Appellant wins reversal in Ex parte ZURMUEHL
Of 112, as to an issue of support for the text "current date,"
Thus, without discounting
the Examiner’s inference that advanced updates are also possible (i.e., based
on a future date), we find the Specification “convey[s] with reasonable
clarity to those skilled in the art that . . . [Appellant] was in possession” of
the claimed updating based on the current date. Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d
1365, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (explaining the written description requirement)
(quoting Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64(Fed. Cir.
For the foregoing reasons, the § 112 rejection of claims 1, 5, 11, 15,
and 21-24 is not sustained.
As to 102
Appellant responds that “the cited addition or removal
of a stock value results in a change in the content of a web part in which
values of the selected stocks are displayed, and not to addition or deletion of
an element, i.e., a web part[.]” Reply Br., pp. 4 and 5.
Appellant’s argument is persuasive. The Examiner has established, at
best, a contemporaneous inclusion (user selection) and date-sensitive
updating (when selected) of Croney’s stock quotes. The at-issue subject
matter of claims 1, 11, and 21 requires, on the other hand, a date-sensitive
inclusion (“to include”) of elements/components. Thus, with particular
respect to Croney’s cited teachings, the issue is whether the addition or
removal (i.e., inclusion) of stock quotes is based on the current date. For
example, removal of the “msft” stock quote (i.e., “msft” symbol) from
Croney’s stock tracker would, if removed in response to a date change, teach
the at-issue subject matter. No such teaching has been presented.
For the foregoing reasons, the § 102 rejection of claims 1-21 over
Croney is not sustained.
As to 103
Claims 22-24 respectively depend from claims 1, 11, and 21,
addressed above. In rejecting claims 22-24 as obvious over Croney and
Vasic, the Examiner relies on Croney as teaching the base claims’ datesensitive
“updating [of] the selected elements to include in the interface.”
As explained supra, this reliance on Croney not well founded.
Accordingly, the § 103 rejection of claims 22-24 over Croney and
Vasic is not sustained