Ex Parte Abadir et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 7, 201613356412 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 7, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 13/356,412 01/23/2012 Essam Ernest Abadir 04658.0012USU1 7170 23552 7590 12/20/2016 MERCHANT & GOULD P.C. P.O. BOX 2903 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-0903 EXAMINER TSANG, HENRY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2495 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/20/2016 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): US PT023552@ merchantgould .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ESSAM ERNEST ABADIR and ROSCO SCHOCK Appeal 2016-004395 Application 13/356,412 Technology Center 2400 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1—21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2016-004395 Application 13/356,412 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The present patent application “generally relates to web-based data distribution, and in particular to a web-based push messaging system, and methods of operation and use.” Spec. 1:10-12. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter: 1. A system capable of coordinating push messages from among a plurality of sources, the system comprising: a push message server computing device communicatively connected to a plurality of publishers, the push message server computing device including: a push subscription database containing a plurality of records, each record associating a user identity with a push message publisher and a user preference for receiving push messages at a push-enabled web browser from the publisher, wherein the push-enabled web browser is a web browser that is configured to receive push messages on behalf of multiple web sites; wherein the push message server computing device is configured to receive push messages from the plurality of publishers based on user subscriptions managed in the push subscription database and to transmit messages to the push- enabled web browser at a client device remote from the push message server computing device, the push-enabled web browser associated with a code that uniquely identifies the user. REJECTIONS Claims 1—21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over various combinations of Mamas1, Steele et al.2, Sinn et al.3, Egli4, 1 US2004/0254993 Al; Dec. 16, 2004. 2 US2006/0235885 Al; Oct. 19, 2006. 3 US2011/0041076 Al; Feb. 17,2011. 4 US2007/0118608 Al; May 24, 2007. 2 Appeal 2016-004395 Application 13/356,412 Blackberry Support Community Forums website5, Willars6, Gabber et al.7, and Warrier et al.8 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments, and we disagree with Appellants that the Examiner erred. To the extent consistent with the analysis below, we adopt the Examiner’s findings, reasoning, and conclusions set forth in the Final Rejection and the Answer. Appellants have waived arguments Appellants failed to timely raise or properly develop. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv), 41.41(b)(2). Appellants argue the cited art fails to teach or suggest “a web browser that is configured to receive push messages on behalf of multiple websites” as recited in independent claims 1,7, 13, and 21. App. Br. 17—21. In particular, Appellants contend the cited portions of Mamas disclose a Wireless Application Protocol (WAP)-enabled device “that supports both web browsing and push message communication as two separate functions,” but Mamas does not “teach or suggest performing these functions using a push-enabled web browser that is configured to receive push messages on behalf of multiple websites.” Id. at 17. We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive. As found by the Examiner, Mamas discloses a wireless client device that “is a typical WAP- enabled device and includes a user agent. . .for web browsing and push 5 http://supportforums.blackberry.com/15/Java-Development/ How-to- receive-Push-notification-when-application-is-not-mnning/td-p/43 8138. 6 WO 2009/008815 Al; Jan. 15, 2009. 7 US 5,961,593; Oct. 5, 1999. 8 US 6,707,809 Bl; Mar. 16, 2004. 3 Appeal 2016-004395 Application 13/356,412 message communication.'1'’ Mamas 1116 (emphasis added). Mamas further discloses “[wjhile the client device of the preferred system is described as having a WAP user agent and browser for subscribing to a topic, receiving push messages published on the topic and acting on the received messages, it may be understood that the browser functionality may be provided by a Java-based application as well.” Id. 1158 (reference number omitted). See also id. 1144 (“The user requests and receives web pages .. . from user agent. . . .”). As also found by the Examiner, Mamas indicates that the user agent subscribes to and receives push messages generated by various webservers. See, e.g., id. H 116, 144, 151; Figs. 5—7. In light of these disclosures, we agree with the Examiner that Mamas would have taught, or at the very least suggested, that the disclosed user agent both allows a user to browse the web and receive push messages from numerous websites. See Ans. 2—3. Put differently, we agree with the Examiner that Mamas’s user agent is a “push-enabled web browser . . . that is configured to receive push messages on behalf of multiple web sites” as recited in claim 1. For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Because Appellants have not presented separate, persuasive patentability arguments for claims 2—21, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of these claims. DECISION We affirm the rejection of claims 1—21. 4 Appeal 2016-004395 Application 13/356,412 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 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation