoor Crandall Olson Sim US 2001/0042000 A1 US 2002/0143827 A1 US 2004/0197759 A1 US 2005/0198238 A1 Nov. 15, 2001 Oct. 3, 2002 Oct. 7, 2004 Sept. 8, 2005 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1, 24, 25, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sim and Crandall. Ans. 4-8. Claims 3, 6, 7, 26, 29, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sim, Crandall, and Olson. Ans. 8-11. Claims 4, 5, 27, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sim, Crandall, Olson, and Defoor. Ans. 11-14. APPELLANTS’ CONTENTION1 “Neither Sim nor Crandall operates based on the locations of servers and users to determine where received content should be distributed, and the cited combination fails to provide any way to determine whether specific data is needed by users located at locations of content servers based on user 1 We note Appellants raise additional contentions of error but we do not reach them as our resolution of this contention is dispositive of the appealed rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appeal 2012-000404 Application 11/428,333 4 locations and user titles contained in user information, as in the present independent claim 1.” App. Br. 12-13. ISSUE ON APPEAL Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 8-18) and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2-7), the dispositive issue presented on appeal is whether the Examiner erred in finding the Crandall teaches the disputed claim limitation of claim 1. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 24, and 31under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Sim and Crandall. We agree with Appellants’ conclusions as to this rejection of the claims. In connection with the determining step of claim 1, Appellants argue “[n]either Sim nor Crandall is concerned with determining data needs of users located as specific locations of content servers, based on received data, user locations, job titles, and content server locations.” App. Br. 12. The Examiner responds by finding Crandall teaches a central location of the databases to provide access to many different users. Ans. 16. The Examiner further finds Crandall’s access is based on user information and on user locations and job titles (e.g., the human resources office at a company and HR user 41) thereby determining whether the received data is needed by users located at individual ones of the content servers by allowing or not restricting (i.e., censoring) access to selected documents based on such criteria defining whether the data is needed by the user. Id. The Examiner further finds: Appeal 2012-000404 Application 11/428,333 5 [T]he “location” as described is a “location” between “an organization” in which the “location” refers to the “The central location of the databases preferably allows many different users to access and use the document censor. For example, user 41 may work in the human resources (HR) office at the company . . .” See Crandall, Paragraph [0027]). Ans. 17. However, while such explanation may apply to the location of a user, databases or even a single central server, that Examiner has not explained adequately how Crandall’s document censor on central server 40 teaches determining whether the received data is needed by users located at respective locations of the plurality of content servers based on, inter alia, the corresponding locations of the content severs as required by claim 1. In particular, while selectively providing or denying access based on user information (e.g., user location within an organizational structure), Crandall’s document censor has not been shown to determine whether data is needed based on the respective locations of plural content servers. Therefore we agree with Appellants that Crandall’s centrally located censoring system does not determine “whether data is needed by users located in certain locations based on . . . the locations of content servers.” See Reply Br. 5, App. Br. 12-15. Since we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants’ other arguments. Therefore, for the reasons supra, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Sim and Crandall and, for the same reason, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 24 and 31 which include substantially the same limitation, or the rejection of dependent claim 25. Furthermore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 3, 6, 7, 26, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Sim, Crandall, and Appeal 2012-000404 Application 11/428,333 6 Olson, neither do we sustain the rejection of claims 4, 5, 27, and 28 over Sim, Crandall, Olson, and Defoor, as the Examiner’s applications of the Olson and Defoor references fails to cure the deficiency in the base rejection addressed supra. NEW GROUND OF REJECTION The following new ground of rejection is entered pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). Claim 31are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter. Claim 31recites a computer readable storage medium. Appellants’ Specification describes, “programs defining the functions of the present invention can be delivered to a computer in many forms, including, but not limited to: . . . (c) information conveyed to a computer through communication media for example using wireless, baseband signaling or broadband signaling techniques, including carrier wave signaling techniques, such as over computer or telephone networks via a modem.” Spec. 12, emphasis added. There is no specific definition of what is meant by computer readable storage medium. Absent any such definition, we find Appellants’ invention encompasses transitory propagating signals, which are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.§ 101. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (Transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter.); Ex parte Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857 (PTAB 2013) (precedential); Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, p. 2 (Aug. 24, 2009), available at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/comments/2009-08- 25_interim_101_instructions.pdf; see also David J. Kappos, Subject Matter Appeal 2012-000404 Application 11/428,333 7 Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 OFF. GAZ. PAT. OFFICE 212 (Feb. 23, 2010). CONCLUSIONS 1. The Examiner erred in finding the combination of Sim and Crandall teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of claim 1. 2. The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 24, 25, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Sim and Crandall. 3. The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 3, 6, 7, 26, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Sim, Crandall, and Olson. 4. The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 4, 5, 27, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Sim, Crandall, Olson, and Defoor 5. A new ground of rejection is entered pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), and claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3-7 and 24-31 is reversed. We enter a new ground of rejection of claim 31. This decision contains new grounds of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.50 (b) also provides that the appellant, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims: Appeal 2012-000404 Application 11/428,333 8 (1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the proceeding will be remanded to the examiner. . . . (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record. . . . 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). REVERSED 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) tkl Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation