Ex Parte Agura et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 29, 201512128587 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2015) 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. 12/128,587 05/28/2008 Vivian Velika Agura 2014-4.747BS 1601 86636 7590 06/30/2015 BRUNDIDGE & STANGER, P.C. 2318 MILL ROAD, SUITE 1020 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 EXAMINER BAYAT, BRADLEY B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER PTAB MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/30/2015 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 VIVIAN VELIKA AGURA, LIANNA MARIA HALL, BENJAMIN PATRICK HUNG, and COURTNEY ANN LICARDI ____________ Appeal 2012-011358 Application 12/128,587 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s non-final decision rejecting claims 1–18. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. BACKGROUND Appellants’ invention is directed to customized electronic communications associated with online purchases (Spec. para. 2). Appeal 2012-011358 Application 12/128,587 2 THE CLAIM Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method comprising: receiving, by a computer-based system for customizing an electronic communication, a first electronic communication address of a user; inserting, by said computer-based system, a second electronic communication address into a form, wherein said second electronic communication address corresponds to said first electronic communication address; receiving, by said computer-based system, a merchant electronic communication addressed to said second electronic communication address; branding, by said computer-based system, said merchant electronic communication, wherein said branding comprises uniquely customizing said merchant electronic communication to identify a shopping website associated with said computer- based system; replacing, by said computer-based system, said second electronic communication address with said first electronic communication address; and forwarding, by said computer-based system, said merchant electronic communication to said first electronic communication address. THE REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence of unpatentability: Nascenzi US 6,879,960 B2 Apr. 12, 2005 Cheong US 7,006,993 B1 Feb. 28, 2006 THE REJECTION Appellants appeal the following rejection: Claims 1–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cheong in view of Nascenzi. Appeal 2012-011358 Application 12/128,587 3 ISSUE Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims because the modification proposed by the Examiner would change the principle operation of Cheong? FACTUAL FINDINGS We adopt all the Examiner’s findings as our own. Ans. 5–6, 9–11. Additional findings of fact may appear in the Analysis that follows. ANALYSIS We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by Appellants’ argument that the modification proposed by the Examiner of the Cheong reference would change the principle operation of Cheong. We agree with the Examiner’s response to this argument found in the Answer at pages 9–11. Specifically, in regard to whether Nascenzi relates to a system for only a specific merchant whereas Cheong connects many merchants through a single portal, we find that Nascenzi does disclose at column 7, lines 15–16 that a user of the Nascenzi system can indeed access a variety of merchants. In regard to the Appellants’ argument that the modification of Cheong with the teachings of Nascenzi would change the operation of Cheong because Nascenzi teaches branding in the form of a webpage, and thus does not relate to an email as is disclosed in Cheong, we find that Nascenzi at column 4, lines 24–26 teaches branding by online communication or email communication between a sales representative. In addition, as Nascenzi teaches at column 4, lines 26–29, the benefits of customizing communication between a merchant and a customer, i.e., Appeal 2012-011358 Application 12/128,587 4 providing a more personalized experience, such teaching would have suggested customizing any communication between a merchant and customer. In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We will also sustain the rejection as it directed to claims 2–18 because the Appellants have not argued the separate patentability of these claims. DECISION The decision of the Examiner is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1) (2011). AFFIRMED hh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation